A Global Warming Presentation By a NASA Scientist

[rushmc 18]

While this is not the final word on anything I wanted to put this in a thread by its self for those ingoring other threads.

Once again, I am still learning. As I learn more I , well, take a look.

This man testified before congress the same day as Al Gore. You knew this because you saw it on the news right??

Anyway
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Once again, I am still learning.

So far as I can tell from your posts, you "learn" every time you find anything denying global warming and you "ignore" every time you find the opposite.

That's not called learning. That's called faith or dogmatism.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Once again, I am still learning.

So far as I can tell from your posts, you "learn" every time you find anything denying global warming and you "ignore" every time you find the opposite.

That's not called learning. That's called faith or dogmatism.

Somebody gave me a warning about you.

and, you did not read it ..........did you?




and you make a claim such as this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Oh, by the way, if you want to talk to context of the post we can engage each other. In all other cases, I will be as rediculas as the replies I receive.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

I skimmed through it. The summary calls for more research and states the science can't explain all of this, and lacking a scientific explanation, it is incorrect to assume that it is man-made.

I am reasonably certain that the alarmist stance is going to lose traction in the foreseeable future. I am hoping that the perceived "pragmatist" view will push for some real research.

From there, the rest of us can figure out how we can adapt to the environment as it continues to change.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I skimmed through it. The summary calls for more research and states the science can't explain all of this, and lacking a scientific explanation, it is incorrect to assume that it is man-made.

I am reasonably certain that the alarmist stance is going to lose traction in the foreseeable future. I am hoping that the perceived "pragmatist" view will push for some real research.

From there, the rest of us can figure out how we can adapt to the environment as it continues to change.

Yes, I agree. I am not opposed to saying man is the cause. If that is the case then drastic action is reasonable. However, I do not ever come close to that position today.

I agree that the GWing movement will loose traction as you say. They are working within a limited time frame to exact that movement. However, I believe the reaserch you speak of is happening as we post. I also believe everything is being done to sequester that research from getting out.

Once again, the biggest point. There is no consesus. Only those claiming there is one. And those same people try to silence the deniers. A true scientific debate huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Once again, I am still learning.

So far as I can tell from your posts, you "learn" every time you find anything denying global warming and you "ignore" every time you find the opposite.

That's not called learning. That's called faith or dogmatism.

There is no lack of publicity for those that support Al Gore's position. That doesn't mean it is ignored.

However, it would seem that you "ignore" every time you find the opposite. So who is in denial?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

However, it would seem that you "ignore" every time you find the opposite. So who is in denial?

Actually, you're confusing me with someone else. I've stated no conclusion. I'm not qualified to hold a position in such a complex matter as this. (And neither are you, I suspect.)

But I do make fun of people who claim to be learning when all they do is incompetently champion a dogmatic view over and over and over...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

However, it would seem that you "ignore" every time you find the opposite. So who is in denial?

Actually, you're confusing me with someone else. I've stated no conclusion. I'm not qualified to hold a position in such a complex matter as this. (And neither are you, I suspect.)

But I do make fun of people who claim to be learning when all they do is incompetently champion a dogmatic view over and over and over...

Insults, are all that those who have nothing to offer, use.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

However, it would seem that you "ignore" every time you find the opposite. So who is in denial?

Actually, you're confusing me with someone else. I've stated no conclusion. I'm not qualified to hold a position in such a complex matter as this. (And neither are you, I suspect.)

But I do make fun of people who claim to be learning when all they do is incompetently champion a dogmatic view over and over and over...

On another topic, since you seem to know my position, please explain to me what I have stated many times about GWing..........if you dare. I have been very specific. I will give you a couple of days to search to give you a chance to get it right.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I will give you a couple of days to search to give you a chance to get it right.

Oh yes! I'll get right on that. I have nothing better to do than research your highly intelligent writings about science.

I'll call my clients and tell them to postpone all their deadlines. This is ever so much more important.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,426]

>From there, the rest of us can figure out how we can adapt to
>the environment as it continues to change.

Or decide to force it to change less rapidly. I assume that since you are in favor of "real research" to settle the question, that you will be open to the growing body of evidence supporting anthropogenic forcing of climate.

Five years ago I was worried that this issue would never be taken seriously; it was largely being ignored. Then it was being ridiculed; "the planet's not warming! It's cold out!"

