Is NASA wrong?

[PoS]

Please provide a link that shows that the government is compromising your choices, whether it be diet, vehicles, or any other related environmental trend.

Its called an analogy. Do you know what that even means? :doh

I doubt you went to college.

 

[vegas giants]

Please provide a link that shows that the government is compromising your choices, whether it be diet, vehicles, or any other related environmental trend.

Now come the personal attacks

 

[Media_Truth]

Now come the personal attacks

I don't think this was a personal attack. POS made this statement - "You have cancer, so the government swoops in and forces you to become a carnivore since they believe its the eating of plants that causes cancer."

Pretty ridiculous. I see this a lot - "the government is going to force everybody to **** (fill in the blank). 1. "ride bicycles", 2. "eat vegetarian", 3. "eat meat", 4. "buy wind energy", etc., etc.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think this was a personal attack. POS made this statement - "You have cancer, so the government swoops in and forces you to become a carnivore since they believe its the eating of plants that causes cancer."

Pretty ridiculous. I see this a lot - "the government is going to force everybody to **** (fill in the blank). 1. "ride bicycles", 2. "eat vegetarian", 3. "eat meat", 4. "buy wind energy", etc., etc.

[FONT=&quot]Podcasts[/FONT]
[h=1]The Push For Energy Socialism In The United States[/h][FONT=&quot]Economist Charles Steele explains how Democratic candidates for President are pushing energy socialism and why the attempt to meet their physically impossible goals, would require totalitarianism. More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world and plans proposed by the Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination for President, like various version of…
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think this was a personal attack. POS made this statement - "You have cancer, so the government swoops in and forces you to become a carnivore since they believe its the eating of plants that causes cancer."

Pretty ridiculous. I see this a lot - "the government is going to force everybody to **** (fill in the blank). 1. "ride bicycles", 2. "eat vegetarian", 3. "eat meat", 4. "buy wind energy", etc., etc.

[h=1]@Aoc follower goes berserk in town hall. Claims we “have to eat babies” to survive climate change[/h][FONT=&quot]If you ever needed proof that liberalism has become a mental illness, you need only watch this. One of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents loses her mind over climate change during AOC's townhall, claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! … We have to get rid…
[/FONT]

 

[Cordelier]

NASA has an entire page devoted to the effects of climate change.

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Is this information correct? Can anyone claim it is wrong?


And if it is wrong....how did they get it wrong?


Be aware NASA is run by a trump appointee who was a former AGW denier. Trump could insist this page be taken down tomorrow and that would be completely within his power. But he does not.

Here's my take on global warming, Vega... whenever that many scientists are in agreement about any "why", it's about as sure a sign as any that they're inevitably wrong.

I know that's a pat answer... okay, I'm not going to argue about the data - I accept that it's happening and it's due to Greenhouse gases.... but CO2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly throughout the Earth's history through entirely natural causes. In the Cambrian Period (500 Myrs ago) it was 4000 ppm, in the Devonian & Triassic Periods (200-400 Myrs ago) it was 2000 ppm. It finally bottomed out during the Quarternay Glaciation (2.5 Myrs ago) at 180 ppm. 10,000 years ago it was 280 ppm... now it's 450 ppm. So who's to say it's not a completely natural cycle and that the human contribution one way or another is effectively negligible?

The glaciers are shrinking! Well, would you feel better if they were getting bigger? Nature is always changing... usually slowly, sometimes extremely fast. But if there's one constant, it's that things are going to be different in the future than they are today. That holds true whether we all cut our carbon footprint to zero or not. I think it's human arrogance to think anything we can possibly do will have that much of an effect.

 

[Steve Case]

[h=1]@Aoc follower goes berserk in town hall. Claims we “have to eat babies” to survive climate change[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]If you ever needed proof that liberalism has become a mental illness, you need only watch this. One of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents loses her mind over climate change during AOC's townhall, claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! … We have to get rid…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Link at WattsUpWithThat is blocked

This link works - [URL="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/get-rid-of-the-babies-distraught-woman-at-aoc-town-hall-urges-eating-babies-to-fight-climate-change"]The Washinston Examiner[/URL]

 

[vegas giants]

Here's my take on global warming, Vega... whenever that many scientists are in agreement about any "why", it's about as sure a sign as any that they're inevitably wrong.

