Top NASA Professor Calls Global Warming Nonsense
brought to my attention by producer JBW:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
2) CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the past 20 years, yet warming has not. Thus, the causal effect (at least at the range of current levels) is clearly not established. There may be some causal effect from very low levels upwards, which then asymptotically level off, or there may also be an effect at very high levels (higher than can sustain mammalian life), but not in the range we're at now (and although it wasn't measured in the 19th century it is hypothesized that the CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher due to the types of uses of fossil fuels at the time, yet no global warming was observed then).
3) What you call "green" power sources really aren't so, as they consume much more fossil fuels to create the power generation apparatus than they ever produce.
4) These "green" power sources must be augmented with fossil fuel power plants since none of them are a reliable source of substantial power generation - the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. Operating these fossil fuel plants at lower than optimum capacity is highly inefficient and doing this for long periods of time can cause rapid deterioration of the power generating capacity.
5) Nuclear is more highly regulated than even fossil fuels. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear power plant being authorized to be built? The last one to come on-line was in 1996.
6) Your "scientific proof" has been debunked. Nobody has been able to recreate the "hockey stick" curve independently, AND those "scientists" were caught via e-mails in having fabricated the data.
Industry, especially heavy industry, produces alot of CO2. Thermal Power Stations do so as well, so it´s not only transportation and fossil fuels. Even buildings contribute to the effect of global warming through the consumption of energy at unrational levels, radiation by reflection and lack of green in cities, and of course the massacre of forests. Some have taken measures against these issues. California, Spain, Germany, Australia, and other countries and regions have switched to "greener" sources of energy such as solar power, wind power and nuclear power. Architects have gone as far as creating certificates and prizes for "greening" buildings.
Nevertheless, some things still remain the same. Deforestation ceases to stop or be controlled fully, fossil fuels continue to be abused despite the obvious and many countries such as China continue to consume Thermal Energy using open air coal burners and such. Meanwhile, the storm keeps building up.
which proof? we have spent a great deal of time on this post showing the mis information and out right lies in these reports. You can deny it, but it's reality. While I agree it's important to move into more efficient power producers-so far solar and wind have not proven out. Regulations keep new nuclear facilities from being built and of course, the goal would be to get China out of 2nd world status on manufacturing. The only way for them to increase their level of technology is to strengthen their patent system and create wealth. Deforestation happens where govts own the forests. Private owners are careful with their resources.
It may be his An Inconvenient Truth.
There is a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature going back thousands of years. With a bit of imagination you could say they go up and down together. The periods are on average about 10,000 years. The commentary draws attention to this and says - so CO2 drives temperature. But, if you look closely it can be seen that temperature movements are a bit ahead, by on average 800 years. So CO2 follows temperature.
( Well, you could say that temperature follows CO2 by about 9,200 years. )
When you see the jaggedness of the graph lines, and realize the lack of precision of the numbers, there can be no justification for any kind of action.
800-year discussion on:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-...
In essentials it has been dis-proven.
Measuring and modeling how much CO2 is in the atmosphere
Yes it is quite a difficult and uncertain exercise even doing it now with modern instruments. Quantifying amounts in the past is subject to vast uncertainty.
On top of that there is misuse of data as your first ref shows.
Yet there is evidence that CO2 is a temperature indicator, it seems to lag (not lead) temperature by 800 years. Temperatures go up, 800 years later there is an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, this matches what is known about the oceans releasing CO2 as temperatures increase.
This is consistent with your second and third refs.
So, if CO2 is increasing now, were global temperatures higher 800 years ago?
Yes! the medieval warm period when the Vikings colonized Greenland.
(Do not expect to see this in the notorious 'hockey stick').
There are several natural processes whereby CO2 leaves the atmosphere. How long does it (on average) stay?
Several studies have come up with answers of between 2 and 20 years. The IPCC says- 100 years. Using a shorter residence time, the climate models would not predict the fast warming that they say is caused by human CO2 emissions.
What physical evidence -observations, measurements- was used by the IPCC for the 100 year figure? None.
You are probably correct with your statement regarding God, "...is one that no one alive will ever win."
However I must disagree with the other part of your statement, " (never seems to be a discussion)." In my experience I too have found many people calling themselves Christians who don't seem to be clear on the concept. In my opinion, any serious Christian will be happy to "discuss" God and Christianity. I have also witnessed many atheists who tend to attack Christians and Christianity and the existence of a God and therefore set up a situation where discussion on the subject tends to be difficult. That of course should not prohibit true Christians from discussing the subject rather than argue about it.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.comk
We have just gone through this with pre-Clovis settlement of the New World, and have weathered this same storm with genetics/environment, continental drift, and Lamarkism. Science must be free to doubt.
Jan
<http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.s...>
As stated earlier "What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe." Intelligent design is one theory that may explain this more completely, or not.
Load more comments...