Nowadays it's being attacked. That's good news in my book, because every valid theory goes through four phases:

1) it's ignored
2) it's ridiculed
3) it's attacked
4) it's accepted.

Once we accept that it can happen, we can work on better understanding how it's happening, what the costs will be to deal with the issue vs mitigating the issue, and how to plan for our future. Fortunately most people do nowadays - which means we won't be caught unawares by the future changes we will see.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I will give you a couple of days to search to give you a chance to get it right.

Oh yes! I'll get right on that. I have nothing better to do than research your highly intelligent writings about science.

I'll call my clients and tell them to postpone all their deadlines. This is ever so much more important.

I didn't think you knew so thanks for proving that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>From there, the rest of us can figure out how we can adapt to
>the environment as it continues to change.

Or decide to force it to change less rapidly. I assume that since you are in favor of "real research" to settle the question, that you will be open to the growing body of evidence supporting anthropogenic forcing of climate.

Five years ago I was worried that this issue would never be taken seriously; it was largely being ignored. Then it was being ridiculed; "the planet's not warming! It's cold out!"

Nowadays it's being attacked. That's good news in my book, because every valid theory goes through four phases:

1) it's ignored
2) it's ridiculed
3) it's attacked
4) it's accepted.

Once we accept that it can happen, we can work on better understanding how it's happening, what the costs will be to deal with the issue vs mitigating the issue, and how to plan for our future. Fortunately most people do nowadays - which means we won't be caught unawares by the future changes we will see.

You jump me for not being clear on my posititon and here you do it.

The researchers that you rail against, for the most part, do not say there is no change occuring. Once again, by definition, that is what the climate does and has done for millions of years. The debate is, is man causing or acelerating the change?

So, just to be clear, I understand your position is one that supports the theory that man is causing or acelerating warming, correct?

My position is it is a natural cycle and that mans activities are neglegable at worst.

Now as more and more research begins to support that this is a natural cylical patteren the GW alarmists are the ones doing the attacking.

Now, why would scientist attack and attempt to silence research data?

You continually list NASA as support for your theory yet po po NASA scientist that are on the side oposite of you! (and by the way there is a huge debate going on inside of NASA and other gov orgs you list today so they have not yet selltled on it)


So, all of this leads me to believe that the position on man made GWing is a political one. A polititcal one based on money. Why do I believe that? Well just read yesterdays news.

"Carbon tax" would be a good search topic.

My point in all of this? The man made global warming crowd does not have this slamed dunked yet. They have the media and the money grubing polititions. A perfect example of the media monopoly is the very day Al Gore testified. He was one of many. Were any disenting points of view presented? I didn't see it.

My conclusions? This is a money issue and eco morality issue pushed by those who want to tell the rest of us how to live.

The last point in an of itself makes it an emotional one for me.

Hey, but WTF do I know. I aint as smart as all the lefty intelects that get away with all the PAs on this site

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>From there, the rest of us can figure out how we can adapt to
>the environment as it continues to change.

Or decide to force it to change less rapidly. I assume that since you are in favor of "real research" to settle the question, that you will be open to the growing body of evidence supporting anthropogenic forcing of climate.

Actually, I'm a part of the body of people that do not believe science will ever conclusively find out what is actually causing the change. Science can't accurately predict the weather on a local near-term scale. The science behind GW has too many political fingers in it.

Quote

Five years ago I was worried that this issue would never be taken seriously; it was largely being ignored. Then it was being ridiculed; "the planet's not warming! It's cold out!"

Bill, the planet isn't as warm now as some very important points in earth's history. In fact, if the OP link is correct, all it's going to take to send the GW crowd over the edge will be another big eruption of Mt. Pinatubo or Mt. St. Helens to reduce sunlight globally by 2-4%...how many nukes would we have to set off to do that? The US detonated over 300 atmospheric tests during the cold war alone.

Quote

Once we accept that it can happen, we can work on better understanding how it's happening, what the costs will be to deal with the issue vs mitigating the issue, and how to plan for our future.

I accept that the earth's climate is changing. Better than you in fact. I wasn't waving an earth day banner 30 years ago about the impending ice-age and I'm not waving a banner now about the impending spontaneous-combustion.

Quote

Fortunately most people do nowadays - which means we won't be caught unawares by the future changes we will see.

Not with the social agenda attached to some of these nicks. The loud-fringe-GW movement's goal has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with western capitalism.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!