Ohio Chatter DEV

QuakerOats

From NASA's own .............

Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data technical specialties," but that, nonetheless, given their experience in their separate fields of physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and others, they felt the need to speak out.
Specifically, the report responds to what the group feels is unfounded pulpit pounding by certain NASA bureaus regarding a false damnation of global warming that is seen strictly the result of human sin in the form of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states.
First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the rise the global rise in temperatures is not "settled,"

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1400/20130416/nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-warming.htm

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792860 wrote:NASA is always right .........

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

Nice blog. I think I'll take the opinions of NASA and 200 scientific organizations over the opinion of a blogger who uses a fake name and has a bachelor's in biology as his biggest "climate" academic credential.

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792862 wrote:You tout yourself as a money guy; follow the money trail.

You mean the money trail of industries that directly contribute to the destruction of our planet? Yeah I'm sure they are happy to give NASA more of their money to publish research that blames them and their profit center. It's more likely these industries fund lobbyists and media organizations to try and muddy the water with propoganda on climate change being purely natural causes.

Delusional.

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792863 wrote:From NASA's own .............

Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data technical specialties," but that, nonetheless, given their experience in their separate fields of physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and others, they felt the need to speak out.
Specifically, the report responds to what the group feels is unfounded pulpit pounding by certain NASA bureaus regarding a false damnation of global warming that is seen strictly the result of human sin in the form of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states.
First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the rise the global rise in temperatures is not "settled,"

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1400/20130416/nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-warming.htm

So one retired employee of NASA writes a report(here's his website, so professional!!!! http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ ; even has a side bar titled "Misconceptions" that when you click on it says "information to be determined") LOL. He isn't even a climate scientist; he worked in the shuttle control center yet this is a man who you've defined as an expert on global climate! You can't make this stuff up!

Why do all these climate change deniers always come from a rag tag group of morons who have to hide behind vague reports and fake names to get their point across? Why not provide evidence to support your conclusion and convince your peers to critically evaluate your findings like every other piece of research?

QuakerOats

You quite obviously did not read the entire article.

You quite obviously BELIEVE what you want to BELIEVE.

LOL

QuakerOats

sleeper;1792867 wrote:You mean the money trail of industries that directly contribute to the destruction of our planet? Yeah I'm sure they are happy to give NASA more of their money to publish research that blames them and their profit center. It's more likely these industries fund lobbyists and media organizations to try and muddy the water with propoganda on climate change being purely natural causes.

Delusional.

May the holy patron saint of learning, St. Ambrose, be with you this weekend for guidance.

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792873 wrote:You quite obviously did not read the entire article.

You quite obviously BELIEVE what you want to BELIEVE.

LOL

LOL. Tell me more about how you get your scientific facts on climate from people with a bachelor's in biology and those who worked in shuttle control for NASA.

You literally can't make this stuff up! Those are your sources! LOL

QuakerOats

And I can't force you to read the article and understand it. Sorry.

Keep believing that humans are altering climate, as though climate has never changed in earth's existence, how ever you want 'science' to measure that time frame ..................... LOLOL

QuakerOats

Good luck with your weekend reading:

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)
[HR][/HR][ Media Coverage ]
American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock!(July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus'(September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
[HR][/HR][ Organization Coverage ]
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming(February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792880 wrote:And I can't force you to read the article and understand it. Sorry.

Keep believing that humans are altering climate, as though climate has never changed in earth's existence, how ever you want 'science' to measure that time frame ..................... LOLOL

Which article? The one written by a man who has a bachelor's in biology or the one written by a man who worked as a shuttle control administrator for NASA? None of these people are even remotely climate experts and none of these people are valid sources for providing an evidence based opinion on the cause of climate change.

I read them both and calling them garbage is being nice.

QuakerOats

National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)
[HR][/HR][ Weblog Coverage ]
Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus(June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus(June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed(June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)

QuakerOats

QuakerOats

sleeper;1792883 wrote:Which article? The one written by a man who has a bachelor's in biology or the one written by a man who worked as a shuttle control administrator for NASA?

No ---- you must have (glaringly) missed this:
Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists,

sleeper

Oh great more blogs.

I like how your first article disputing the effects of humans on climate change is once again not written by a climate scientists but rather an economist.

You actually can't make this stuff up!

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792886 wrote:No ---- you must have (glaringly) missed this:
Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists,

None of which are climate scientists. Do your research. Like holy shit dude, fucking GOOGLE.COM

sleeper

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for ScienceCC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Here's the list of people who signed the letter. One is a meteorologist with 5 years experience, the rest are engineers or program managers who have no expertise in climate change at all.

Your sources being fucking terrible is being nice. Amazing what 2 seconds of research can do for you.

QuakerOats

Again, you missed the entire thrust of the article. I am sorry you missed it.

You get the stage all weekend, have at it, and God bless.

sleeper

QuakerOats;1792892 wrote:Again, you missed the entire thrust of the article. I am sorry you missed it.

You get the stage all weekend, have at it, and God bless.

LOL. Delusional.

Heretic

sleeper;1792893 wrote:LOL. Delusional.

I'm just enjoying how you said that religious people put way more energy into debunking science that doesn't fit their narrative than they would ever think of putting into actually critically thinking about their so-called holy books and their wild claims....leading to two of the religious right members of the site going haywire trying to debunk science stuff they disagree with. While actually thinking they're making their point, when it really, really seems they're making yours.

SportsAndLady

Sleeper just absolutely clowning the religious whackos. That was a fun read. Can't wait until Monday when they've had a little Jesus Christ in them and recharged and back at it once more.

Commander of Awesome

I forget who I got into it with a while back about Climate change who also provided trash articles/blogs as evidence. Climate change is real, period.

like_that

Commander of Awesome;1792916 wrote:I forget who I got into it with a while back about Climate change who also provided trash articles/blogs as evidence. Climate change is real, period.

Probably Quaker.

Heretic

SportsAndLady;1792913 wrote:Sleeper just absolutely clowning the religious whackos. That was a fun read. Can't wait until Monday when they've had a little Jesus Christ in them and recharged and back at it once more.

It will be another fun-filled week of QQuaker coming on this thread to talk about the wonders of living a Christ-like life and loving your neighbor...followed by him going to his safe haven on the Poli board where he'll yell about how the (roughly) half of the country that doesn't share his poli beliefs is "the enemy", while kneeling at the false idol of his party. It's all part of why he's become the most unintentionally entertaining dude around these parts!

Apple

Commander of Awesome;1792916 wrote:I forget who I got into it with a while back about Climate change who also provided trash articles/blogs as evidence. Climate change is real, period.

Couldn't have said it better myself! Its also called weather and has been on Earth longer than man-kind.

sleeper

Apple;1793142 wrote:Couldn't have said it better myself! Its also called weather and has been on Earth longer than man-kind.

Okay Ted Cruz.

Weather and climate change are related but not the same. Weather is the short term phenomenon on a local scale; Climate change is the long term trend or pattern of weather on a global scale.

I'm hopeful your comment was made tongue in cheek because if a weekend recharge produces trash tier comments like this one, you may want to forgo it in the future.

Archive

losing your religion