NASA Scientist Declares Self Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptic
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
Hoser is right - there has been a movement of increasing significance, mostly since 2004 and 2005, within the religious community to address the crisis of climate change. It's happening at both the broader level - your 700 Club-type entitites - and at the level of individual congregations. Much of this exists out of a mission to "preserve God's creation," which quite frankly, is just fine with me given the common goal.
And indeed, even the corporate community is - slowly, but surely - concretely incorporating the need to address climate change into its operation. The CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson - ExxonMobil, for heaven's sake! - has said that climate change is a significant threat and has called for both emissions reductions and a carbob tax. He didn't do it the easy way, either; he spoke in favor of these measure before the Chief Executives Club.
CaptainX would have us all believe that we've been taken in by a big lie, but the simple reality is that it's only a very, very small fringe majority that hasn't figured out the threat we face. In Washington, that fringe is led by Sen. Inhofe, and sadly others try to push that false message.
Don't listen to me, though. Apparently I spend my time insulting the victims of the Holocaust...or something.
And indeed, even the corporate community is - slowly, but surely - concretely incorporating the need to address climate change into its operation. The CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson - ExxonMobil, for heaven's sake! - has said that climate change is a significant threat and has called for both emissions reductions and a carbob tax. He didn't do it the easy way, either; he spoke in favor of these measure before the Chief Executives Club.
CaptainX would have us all believe that we've been taken in by a big lie, but the simple reality is that it's only a very, very small fringe majority that hasn't figured out the threat we face. In Washington, that fringe is led by Sen. Inhofe, and sadly others try to push that false message.
Don't listen to me, though. Apparently I spend my time insulting the victims of the Holocaust...or something.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
There's a link to a list in the article, or you can look it up in Wikipedia.
But if you want more science showing that this theory is full of holes, by all means watch what this gentleman has to say:
CO2 and Climate Change: 1/4
CO2 and Climate Change: 2/4
CO2 and Climate Change: 3/4
CO2 and Climate Change: 4/4
As you're watching these, keep in mind that it only takes one hole in a theory in order to require modifying that theory.
OO, I don't like him. He was one of the ones to vote against a law banning the torturing of prisoners in government custody.
Excuse me, but this isn't anything new.
John S. Theon has always been an Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic.
And at NASA, he was one of the few who remained a skeptic for long.
While he did head the climate research group at Goddard, it's important to keep in mind that he wasn't the "Head" as in "Head Scientist" but the "Head" in the sense that he was "Head Administrator". He was primarily a bureaucrat, albeit one with a scientific background. Unfortunately, Theon's scientific background as a scientist was as a Meteorologist, which only one small facet of Climatology. Most of what went on in his department was simply outside his area of expertise and understanding.
As such, Theon's skepticism isn't all that compelling.
BTW to Captain X: The film you link to is, well, a film. It's interesting, but proves nothing, and the evidence it provides isn't any more compelling than the "facts" presented in 9/11 paranoia-fests like "Loose Change", or the many documentaries that seek to "debunk" the Moon landings.
John S. Theon has always been an Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic.
And at NASA, he was one of the few who remained a skeptic for long.
While he did head the climate research group at Goddard, it's important to keep in mind that he wasn't the "Head" as in "Head Scientist" but the "Head" in the sense that he was "Head Administrator". He was primarily a bureaucrat, albeit one with a scientific background. Unfortunately, Theon's scientific background as a scientist was as a Meteorologist, which only one small facet of Climatology. Most of what went on in his department was simply outside his area of expertise and understanding.
As such, Theon's skepticism isn't all that compelling.
BTW to Captain X: The film you link to is, well, a film. It's interesting, but proves nothing, and the evidence it provides isn't any more compelling than the "facts" presented in 9/11 paranoia-fests like "Loose Change", or the many documentaries that seek to "debunk" the Moon landings.
Modifying isn't discarding. The equations for Quantum Chromodynamics haven't been solved at all energy levels, but that doesn't mean the Strong Force doesn't exist.
There are always dissenting opinions, whether legitimate or political; show me something from Scientific American, or National Geographic, or Science News, or something.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Oh please, I could show you articles from those magazines talking about the new ice age from back in the '70s and you'd be saying it was all media hype.
The point is that with as many flaws as there are with anthropogenic global warming, everyone shouldn't keep going as if there was nothing wrong with it. You're talking about a theory that is based on a highly flawed computer model that doesn't show the little ice age, or the medieval warm period (which was warmer than it is today), but still shows the exact opposite relationship between temperature change and CO2 levels that proponents have been saying (which is also why Al Gore didn't overlay his graphs in that fancy powerpoint presentation of his).
The point is that with as many flaws as there are with anthropogenic global warming, everyone shouldn't keep going as if there was nothing wrong with it. You're talking about a theory that is based on a highly flawed computer model that doesn't show the little ice age, or the medieval warm period (which was warmer than it is today), but still shows the exact opposite relationship between temperature change and CO2 levels that proponents have been saying (which is also why Al Gore didn't overlay his graphs in that fancy powerpoint presentation of his).
It was media hype. And, as I've pointed out to you on several occasions in the past and which this time will no doubt go completely ignored by you once again, unlike global warming, which has overwhelming support in the scientific community, there was no scientific consensus or even a significant movement in favor of global cooling in the 70s. It was a few papers that got picked up by the media and blown out of proportion.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ey-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
Captain X
Rear Admiral
It wasn't, but I was pointing out how anything printed in even a "respectable" magazine can be shrugged off as media hype if someone doesn't like what it says.
