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 ...
Global Whiners told to "SHUT UP"
Just as we've yet to hear about the bogus scare of an AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals. It was never going to happen but the fear mongerers and those who profitted from saying it would were able spread a false alarm among the general populace. Have we ever heard an explanation about why the disease wasn't spread? No. That would expose those that spread the message as either ignorant or fraudulent. So we are left to sit in increasing cynicasm while the perps move on to even nastier rapes of the public trust. How many who lost someone dear on 9/11 are ready to throttle the leaders of the United Way or Red Cross who so eagerly stepped out to raise money in their names then keep it for themselves without distributing it? How many of us who gave money feel betrayed by those and other organizations who bilk our money in ways hardly different from common confidence artists? Not holding the leftwing flim-flam crowd responsible for their nonsense is a sure-fire recipe for societal suicide.
"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."
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Velikovsky was a loon. He exemplifies the danger when an expert in one field comes to believe he is an expert in all fields.
Velikovsky was quite thoroughly dispatched by Isaac Asimov in his essay, Worlds in Confusion.
Velikovsky (I am working from memory here) claimed that Venus had an atmosphere made of hydrocarbons. This is false.
He could not account for the lack of eccentricity in Venus' orbit.
He could not explain why Venus' orbit follows the Bode-Titus law.
And, most laughable of all, Velikovsky admitted his theories were incompatible with Newton's Laws of Motion, and then recommended that Newton be revised to match his (Velikovsky's) theories!
Simple circumstance. However, putting a teacher and congressman or 2 on the shuttle flight schedule was pure politics.
That's too bad. They are goldmines of good info, even if the conclusions are a stretch.
Indeed, your statements are succinct, and I believe very accurate.
Maybe NASA will re-think and allow TAXPAYERS(BTW: who paid Russians) for a lift to the International (choke..choke...U$ paid) Station and stop political pay-offs for a$$holes like J. Glenn.
Huh? I thought it was the squishy sciences that didn't have an intelligence requirement...
Yes, and for that reason it might do some of those reading this thread (though I am a bit late in posting this) to read the actual paper, in PDF document form: Trends of measured climate forcing agents
I recommend reading the paragraph entitled "Carbon Dioxide" on the last page, which Michaels alludes to, in which Dr. Hansen indicates that CO2 emissions must eventually be curtailed or sequestered, "to stabilize atmospheric composition". His reasoning is that the warming which is currently occurring (with which Michaels agrees, contrary to the more vocal global-warming skeptics who claim there is no warming at all), while not likely to cause catastrophic warming, is still capable of causing significant climate change.
Hansen knows what he's doing, and I agree with what he writes. Global-warming skeptics should also, particularly now that Pat Michaels and he agree on the next-century prediction.
Note also that Hansen is predicting, if the current rate of warming continues for the entire next century, an Earth as warm as the mid-Pliocene, 2 deg C warmer than present, with sea levels 25 meters higher than today. Interesting that Michaels didn't mention those numbers in his piece, isn't it?
And it is complete, unmitigated, extra-strength, tin-foil bilge.
His most significant statement ,IMHO, is : "These natural climate forcing agents have been joined in the past century by human-made agents, most notably "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). By trapping the Earth's thermal (heat) radiation, the added gases cause a forcing of about 2.5 watts per square meter (W/m2), about 1% as large as the 240 W/m2 of energy that the Earth absorbs from the sun.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that this positive forcing is responsible for observed global warming of about 3/4 °C in the past century."
A couple of decades of these measurements might be useful towards increased understanding of the phenomenon.
"Circumstantial evidence" is a good basis for research, but a stupid basis for any conclusions.