Reply With Quote
Don't forget your lunch bucket.
Link: Breaking: NASA U-turn Admits Global Warming Bias on Sun’s Key Role
First sentence:
I don't have time to look for the source material, but what have I been saying about the sun guys? Have to get ready for work. See you all after midnight Pacific time.In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.
Don't forget your lunch bucket.
"climate alarmism"
interesting terminology there
There about page is about how they want to redo the peer review process and every article they post is about climate and AGW skepticism. No bias there considering the ratio of scientific works on the subject.
They try and act like solar variation is not included in climate models.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...%2C44&as_sdtp=
Go to Google scholar if you do not believe me. It is quite obvious that not only do they consider it but they have studies that specifically control for solar activity to determine the effects of solar radiation.
Further the National Academy link is to the publication centered around a NASA workshop.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=R2
That is a link to the summary of said workshop that was held over a year ago and includes the following
The name dropping of the national academy was nice though. Dr Hansen was not present. At no point does the article mention Hansen at all whatsoever.This workshop report contains no recommendations, findings, or statements of consensus.
Instead, this workshop report summarizes the views expressed by individual workshop participants
(invited speakers and guests).
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=28
Indeed to the contrary on page 28 and 29 is a discussion of the panel findings. The panel initially discussed where they were at in contained information about solar variabilty. The audience is then questioned if important topics had already been discussed. The response was that many had but there was more work to do. Basically what they said is that more data that is continuous in measurement as opposed to stops and starts would help the models better. This is obviously not a situation where they are saying that they have been blocked from their work. They are trying to refine their craft.
In contrast I present to you the Official Stance of the NAS and most of the Western Worlds stance on climate change. This is the world consensus:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdfConclusion
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC
principles4, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of
climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the
issue is included in all relevant national and international
strategies. As national science academies, we commit to
working with governments to help develop and implement
the national and international response to the challenge of
climate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past
greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8
nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing
climate change and assisting developing nations to meet
the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.
We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the
Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear
and increasing.
· Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed
targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios,
that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed
unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to
contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net
global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed
action will increase the risk of adverse environmental
effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and
technological capacity best suited to their cir stances,
enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate
and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while
explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean
energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency,
and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to
enhance research and development efforts, which can
better inform climate change decisions.
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Brazil Canada China
Academié des Sciences, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Indian National Science Academy,
France Leopoldina, Germany India
Accademia dei Lincei, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Italy Japan Russia
Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences,
United Kingdom United States of America
Notes
It's written such that it is easy for the lay man to understand. It's quite easy to judge for yourself.
The article provides a link to a PBS interview with a senator that claims that Hansen was not to be touched. I found no such quote. To the contrary, I found the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ews/wirth.html... I don't remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you're going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you're part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.
It's obvious the Senator is saying that he was very brave to face tthe scrutiny that he did.
Now the one that is drawing all these parallels is one Dr. Timothy Ball.
http://heartland.org/timothy-ball
As you can see he works for the Heartland Ins ute. As many of you know this is a far right think tank in DC.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...tute_personnel
That is a list of their board of directors and as you can see it is a bunch of real estate execs, oilco executives, big pharma companies and their lawyers and lobbyists.
In short the article from above is misleading, misrepresentative and entirely full of .
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ews/wirth.html
tfl;dfr
green house gas emissions, theres so much of it in space that its out of our control what we emit, and what is already in space still traveling to create greater masses of gas...
Fuzzy.
Why doesn't it surprise me to pick and choose any part you can find to dismiss the idea?
Agloco... Why are you always nothing buy a globfly?
WC. I went line by line on each contention. It wasn't pick and choose. It was an indictment of the entire damn thing.
1) Scientists have not been discouraged from talking about the sun. I showed a bunch of studies from a "sun variability climate" google scholar search. There are reams of it.
2) The NAS workshop that was cited as to demonstrate 1 was refuted. I gave specific page numbers where the panel discusses what was being done and what more they could do. I then showed the official stance of the NAS.
3) They then said that Senator Wirth in an interview alluded to Hansen being untouchable and then I quoted a specific part of the article where Wirth said Hansen was brave to come out considering all the opposition he faced. That wasn't an allusion. It was a direct statement. This reminds me of the CO2 lags temperature article that is cited so often where the study specifically refutes that nonsense.
4) I then discussed Ball who was the one connecting the 'dots' for this piece. I demonstrated how he was from an organization just left of separatist militias.
That was not picking and choosing. That was all of the points of the article.
What's not surprising to me is that you couldn't figure that out.
The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way.
House Science Chair’s First Action Is To Hold A Climate Change Denier Hearing
Coming off of the hottest year in U.S. history and 333 months of higher-than-average global temperatures, Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) first move as the new chair of the House Science and Technology Committee includes a hearing on climate science, according to Dallas News.
For Smith, who criticized “the idea of human-made global warming,” the hearing will be an opportunity to give a platform to the committee’s climate zombies:Smith has blasted the media as “lap dogs” for not devoting enough airtime to climate deniers and implored networks to not “hide the facts.” Unsurprisingly, he has taken $500,000 from oil and gas over his political career and $10,000 from Koch industries last year.
I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda.
GOP members of the committee “keep science at farthest arm’s length” with its long list of climate deniers. “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of ,” House Science Subcommittee Chair Paul Broun (R-GA) said. But the list also includes former Chair Ralph Hall (R-TX), Vice Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and subcommittee chairs Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).
If climate-denying Republicans want the facts and not “a partisan agenda,” they can just read the new draft National Climate Assessment, which dives into the consequences of a hotter, drier, disaster-prone climate.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...enier-hearing/
Just another (old white inherited-wealth) TX Koch-sucking, pure asshole entering anti-science garbage into the House's records.
Wow, what an unreasonable position.
Lol, climate zombies
Why are you guys such asses. I found the article right before having to go for work. The only thing that supports the le was that one of the NASA scientists brought up some interesting solar stuff generally ignored. I agree the article isn't what I thought it would be. There is no sup[porting source material outside of a couple things brought up in the past. This was a meeting of scientists. Nothing more.The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way.
Depends on the degree of certainty. We do know how much warming many things are causing to a reasonable degree of certainty, actually. So yes, what a scientifically unreasonable position.
To acknowledge there needs to be more study in more areas?
Are you saying it is reasonable to make dire prediction without all the facts?
So let's get this straight. You post an article that you just liked the le of from an unknown source but never read. You come in later that day and say I am picking and choosing from the article that you never read and insult agloco. Now you come in admit that you never read the article and just liked the le of it, continue to make the argument that solar issues are ignored despite the "meeting of scientists" being from over a year ago and was about solar issues and climate, and then say that we are the ones being asses?
Pole-rack yourself please.
You still are either too stupid to get what occurred, or you are just being a jerk. Sorry if your mental capacity isn't adequate.
Yep...
Lacking mental capacity. It doesn't surprise me.
Wow...
Why can't you accept what I have said?
Probably because:
Thanks for the drive by thread though.
My God.
Are you really so Spiteful? Like Fuzzy? Like Chump?
Again, I posted that article for reading just before heading off to work. That is why I didn't verify any of it. Now if you with to criticize me for that, and laying out up front in the OP that I did not yet verify the source, then you are one pathic ass.
Maybe reading the article BEFORE you posted it would have been a good idea.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