Or so the media, and a lot of politicians would like you to believe.
And no doubt if there had been an IPCC back then I have little doubt the situation then would be as it is now, and everyone would've clung onto it right up into the early '90s. One thing that the cooling craze has with the latest global warming fad is that it was an attempt by environmentalists to guilt people into being more "environmentally conscious". If someone had thought about it back then, they probably would've been selling carbon credits back then, too, because all the pollution and crap that's supposedly the cause of global warming (ignoring the degree or so we've lost over the last decade) was supposed to be the cause of global cooling back then, too.
No, the cooling thing was just an Urban Myth. In addition to the links that Locutus Posted, there was also an article in Science News several issues ago. During the period when scientists allegedly predicted Global Cooling, there were actually about six times as many published papers predicting Warming as Cooling.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Yes, warming, which is why the polar ice cap has reached the same extent it did back in 1975. Notice how they've changed from "global warming" to "climate change"? They finally noticed that it isn't warming anymore. Which is to say nothing of their highly inaccurate computer models that apparently don't think the little ice age or the medieval warm period ever happened.
They didn't suddenly change from 'global warming' to climate change. When I was in University about 8 years (omg) ago, my professor, who worked with the UN committee on climate change, called it climate change. And explained it a lot better than that we'd all be living on boats and drinking our urine.
Er... what? The ice loss at the poles has been going on for quite some time and has increased dramatically just in the past couple of years. The North polar cap could very well be gone before the end of the century.
This chart shows differently. Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Of course Obama's Scamulus bill shows that man-made global warming is big business. What scientist wouldn't like to keep this kind of research money flowing in...
Whoops - a polar icebreaking ship? For a polar region without ice?
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI=)
That chart is on DailyTech.com, a site run by Kristopher Kubicki, a Neo-con propagandist, which features articles that use bad data written by people who can't get published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words, just another crackpot site that tells you what you want to hear.
Oh crap. Just like Al Gore.That chart is on DailyTech.com, a site run by Kristopher Kubicki, a Neo-con propagandist, which features articles that use bad data written by people who can't get published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words, just another crackpot site that tells you what you want to hear.
Some of the comments on that page are very interesting. I was looking to see if someone had a link to data that would contradict the chart.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
I suppose you could always run up there and look if you don't trust the source, but the information is still true, even if I got my year wrong.That chart is on DailyTech.com, a site run by Kristopher Kubicki, a Neo-con propagandist, which features articles that use bad data written by people who can't get published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words, just another crackpot site that tells you what you want to hear.
Non Partisan Article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10043977-72.html
Snip
2007 it was 39 percent below average
2008 it was 33 percent below average
If we consider "average" sea ice levels to be a baseline set at 100%
2007 - Sea Ice level at 61%
2008 - Sea Ice level at 67%
Sea Ice Increased in 2008, HOLY CARPS!!!! Time for an Ice age!!!!
I though the end of the "hockey stick" computer model was going to be exponential growth, so why didn't 2008 end up with Sea Ice level at 55% ??????
The article uses a double negative to describe the changes in the measurement of sea ice levels.
2007 - Sea Ice level at (100% - 61%) = 39% below average
2007 - Sea Ice level at (100% - 67%) = 33% below average
So your average people reading this don't realize this and because the sea Ice levels are both decreasing and the percentages are well below the mean of 50% around 30% the casual reader is going to think, OMG, the ice is all melting if there was 39% two years ago and only 33% last year this year it is going to be all gone!!!!!!
In the article why not just say:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10043977-72.html
Snip
So in:
2007 it was 39 percent below average
2008 it was 33 percent below average
If we consider "average" sea ice levels to be a baseline set at 100%
2007 - Sea Ice level at 61%
2008 - Sea Ice level at 67%
Sea Ice Increased in 2008, HOLY CARPS!!!! Time for an Ice age!!!!
I though the end of the "hockey stick" computer model was going to be exponential growth, so why didn't 2008 end up with Sea Ice level at 55% ??????
The article uses a double negative to describe the changes in the measurement of sea ice levels.
2007 - Sea Ice level at (100% - 61%) = 39% below average
2007 - Sea Ice level at (100% - 67%) = 33% below average
So your average people reading this don't realize this and because the sea Ice levels are both decreasing and the percentages are well below the mean of 50% around 30% the casual reader is going to think, OMG, the ice is all melting if there was 39% two years ago and only 33% last year this year it is going to be all gone!!!!!!
In the article why not just say:
Why even use a double mathematical negative, in grammar we are told not to so why in a supposedly non-biased report???
Just watched all four parts, the part about the city localized asphalt effect on temperature monitoring stations and the one placed next to a AC unit was quite eye opening!!!
You have to always check the damn data to make sure it is pure an uncorrupted int he first place.
I like the way the scientific trends based on O2 isotopes and ice cores plotted out compared to recnt history works out and the "Iris" effect and how it works.
Even if you think Al Gore is your personal savior, I recommend to watch those videos and just draw your own conclusions.
You have to always check the damn data to make sure it is pure an uncorrupted int he first place.
I like the way the scientific trends based on O2 isotopes and ice cores plotted out compared to recnt history works out and the "Iris" effect and how it works.
Even if you think Al Gore is your personal savior, I recommend to watch those videos and just draw your own conclusions.