I know that's a pat answer... okay, I'm not going to argue about the data - I accept that it's happening and it's due to Greenhouse gases.... but CO2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly throughout the Earth's history through entirely natural causes. In the Cambrian Period (500 Myrs ago) it was 4000 ppm, in the Devonian & Triassic Periods (200-400 Myrs ago) it was 2000 ppm. It finally bottomed out during the Quarternay Glaciation (2.5 Myrs ago) at 180 ppm. 10,000 years ago it was 280 ppm... now it's 450 ppm. So who's to say it's not a completely natural cycle and that the human contribution one way or another is effectively negligible?

The glaciers are shrinking! Well, would you feel better if they were getting bigger? Nature is always changing... usually slowly, sometimes extremely fast. But if there's one constant, it's that things are going to be different in the future than they are today. That holds true whether we all cut our carbon footprint to zero or not. I think it's human arrogance to think anything we can possibly do will have that much of an effect.

I tend to believe scientists when they overwhelmingly agree on something. If they say airplanes are generally say to fly then I fly them. If they say water is generally say to drink I drink it. No certainly there have been cases where they have been spectacularly wrong and people died. But that is rare.



You cant leave your house without believing in scientific consensus.



I like the outdoors

 

[Steve Case]

I tend to believe scientists when they overwhelmingly agree on something. If they say airplanes are generally say to fly then I fly them. If they say water is generally say to drink I drink it. No certainly there have been cases where they have been spectacularly wrong and people died. But that is rare.

You cant leave your house without believing in scientific consensus.

I like the outdoors

You guys have been going on about this for over thirty years.

 

[vegas giants]

You guys have been going on about this for over thirty years.

I have believed in science a lot longer than that.

 

[Steve Case]

I have believed in science a lot longer than that.

So when it was Global Cooling you believed them right?

 

[vegas giants]

So when it was Global Cooling you believed them right?

Tell me when every science agency on the planet reported global cooling

 

[PoS]

I don't think this was a personal attack. POS made this statement - "You have cancer, so the government swoops in and forces you to become a carnivore since they believe its the eating of plants that causes cancer."

Pretty ridiculous. I see this a lot - "the government is going to force everybody to **** (fill in the blank). 1. "ride bicycles", 2. "eat vegetarian", 3. "eat meat", 4. "buy wind energy", etc., etc.

Its an analogy, so dont mind him. A troll is but a troll.

 

[vegas giants]

Its an analogy, so dont mind him. A troll is but a troll.

I dont think he is siding with you. Lol

 

[Steve Case]

Tell me when every science agency on the planet reported global cooling

There wasn't such a time for Global Cooling or anything else - maybe smoking tobacco.
However, Global Cooing was well represented in the press, here's a link to a blog on the
topic. I could spam this place with the list of 116 articles from the popular press. LINK

Here's another blog article that lists 285 academic papers on the topic. LINK

All of the entries on those two lists has a link.

You guys like to claim the Global Cooling scare didn't happen. Was that a straw man? Sue me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

NASA has an entire page devoted to the effects of climate change.

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Is this information correct? Can anyone claim it is wrong?


And if it is wrong....how did they get it wrong?


Be aware NASA is run by a trump appointee who was a former AGW denier. Trump could insist this page be taken down tomorrow and that would be completely within his power. But he does not.

Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Managing Editor: Randal Jackson
Science Editor: Susan Callery

 

[longview]

There wasn't such a time for Global Cooling or anything else - maybe smoking tobacco.
However, Global Cooing was well represented in the press, here's a link to a blog on the
topic. I could spam this place with the list of 116 articles from the popular press. LINK

Here's another blog article that lists 285 academic papers on the topic. LINK

All of the entries on those two lists has a link.

You guys like to claim the Global Cooling scare didn't happen. Was that a straw man? Sue me.

And the big report of 1975.
Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

 

[vegas giants]

There wasn't such a time for Global Cooling or anything else - maybe smoking tobacco.
However, Global Cooing was well represented in the press, here's a link to a blog on the
topic. I could spam this place with the list of 116 articles from the popular press. LINK

Here's another blog article that lists 285 academic papers on the topic. LINK

All of the entries on those two lists has a link.

You guys like to claim the Global Cooling scare didn't happen. Was that a straw man? Sue me.

I grew up in the 1970s. I was never scared.


Because there was never consensus

 

[vegas giants]

Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Managing Editor: Randal Jackson
Science Editor: Susan Callery

They do a great job making sure the views approved by the director get in the website

 

[ataraxia]

So when it was Global Cooling you believed them right?

I believe in the latest science. It’s always changing. That means you have to try to keep up, not reject it.

 

[ataraxia]

What do you mean by "pretty accurate?" It only puts you in the ballpark, and only good for maybe 50,000 years.

What does accurate carbon dating have to do with global warming?

