Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA extinguishes global-warming fire
Washington Times ^ | 2/3/02 | Patrick Michaels

Posted on 02/03/2002 8:09:01 AM PST by Ranger

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:37:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2002 8:09:01 AM PST by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ranger
BUMP!
2 posted on 02/03/2002 8:21:51 AM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Great Post. All the recent speaches by "Future Demo Presidential Candidates" have been heavily laced with a call for renewables (expensive and unreliable) and heavy emphasis on conversation.

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.

3 posted on 02/03/2002 8:24:13 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Climate models, such as those run by NASA, initially assumed that the sensitivity was much larger than it was in reality

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.

4 posted on 02/03/2002 8:25:08 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
bump
5 posted on 02/03/2002 8:26:40 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Ranger
Big News! ***Bump***
7 posted on 02/03/2002 8:35:25 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Unfortunatly the average American will never hear about this, and those who believe in global warming that do hear about it will dismiss it.
8 posted on 02/03/2002 8:47:23 AM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
I see by some of the posts that we all shared some skepticism about Hanson's initial claims of global warming.

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?

9 posted on 02/03/2002 8:47:38 AM PST by Lady Jag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Outstanding Find. Bookmarked and Bumped.

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

Greg

10 posted on 02/03/2002 8:54:36 AM PST by gwmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sciencediet
The history of this "debate" goes back to the early 60's when the Democrats began losing congressional seats in oil producing states. When "Big Oil" (like Big Tobbaco after them) began making larger campaign donations to the more business-friendly Republicans than to the diminishing 'dixiecrats' (just as happened later with tobbaco) the Dems party leaders switched into Demonization mode and started the "Get Oil Out" campaign. This, of course, was cloaked in the resectable flag of the infant conservation movement and abetted by the traitors who saw America's energy superiority as a threat to the Communist revolution they so dearly hoped would overtake the west. The current Global Warming ploy was to have the same effect of hurting domestic oil producers (and therefore consumers) to the point that 1) when in power Republicans would find it hard to openly accept "oil money" and 2) when Dems are in power they would be the happy recieptiants of oil company 'protection money' to keep the most Draconian of possible laws at bay!
In short...FOLLOW THE MONEY!
11 posted on 02/03/2002 9:32:43 AM PST by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
This is very big news.

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?

12 posted on 02/03/2002 9:55:59 AM PST by EternalHope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
FOLLOW THE MONEY!

This is truly deep. No wonder no one has come up with a way to fix it.

13 posted on 02/03/2002 9:58:32 AM PST by Lady Jag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
SUPER ROFLOL BUMP!

Greenie's I feel your pain....boo hoo..

14 posted on 02/03/2002 10:31:38 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
GASP!! What will poor Al Gore do now? Just sit around and watch his beard grow?
15 posted on 02/03/2002 10:35:41 AM PST by Allegra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Back in the 1940's and early 50's the great astronomers thought they had a good understanding of our solar system. According to predictions based on it's albedo (the percentage of light reflected) and distance from the sun, Venus should have had a surface temperature a few degrees warmer than Earth. Venus is closer to the sun, and therefore it receives more energy per square meter than the earth, but it reflects 70% of the sun's light due to the cloud cover.

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:

Venus temperature

Velikovsky died in 1979, and although his books once made the best seller lists, they are no longer in print.

16 posted on 02/03/2002 11:26:28 AM PST by e_engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeEveryman
6 - "Think about how NASA always...ALWAYS...timed their Shuttle missions to coincide with Congressional appropriations issues...and how they always...ALWAYS...found furthering evidence of global warming, or Ozone depletion...or some such nonsense, to grandize their necessity for more funds to study the matter..."

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.

17 posted on 02/03/2002 11:39:35 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
So, in his last paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Mr. Hansen and Makiko Sato wrote,....


For those posters/lurkers who were smart enough to not get a degree in the physical sciences...
"Proceedings" (also known under the acronym of PNAS) is just about as good as
it gets in terms of peer-reviewed journals of science.
I've helped review/edit a number of papers for review/publication by PNAS and
the standards are STRINGENT.

(Yep, some junk does get by the reviewers now and then...but it's a low percentage deal.)
18 posted on 02/03/2002 12:02:35 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: JoeEveryman
Bump
20 posted on 02/03/2002 12:21:51 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson