Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35964 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>You got that backwards as usual. Hundreds of thousands of years of empirical scinetific data shows the CO2 level did not affect the planets temperature, it was the other way around dumbass. You dont even know the science. Do some research. The over thousands of years the temeperture change and THEN the Co2 levels changed, not vice versa. My God it is no wonder you have to lie, you once again dont even know what you are talking about.
Me and every scientist on the planet are dumb. But George is smart and figured it out. Well, George and Forbes and BP. Where would we be without you guys?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/...

"When CO2 concentrations go up, the temperature goes up."

Just a libby organization though - NOAA.
George

Kermit, WV

#35965 Dec 30, 2013
Space-Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you just keep on showing you are literally the single most ignorant person to post on Topix -- "It's snowing outside, so how could they say there's global warming?" It's sad an pathetic that you have no idea how stupid you are. Also, it's not just climate scientists as the overwhelming majority of ALL scientists understand that global warming is real and man made because they understand basic concepts of science as well as as scientific method.
Yeah we know, according the the quacks you listen to it doesnt matter that the temperature isnt warming. It doesnt matter that the ice is expending. All contrary to their "theories", all their nonsense is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. Just ignore the fact their prediction were wrong, they are still right damnit! Believe it cause they say so!. ROFL
George

Kermit, WV

#35967 Dec 30, 2013
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 – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr.– JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr.– JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L.(Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35968 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah we know, according the the quacks you listen to it doesnt matter that the temperature isnt warming. It doesnt matter that the ice is expending. All contrary to their "theories", all their nonsense is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. Just ignore the fact their prediction were wrong, they are still right damnit! Believe it cause they say so!. ROFL
Why do you keep saying "the temperature isn't warming?" It is. It has. Over 1.7 degrees since 1950, which correlates perfectly with previously-established relationships between CO2 and temperature. A 15-year window is meaningless in climate science. A 100-year window is getting close. We've measured hundreds of thousands of years.
fitness-guru

Norman, OK

#35969 Dec 30, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hilarious. George thinks 125,000 years worth of atmospheric CO2 and temperature data was debunked in one. You can't speak rationally to these people, let alone scientifically. They don't have the capacity.
earthlings are doing something about CO2 faster than you think bacon. forbes has an story of china banning new coal plants dated this year. countrys have signed the kyoto protocol.
George

Kermit, WV

#35970 Dec 30, 2013
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35971 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah we know, according the the quacks you listen to it doesnt matter that the temperature isnt warming. It doesnt matter that the ice is expending. All contrary to their "theories", all their nonsense is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. Just ignore the fact their prediction were wrong, they are still right damnit! Believe it cause they say so!. ROFL
The ice isn't expanding. Each winter, ice accumulates and each summer, it melts. The history shows an annual net gain. We have been at a net loss since the late 1990s, again, correlating perfectly with increased CO2 concentrations from man.

I'm still trying to understand if you're actually claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or if we aren't pumping about 200 times what occurs naturally. They're both inarguable facts.

“Save light, save coal.”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#35972 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
Recently NASA released evidence that CO2 actually helps COOL the planet, and they have the proof. Do some research, this is fact and cant be disputed. Join us in the 21st century, please.
Please post the site where this info is available.
Go the Arbor Day Foundation website and find the hardiness zone map in the Media section. http://www.arborday.org/media/zones.cfm Go to "See an animation" and click on that. They also have a section on Climate Change http://www.arborday.org/globalwarming/
The USDA is
supposed to issue an updated map every ten years, but hadn't since 1990 (I suppose due to
opposition from the Bush administration), so in 2006 the Arbor day Foundation did their
own update. You can toggle between the 1990 and 2006 maps and see the warmth creeping
north. These maps depict the thirty-year average winter lows in an area. The bands are defined by a range of ten degrees Fahrenheit. These maps are used to help determine what plants will survive the winter in a given area. A map of summer average highs would look somewhat different, but in most areas the zones of such a map would also be creeping north. At some point a given plant will also find it too hot to grow. In two hundred years, perhaps,
cotton will be growing where barley does now, and barley for your beer will be a high
-priced import from the Canadian tundra. On the other hand, anyone who still has water
will be able to grow their own bananas.

Since: Sep 13

Morgantown, WV

#35973 Dec 30, 2013
Should I put a list of EVERY SCIENTIST ON EARTH OTHER THAN THOSE FEW YOU POSTED THAT UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE? Because there isn't enough room in Topix for that list.

Are you a PR man for an oil or gas company George?

Also, I don't believe what people tell me, I'm smart and objective enough to believe quantifiable proof.
fitness-guru

Norman, OK

#35974 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah we know, according the the quacks you listen to it doesnt matter that the temperature isnt warming. It doesnt matter that the ice is expending. All contrary to their "theories", all their nonsense is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. Just ignore the fact their prediction were wrong, they are still right damnit! Believe it cause they say so!. ROFL
doom and gloom folks need paychecks too ya know george so they spread fear. please fund my project. what are those people on that boat thats stuck up or down there in the ice doing anyways? are they going to re-study something thats already been studied 100s of times ? or what ?

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35975 Dec 30, 2013
fitness-guru wrote:
<quoted text>earthlings are doing something about CO2 faster than you think bacon. forbes has an story of china banning new coal plants dated this year. countrys have signed the kyoto protocol.
Everyone but us. Thanks to idiots like George who doesn't understand basic science, but argues against it.
The whole world knows (with the exception of George) that pumping 27 million metric tons of a pollutant into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35976 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.
The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.
In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
"Weak, short-term correlation." Hilarious.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/...
fitness-guru

Norman, OK

#35977 Dec 30, 2013
i found it. they are climate reasearchers. hahaha a whole boat load of em. going to do another study ! oh...brother.
George

Kermit, WV

#35978 Dec 30, 2013
George

Kermit, WV

#35979 Dec 30, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said.‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
George

Kermit, WV

#35980 Dec 30, 2013
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
"Weak, short-term correlation." Hilarious.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/...
Volcanoes? Hilarious. LMAO
fitness-guru

Norman, OK

#35981 Dec 30, 2013
carbon tax. yep. thats whats pushing this. clintoon and gore. now obama. i guess bush wasnt for it.
George

Kermit, WV

#35982 Dec 30, 2013
thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
George

Kermit, WV

#35983 Dec 30, 2013
Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat... because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship's crew will be rescued by helicopter

They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.

==========

Hehehe. SNL should do a skit on this. Too funny.

“Our founders”

Since: May 13

NEVER COMPLIED

#35984 Dec 30, 2013
George wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci encetech/article-2093264/Forge t-global-warming--Cycle-25-nee d-worry-NASA-scientists-right- Thames-freezing-again.html
Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said.‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
Judith Curry works for BP. Why would you believe a polluter over nearly every other scientist on the planet?

Serious question.

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.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 1 hr Serendipity412 125,945
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Missouri's ... (Oct '14) 7 hr Ramblin Man 37
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Indiana (D... (Oct '10) 8 hr Eddie W 549
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in New York ... (Oct '10) 19 hr Honesty 6,329
Election Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) Mon positronium 6,498
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) Mon MalcolmY 110,400
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Indiana's 8... (Nov '14) Mon Against Liar Larry 18