1. This is the paper which shows the 97% quote was a total fabrication and that fc is a post modernist thinking moron for thinking a consensus in science mans anything without the scicence. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education. 2. Within the organizations FC cites... the real scientists with the real degrees are distancing themselves from the agw nutter baloney. The full text of the letter: March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASAâs history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASAâs advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASAâs current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science CC: 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 â JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell â JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard â JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick â JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman â JSC, Scientist â astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox â JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years /s/ Walter Cunningham â JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry â JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years /s/ Leroy Day â Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. â JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years /s/Charles F. Deiterich â JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron â JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Charles Duke â JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years /s/ Anita Gale /s/ Grace Germany â JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Ed Gibson â JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years /s/ Richard Gordon â JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald C. Griffin â JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs â JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years /s/ Thomas J. Harmon /s/ David W. Heath â JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. â JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years /s/ James R. Roundtree â JSC Branch Chief, 26 years /s/ Enoch Jones â JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin â JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years /s/ Jack Knight â JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft â JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years /s/ Paul C. Kramer â JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger â JSC, Assât. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell â JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years /s/ Donald K. McCutchen â JSC, Project Engineer â Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser â Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years /s/ Dr. George Mueller â Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years /s/ Tom Ohesorge /s/ James Peacock â JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Richard McFarland â JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years /s/ Joseph E. Rogers â JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum â JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt â JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years /s/ Gerard C. Shows â JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years the list goes on.
A warming trend is one thing. The rapid warming and sea level rise and associated weather disturbances is another. People will die and ecosystems will collapse. You are ignorant about the subject so shut the fuck up. I'm really sick of all you stupid fuckers.
You're like an evil retarded broken record. We went over this already numerous times liar. Who cares what these assholes think? They are partisan engineers and astronauts. We may as well listen to a group of musicians Only asshole denialists like you give them any credence. The simple fact is that every science organization in the world agrees with the basics of AGW and there are NONE that dispute it.
All movements that reject an overwhelming scientific consensus show 5 inevitable characteristics. They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver. These characteristics are seen in the movements that deny the scientific consensus on vaccination, HIV and AIDS and the link between smoking and cancer. They are also abundantly evident in the movement that denies the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. Industry and conservative groups have been attacking scientific consensus for decades. As far back as 1991, Western Fuels Association launched a $510,000 campaign to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" in the public perception. A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republican politicians to "continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." In a recent analysis of syndicated conservative opinion pieces spanning 2007 to 2010, the most popular myth was âthere is no consensusâ. While opponents of climate action have persistently sought to manufacture doubt, the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has grown so robust, it now manifests itself in a number of ways. Scientific organisations of many types and nationalities endorse the consensus. Several surveys of the climate science community measure overwhelming agreement. A 2004 analysis of peer-reviewed research found zero papers rejecting the consensus. It's within this context that the Skeptical Science analysis finding 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming has drawn an incredible amount of media attention. Hundreds of media stories documented our survey and results. Our team members participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers. The story has been so popular mainly because our results present a simple but critical message. There is a wide gap between the public perception and the reality of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. Additionally, research has shown that perception of consensus is linked to support for climate policy. This is true along most of the ideological spectrum â when people are aware of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, they are more likely to support taking action to solve the problem. The 5 characteristics of consensus denial Thus although our results were straightforward and consistent with previous research, we were not surprised when they met with resistance from certain groups, and we anticipated the critiques with an FAQ. However, in reviewing the various criticisms of our paper, we noticed some common threads amongst them. A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to movements that deny a scientific consensus: 1) Cherry picking; 2) Fake experts; 3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies; 4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and 5) Conspiracy theories;. These characteristics were present throughout the criticisms of our paper, and in fact we found examples of each of the five characteristics among them. Cherry picking several scientists out of 1,200 For example, the author of one blog post contacted a handful of the scientists whose papers were included in our survey and claimed that we had 'falsely classified' their papers. Climate economist Richard Tol also echoed the criticism of our paper in this blog post. This particular criticism manages to check off three of the five characteristics of scientific denialism. Specifically contacting these few scientists is a classic example of cherry picking. Our survey received responses from 1,200 climate researchers; the author of the post in question carefully selected a few of them who all just happen to be well-known climate 'skeptics'. The purpose of getting 1,200 scientists to classify their own research was to independently check our ratings against the very authors who wrote the papers. The result - independent confirmation of an overwhelming consensus: Percentage of "global warming" or "global climate change" papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-consensus-denial.html
You have good intentions, which is good. The global warming is just a theory. Those who support it benefit from it (research dollars). As I mentioned above, even if it were to exist, tax payers take the bill for any tax and research dollars, and the problem cannot be fixed even if it were to exist. My opinion: warming does not exist, and if it were to exist, it would be good. If we could have it a bit earlier than later in time, it would even better, so we can enjoy the rains to grow crop and some eat to warm our body from cold weather. Earth is too cold, and temperatures/waters have to be redistributed more evenly. So mother nature is doing well. Let her alone, and save the money. In addition to global warming, I do not believe in any theory which was created by a human, and which is not a fact. For instance this guy Darwin, they used to call him an ape. To take his revenge, he worked on the theory that all humans descend from apes. He was then made famous by any group that was insulted as descendents of apes, or groups that wanted to fight some religions and used his theory as a tool for promote their aims. Humans are miniscule and insignificant in any other dimension (time, space, etc).
I am against any policy that is designed to destroy an industry and make electricity prices sky rocket. Obama is trying to talk up some class warfare shit this week. Let me ask one question. How does causing electric prices to sky rocket help the poor and middle class?
yeah retired rocket scientists and astronauts who speak as part of science.nasa.govt are more partisan than the wackos out of the jetpropulsion lab in CA which must call itself climate.nasa.gov. here is a paper which settles this issue. Change in ocean temps lead changes in co2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658#f0015 There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature. (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11â 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5â10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. (5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris. (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
You do not need any paper to discuss the issue. Here is a simple logic. You, I, anyone else as well as things or living organisms, originate from earth from a matter point of view. Something that is internal to earth cannot change earth. Only external factors can change earth. If external factors exist, to think that some insignificant element (in this case human species) from earth can protect it from such external factors, or help/cause the external factors do wrong to earth, is not sound thinking. Nature, earth, etc, have many pathways to self correct and self protect. That is why it has been around for billions of years. Earth does need, and does not rely on humans to protect itself. Humans on the other hand need earth for their protection. This discussion about earth's need for humans is another reflection of how arrogant humans can be.