Former astronaut scoffs at global war...

Former astronaut scoffs at global warming

There are 2406 comments on the The Santa Fe New Mexican story from Feb 14, 2009, titled Former astronaut scoffs at global warming. In it, The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that:

Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn't buy the idea that humans are causing global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Santa Fe New Mexican.

litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

#2466 Jun 13, 2016
Blast from the Past:
litesong wrote:
brian_g wrote:
It's winter and there's snow. There is no global warming in the Northern hemisphere.
==========
Earthling-1 wrote:
There is no global warming in the Northern hemisphere.
If there is, it's taken an early pre winter vacation.
==========
litesong wrote:
brian_g's words fit well with his math errors of 1 million, 1000 & 3000 times & his sub-5th grade comprehension of his hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Deniers don't look where science evidence would destroy their carefully planned politicking.
Despite the solar TSI being at a 100 record low for 3+years & below normal for years before that, arctic sea ice has lagged considerably behind the earliest accurate sea ice area measurements. Strong indications are that the lagging area measurements also include ever thinning thicknesses of sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGE...
The temperature at the North Pole was 1degC(thawing) at the end of 2015, when the NP was in the dark for 3+ months.
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for June 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~ 29,500 cubic kilometers. Present June 1, 2016 sea ice VOLUME is ~19,150 cubic kilometers, 10,350 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for June 1. The excess AGW infra-red energy absorbed by 10,350 cubic kilometers of ice to melt it, is ~ 32 times the yearly U.S. energy consumption.

With the sun ever higher in the northern hemisphere sky for the year(half arcdeg from most northern position), the present large Arctic sea ice losses are leading to large quantities of AGW generated solar energy absorption by large surface areas of clear Arctic waters,(1.97 million KM2 more, as compared to 1980's--Alaska plus almost Wyoming-sized). As stated often, wherever there are downwellings, excess AGW solar energy is being submerged & taken to continental shelves & even possibly to Arctic Ocean depths, north of Svalbard, for long term energy storage. Even solar energy falling on thin ices can be absorbed by Arctic waters. These large storages in May (now June) are all out of whack with past energy distributions, now occurring both in 2015 AND 2016. Recently, temperatures in the High Arctic have been above average for 160(?) straight days, now above the 140 straight day period two+ years ago, that was also above average High Arctic temperatures. For 100 days High Arctic temperature was AT LEAST 3degC above average to date, 5-6degC above average on average, & hit highs 12+degC over average.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2467 Jun 17, 2016
Five years since my last post on this forum and still no experimental test of climate change mitigation.
One way or another

Jacksonville, FL

#2468 Jun 18, 2016
Steve van Dresser wrote:
Former Senator Schmitt thinks that there is a "political consensus that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon-dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." Nonsense. There is no political consensus on climate change. That is why nothing is being done in the United States.

There is, however, a scientific consensus. Every major scientific society in the world is in agreement that global climate change is occurring at an accelerating rate and that man made emissions are a significant part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...
Has it never occurred to you, the schools all teach the same things in the same manner, for the sake of each government? Every government proves every day, that it is all about them and their friends and relatives. America's Congress is bribed every day, because it is allowed by them. They believe they are above the law, just as every other country's so-called leaders. Summer dictators and some claim to be for democracy and yet they all put themselves first.
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

#2469 Jun 18, 2016
[QUOTE who="joshuah666+000" ]Anyone who supports GloBULL warming is an enemy of God and should be considered a terrorist.[/QUOTE]

...... saith the lord.... re-pubic-lick-un division.....

Muslim terrorists make re-pubic-lick-uns look silly...... which they always were.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Lake Stevens, WA

#2470 Jun 18, 2016
Sweet Blast from the Past:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06...
//////////
Quotes from the paper:
Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.......
==========
Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced..........
==========
The top 100
...... you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC's assessment," he said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.
==========
"When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite.
"If you were a young researcher and had the data to overturn any of the mainstream paradigms, or what the IPCC has done, you would become absolutely famous," he said. "Everyone wants to be the next Darwin, everyone wants to be the next Einstein."

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
D B Cooper

United States

#2471 Jun 20, 2016
No proof man ever went to the Moon either.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2472 Jun 20, 2016
The former astronaut was laughing out loud, the media called it "scoffs".

Since: Apr 16

Top of the world

#2473 Jun 24, 2016
Brian_G wrote:
The former astronaut was laughing out loud, the media called it "scoffs".
Scoffing was more apt in that situation.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#2474 Jun 24, 2016
D B Cooper wrote:
No proof man ever went to the Moon either.
Actually, the LRO is capable of resolving these images. As for proof of the Saturn V rocket and its capabilities, I guess you'll just have to trust history and the last remaining vehicle still on display in Houston (though it's in lousy shape) as well as the present day equipment that came out of that.
IB DaMann

Chantilly, VA

#2475 Jun 24, 2016
Steve van Dresser wrote:
There is, however, a scientific consensus.
That's a contradiction in terms. T
Consensus has no role in science. Consensus is everything in religion, especially the Global Warming cult.
Steve van Dresser wrote:
Every major scientific society in the world is in agreement that global climate change is occurring at an accelerating rate and that man made emissions are a significant part of the problem.
Nope. Not a single scientist believes in violations of physics and the WACKY Global Warming religious dogma is full them.

