Skip to comments.NASA extinguishes global-warming fire
Posted on 02/03/2002 8:09:01 AM PST by RangerEdited on 07/12/2004 3:37:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It really happened. The NASA scientist who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities with his flamboyant congressional testimony 14 years ago, has turned the hose on its dying embers.
There is now no reason for the Bush administration to give an inch on climate change. Sure, energy efficient technologies (like my Honda hybrid) are worth exploring. But there is absolutely no scientific reason for any expensive policy like the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Mr. Bush led the world by being the first to walk away from Kyoto, and science has proven him correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
These idiotic ideas are based on the following fallacies:
a. Zero population growth.
b. Zero immigration.
c. Zero new construction.
d. Zero increase in manufacturing, chemical and fertilizer production.
e. Immediate production of fuel cell vehicle at a competitive price and safety record.
g. Immediate construction of solar and wind generators a competitive prices ($.04 per kilowatt hr).
None of the above will happen for obvious reasons. Telling Americans they can solve an energy shortage by using less, is like telling Somali's they can solve a food shortage by eating less.
In the real world, this is known as GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Anybody with half a brain and a chart of temperature fluctuations for all of pre-industrial history derived from any method whatsoever, can see that attempting to segregate "human influence" is a fool's errand.
In every case the indicated variability in temperature that can be plainly seen is orders of magnitude greater than any scientifically explained change.
The touchy-feelie crowd, with its mission to control the rest of us by whatever means possible, just won't give up.
Socialism by any other name...
I do wish I knew who the socialist genius was who initially suggested that political change and wealth redistribution be effected by appealing to our fear of "saving" the planet.
Appealing to the inevitable fear of the ignorant was truly a stroke of genius.
If it was budgetary or political (it could not have been simple stupidity), why did so many people buy it when someone like myself whose understanding of meteorology goes no further than the simplest of local weather forecasts doubted its veracity from the beginning?
One of the biggest debacles of the "Global Warming" hoax was the CFC phony scientific ban. CFC's were inexpensive, and WORKED! Once the CFC's were banned we have a much less efficient system of cooling or refrigeration, at a much higher price. Nobody could PROVE a thing, but the junk science machine kept eating at the edges until people believed it. This is exactly what the damn greens wanted, as deep down inside they are simply Luddites in "save the earth" clothing.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC
It should be heavily publicized. Rush Limbaugh might have a few environmental wacko comments as well. How do we make sure he hears about it?
This is truly deep. No wonder no one has come up with a way to fix it.
Greenie's I feel your pain....boo hoo..
Along comes a guy named Velikovsky, who published two books: Worlds in Collision, and Earth in Upheaval.
In these books, Velikovsky argues that Venus is a new member of our solar system, born in a gigantic cataclysm that occurred not in the distant geological past, but within human history. Velikovsky boldly predicts that Venus is still cooling off, but should have a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead (if his thesis is correct). Velikovsky is mocked and reviled by the scientific community, but in 1954 the first microwave temperature measurements prove him right.
The scientists knew that their theories of our solar system's evolution could not account for the temperature on Venus, and to allow any consideration of a cataclysmic explanation would have supported Velikovsky. They had to produce a theory to explain the high temperature, that also allowed Venus to be as old as the rest of the planets. Eventually, they produced a theory that blamed the CO2 which makes up 96% of the Venusian atmosphere. This was the "greenhouse" effect.
It was this theory that started all of the worry about earth's "greenhouse" gasses like CO2 and methane, but few are willing to go back and reconsider the data from Venus, and wether it supports this theory. For any who are interested, here is a link:
Velikovsky died in 1979, and although his books once made the best seller lists, they are no longer in print.
Sorry, I can't this ignorant crap be posted without posting the truth, by someone who worked on the Shuttle lauches.
1. NASA missions are timed to heavenly body locations and technical and construction capabilities and money - often years in advance, so that often very small windows of a few days or even in some cases a few hours, can be met. And it is really tough to meet those schedules, let alone to schedule for politics.
2. As for global warming, NASA has been the one who has been saying for the last several years, they find no evidence of global warming from their satelites. The global warming crowd has gotten it's data from ground temperature stations, which once were out in the country, and which now, because of population growth, are in the city.
NASA does need conogressional support though, and has stupidly spread design and construction jobs around the country to garner congressional support, and as such has wasted a tremendous amount of money building a space station which is years and years late and so far under initial concept capabilities that it is essentially worthless.