Earth is safe from 'global warming'

[ruthless robert]

EARTH IS SAFE FROM 'GLOBAL WARMING' SAY THE MEN WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON

The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers - the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon - in a new report.

"It's an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA's name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming," says the project's leader Hal Doiron.

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees - including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization's promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...l-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon

.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Astronauts are now experts on climatology? Earth may be safe from global warming but unfortunately we aren't safe from you posting shit threads

 

[lowsingle]

earth has always naturally gone through temperature changes for billions of years. even if we do have an effect, it is insignificant in the long run.

 

[Johnny Rosa]

Computer models are terrible in predicting complex situations, no model predicted the financial crisis for example and this is so short-sighted it's ridiculous. Polar caps are melting, water level is rising, the ocean streams are changing (the single most important temperature regulator worldwide). Desert forming, erosion etc etc.

If you have a model calculating burn everything and calculate how it influences the temperature of massive volumes of air, yes it might be right. But nature works in such a complex manner, everyone who claims to know what the hell is going on should be distrusted. It is so arrogant and such a fallacy that people think they can predict everything, especially based on "models". If there is one parameter faulty in a model your entire result is worthless, and the more complex the stuff you want to calculate the more errors there will be. Computer models can be good, but are still man made to begin with. It is not a thing in itself that predicts stuff correctly.

This is a very politically sensitive subject as well, so better believe there's a lot of manipulating going on, and if this fella says "I trust computer models, I've worked with them all my life" in a completely non-comparable setting it is like a second hand car salesman line.

This is rubbish.

 

[IDL]

I think we should hand over our money and cede control to these UN guys just in case.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

need more taxes, more regulation, more government spending and more infrastructure changes... to be on the safe side.

 

[Falsedawn]

Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

 

[Deleted member 382931]

Apart from the near complete unsustainability of today's state of energy commerce, transportation, overall handling of ressources, the environmental hazards directly linked to the aforementioned three and factoring in the natural cycles of our planets climate, you still have man made climate change, wether you like it or not.

Also, they're conflicting themselves in the last paragraph posted, with the whole "believing in computer models and proving it" thing.

 

[Sebg]

Those timescales are pretty huge, certainly not comprehensible to most people. The IPCC climate models are showing a large temperature increase over a much shorter timescale - decades rather than thousands or hundreds of years.

Global warming per se is not a disaster - it is the fact that we have organised our civilization with entrenched geographic sensitivities. If the temperate zone shifts then we suddenly have billions of dollars of real estate and farming land in the wrong place. This will cause economic catastrophe.

If this is not a beat-up then I would have expected that engineers would have taken a rational approach - that is, quantify the risk-management scenarios.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and computer climate modelling shows near absolute catastrophe for our current way of life if we adopt a "business as usual" approach to carbon pollution. The prudent "engineering" approach would be to manage this risk - i.e. if there is a certain disaster but a low risk of it happening then there are reasonable and feasible steps to put in place to manage the risk. This is how aircraft are designed and all sorts of complex engineering projects.

Unfortunately, the politicians don't understand science or engineering and only understand when the next election is. A former Prime Minister of Australia said recently that he has a "gut feeling" that the IPCC climate models are wrong. (He is a lawyer). That is a great way to make decisions about the future of human civilization. Hence very little is being done about climate change.

I suppose if human civilization fails because as a species we are too stupid to do the prudent thing then that is what we deserve.

 

[computer fogie]

Those timescales are pretty huge, certainly not comprehensible to most people. The IPCC climate models are showing a large temperature increase over a much shorter timescale - decades rather than thousands or hundreds of years.

Global warming per se is not a disaster - it is the fact that we have organised our civilization with entrenched geographic sensitivities. If the temperate zone shifts then we suddenly have billions of dollars of real estate and farming land in the wrong place. This will cause economic catastrophe.

If this is not a beat-up then I would have expected that engineers would have taken a rational approach - that is, quantify the risk-management scenarios.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and computer climate modelling shows near absolute catastrophe for our current way of life if we adopt a "business as usual" approach to carbon pollution. The prudent "engineering" approach would be to manage this risk - i.e. if there is a certain disaster but a low risk of it happening then there are reasonable and feasible steps to put in place to manage the risk. This is how aircraft are designed and all sorts of complex engineering projects.

Unfortunately, the politicians don't understand science or engineering and only understand when the next election is. A former Prime Minister of Australia said recently that he has a "gut feeling" that the IPCC climate models are wrong. (He is a lawyer). That is a great way to make decisions about the future of human civilization. Hence very little is being done about climate change.

I suppose if human civilization fails because as a species we are too stupid to do the prudent thing then that is what we deserve.

Good post IMO.

 

[clmetal]

Astronauts are now experts on climatology? Earth may be safe from global warming but unfortunately we aren't safe from you posting shit threads

Leave it to politicians instead

Anyways, u read the article too quickly "a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers"; it says 7 of the 40 were astronauts. Liberals turn to nasa on global warming issues nowadays (but only when they like what they have to say)

 

[Ruprecht]

Leave it to politicians instead

Anyways, u read the article too quickly "a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers"; it says 7 of the 40 were astronauts. Liberals turn to nasa on global warming issues nowadays (but only when they like what they have to say)

CATO institute.

 

[kpt018]

Were the computer models discussed in the OP reviewed and critiqued themselves?

 

[kpt018]

And I love how conservatives, including the site in the OP, love to discuss every single piece or study that falls right in line with the play book(big oil propoganda). A real peice would talk about how this defies a ton of research that is out there. There's no mention that this study is in the minority and it doesn't say if the models have been peer reviewed. Shit article, even if the models are on to something.

 

[Ruprecht]

And I love how conservatives, including the site in the OP, love to discuss every single piece or study that falls right in line with the play book(big oil propoganda). A real peice would talk about how this defies a ton of research that is out there. There's no mention that this study is in the minority and it doesn't say if the models have been peer reviewed. Shit article, even if the models are on to something.

None of the "Right Climate Stuff" (and we know which "right" that refers to) guys are climate scientists. The climate scientist they credit, Pat Michaels, works for the CATO Institute. So clearly his work is political and ideologically driven.
The "Right Climate Stuff" mob themselves seems to mostly just do the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, CPAC etc conference circuit.
Political advocacy.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

EARTH IS SAFE FROM 'GLOBAL WARMING' SAY THE MEN WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON

The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.

Fascinating.

I hate to point this out, for fear of causing you to spend the rest of the day in tears, but did you know burning fuel is only one of many contributors to warming?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

earth has always naturally gone through temperature changes for billions of years. even if we do have an effect, it is insignificant in the long run.

LOL

If your definition of "insignificant" is "won't cause the planet to explode into a million pieces like Alderaan", yes.
If your definition of "insignificant" is "won't wipe out most existing life forms", then it's far from a sure thing.

You do know that modern civilization would never survive even half of those temperature swings in your graph, right?

 

[CrazyN8]

We need the sherdog equivalent of Mac in these threads.

[YT]22bo6CKJcJM[/YT]

 

[CrazyN8]

LOL

If your definition of "insignificant" is "won't cause the planet to explode into a million pieces like Alderaan", yes.
If your definition of "insignificant" is "won't wipe out most existing life forms", then it's far from a sure thing.

You do know that modern civilization would never survive even half of those temperature swings in your graph, right?

Exactly, the earth, one day, is going to screw us all via mass murder no matter what we do. We may speed it up, but it's coming.

 

[Jimmy Tuna**]

I think we should hand over our money and cede control to these UN guys just in case.

Yeah, and so what if they have a million other bad ideas, too.