Also, there is no "problem" that is defined in Global Warming dogma that is corroborated by science.
Steve van Dresser wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S cientific_opinion_on_climate_c hange
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and is summarily dismissed.
IB DaMann

Chantilly, VA

#2476 Jun 24, 2016
Earthling wrote:
The big question is what effect that pollution is having on climate change, if any?
So what did you think "climate change" was exactly back in 2009?
IB DaMann

Chantilly, VA

#2477 Jun 24, 2016
Fair Game wrote:
It's causing global warming
So how is the globe increasing in temperature without any additional energy?
IB DaMann

Chantilly, VA

#2478 Jun 24, 2016
Fair Game wrote:
Pick your data points carefully and you can prove global cooling happened for several years previous to 1976, 1985, 1995 and 2009.
Fudge and invent your data carefully and you can show Global Warming whenever you wish.

Wish hard enough and you will see Global Warming whenever you wish.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#2479 Jun 24, 2016
It is now down to less than a week to go for the Monthly Contest of
June. I am seeing some unexpected patterns here, but my choice of
event this month seems to be generating significant scoring.

The Monthly Contest is open only to an elite few chosen by me using
biased methods. Scoring is unbiased, by counting events within
posts. The event used is not revealed until the end of the month. Last
month's event was the fallacy of Redirection, where Earthling claimed
the highest score.

The current scores stand thus for this thread:

litebeer: 2
IntotheTrainLight: zero!

Combined scores and analysis will appear after the end of June in the
Slow Moving thread.

Keep those scores low!

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2480 Jun 25, 2016
Scientific consensus exists, therefore it is.
One way or another

Jacksonville, FL

#2481 Jun 25, 2016
Earthling-1 wrote:
Scientific consensus exists, therefore it is.
Even when it has no evidence for what it claims?

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#2482 Jun 25, 2016
Earthling-1 wrote:
Scientific consensus exists, therefore it is.
Science does not make use of consensus. Therefore it isn't.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2483 Jun 26, 2016
One way or another wrote:
Even when it has no evidence for what it claims?
You're talking specifically about Glowbull warming?
Try to think about the term 'scientific consensus' in general.

I wrote "Scientific consensus exists," so let's look into that:

Ethan Siegel sums it up fairly well here:
What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2...

Our friends, the IB twins are wont to disagree with anyone about almost anything, it's what they do.
The best way forward, is to decide for yourself after checking out what the learned accept.
You know who the learned are, don't you?
They're people who don't post on silly internet forums.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#2484 Jun 26, 2016
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You're talking specifically about Glowbull warming?
Try to think about the term 'scientific consensus' in general.

I wrote "Scientific consensus exists," so let's look into that:

Ethan Siegel sums it up fairly well here:
What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2...

Our friends, the IB twins are wont to disagree with anyone about almost anything, it's what they do.
The best way forward, is to decide for yourself after checking out what the learned accept.
You know who the learned are, don't you?
They're people who don't post on silly internet forums.
So...you think Forbes is in a position to define the scientific method, do you?

Science makes no use of consensus. No one owns science.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2485 Jun 26, 2016
Whether you, I or anyone likes it or not, it exists.

"... scientific consensus is a collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a field of science."

Its use appears to be most prevalent in the pseudo science of climate change, although it is mentioned in regard to other branches of science "ranging across biology, geology, chemistry, and other natural sciences," homoeopathy excepted

Anyone (with an open mind) can find references to the subject with the help of Google or any other search engine.

Scientific consensus should be based on evidence.

As Steven Novella, MD, writes in his NeuroLogica blog:

For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgable than we are. There is no choice there is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in.
<<<<<
There are those among us who disagree, and they're entitle to their opinion, but that's all they'll ever have to share with the handful of people who post here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Santa Fe New Mexican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News NMSU Chancellor Carruthers to retire in 2018 5 hr roberta 2
News About those climate denials: You're wrong Aug 13 Patriot AKA Bozo 1
News Mayor hopefuls in Albuquerque share police refo... Aug 11 The truth 1
News PNM customers call for more clean energy, not h... Aug 8 Concave 1
News Finance Committee OKs circus ban proposal Aug 2 El Eijo de Verda 1
News Time to settle immigration debate, once and for... Jul 25 Red Crosse 16
News Echoes of the past still haunt Pojoaque's Line ... (Jun '09) Jul 20 Jdesharnais 43
More from around the web