 

[ataraxia]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/03/the-push-for-energy-socialism-in-the-united-states/"]

[/URL]Podcasts[/FONT]
[h=1]The Push For Energy Socialism In The United States[/h][FONT="]Economist Charles Steele explains how Democratic candidates for President are pushing energy socialism and why the attempt to meet their physically impossible goals, would require totalitarianism. More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world and plans proposed by the Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination for President, like various version of…
[/FONT]

Ahhh... so this now completes the puzzle and clarifies it for me. Before, when I was puzzled by your rejection of the overwhelming science, I asked if the motivation behind it was just a fear of its implications. You said absolutely not, and you don’t care about tax policies. It was just about the legitimacy of the science.

I guess, you were.... how to put this euphemistically?....lying. Or maybe it was even not even deliberate, but done subconsciously- like people who deny painful facts or problems they just don’t want to face. It is just about the potential implications of the facts, not the facts themselves. You are afraid that if true, it’s going to mean higher taxes and socialism. So you reject the facts, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. It’s not really about the science, is it?

So this makes a lot more sense now. I like to post on your these forums because it helps me to understand the other side of various arguments. This was not making any sense to me at all before- how a bunch of laypeople with no background in science feel so confident, almost arrogant, speaking about the scientific and technical details of this issue and passing judgment on such an overwhelming consensus of the actual experts in the field- until now. Now your side of the argument is making more sense. I see what’s really bugging you.

This is a very helpful insight . Because to address the problem, we now know that just bringing up more and more scientific facts and data is not going to help. This is not about the facts or the science. This is just about paranoia and anxiety about the potential growth of government and taxes if you were to accept those facts. So you just reject the facts. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. Stick your head in the sand.

Of course this is a very dysfunctional, childish and immature, way to deal with serious problems. This is how little kids react when faced with difficult situations. So now we know that not only do we have to figure out ways to deal with this very complex and serious problem, we have to do it babysitting folks with this attitude as well, basically try to navigate through the fire with a frightened, screaming baby in our ears the whole time. It makes the job even that much tougher.

I am not sure how we are going to do this. Perhaps we can try to figure out ways to keep Government out of it, and incentivize the free market to address the problem. I don’t know. It’s going to take a lot of thinking and deliberation.

But you know what they say: the first step to solving a problem is clearly identifying it. Thank you for helping me do that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Link at WattsUpWithThat is blocked

This link works - The Washinston Examiner

Hmm. Works for me. Thanks in any case.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What does accurate carbon dating have to do with global warming?

Just asking a question. You supported it as accurate.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ahhh... so this now completes the puzzle and clarifies it for me. Before, when I was puzzled by your rejection of the overwhelming science, I asked if the motivation behind it was just a fear of its implications. You said absolutely not, and you don’t care about tax policies. It was just about the legitimacy of the science.

I guess, you were.... how to put this euphemistically?....lying. Or maybe it was even not even deliberate, but done subconsciously- like people who deny painful facts or problems they just don’t want to face. It is just about the potential implications of the facts, not the facts themselves. You are afraid that if true, it’s going to mean higher taxes and socialism. So you reject the facts, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. It’s not really about the science, is it?

So this makes a lot more sense now. I like to post on your these forums because it helps me to understand the other side of various arguments. This was not making any sense to me at all before- how a bunch of laypeople with no background in science feel so confident, almost arrogant, speaking about the scientific and technical details of this issue and passing judgment on such an overwhelming consensus of the actual experts in the field- until now. Now your side of the argument is making more sense. I see what’s really bugging you.

This is a very helpful insight . Because to address the problem, we now know that just bringing up more and more scientific facts and data is not going to help. This is not about the facts or the science. This is just about paranoia and anxiety about the potential growth of government and taxes if you were to accept those facts. So you just reject the facts. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. Stick your head in the sand.

Of course this is a very dysfunctional, childish and immature, way to deal with serious problems. This is how little kids react when faced with difficult situations. So now we know that not only do we have to figure out ways to deal with this very complex and serious problem, we have to do it babysitting folks with this attitude as well, basically try to navigate through the fire with a frightened, screaming baby in our ears the whole time. It makes the job even that much tougher.

I am not sure how we are going to do this. Perhaps we can try to figure out ways to keep Government out of it, and incentivize the free market to address the problem. I don’t know. It’s going to take a lot of thinking and deliberation.

But you know what they say: the first step to solving a problem is clearly identifying it. Thank you for helping me do that.

Just more smug confirmation bias. I notice you elide entirely the argument being made. It's hardly my fault if the solutions proposed by AGW advocates would have pernicious political consequences.