Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not whether or not it came from a study (but you did not ask for that) but the fact that in today's world, the news is everything, as it was back then....did you read any of the articles? Did you follow other possible links to global cooling, those study's? Of course you did not....
You did not ask for a study, you asked for reputable links....however, one of your global warning buddies says al gore is a great guy and knows what he is talking about because he is just spreading the word of what scientist are telling him. So, what do you expect from a reporter?
You get your science from the news media? Well that sure explains a lot.
You get your science from the news media? Well that sure explains a lot.
So, what you and your buddy are saying is that we should not listen to the current media and everything they say is bull crap? I'll agree with that, but you cannot do that, and that is why NEITHER of you can comment on the link I provided.
So, what you and your buddy are saying is that we should not listen to the current media and everything they say is bull crap? I'll agree with that, but you cannot do that, and that is why NEITHER of you can comment on the link I provided.
Here is my comment....
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community....A much larger body of literature predicted future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.......Of all the scientific papers considering climate trends over the 20th century, less than 10% indicated future cooling.
It's not whether or not it came from a study (but you did not ask for that) but the fact that in today's world, the news is everything, as it was back then....did you read any of the articles? Did you follow other possible links to global cooling, those study's? Of course you did not....
You did not ask for a study, you asked for reputable links....however, one of your global warning buddies says al gore is a great guy and knows what he is talking about because he is just spreading the word of what scientist are telling him. So, what do you expect from a reporter?
I recall many articles on Big Foot and UFO's, I recall Jeanne Dixon predicting California would fall into the ocean, that doesn't mean it was the focus of scientists.
So show me a study that was accepted by the scientific community.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community....A much larger body of literature predicted future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.......Of all the scientific papers considering climate trends over the 20th century, less than 10% indicated future cooling.
So, those scientist back then just did not know enough, they just had a conjecture, nothing to back up their claim but they pushed their conjecture.....
.....they used what they had and look at what they provided....
This last quote above just shows that lefties don't care about how or what you think. If you go against them, you are wrong, (thanks for proving my point, BTW), and tell you that you are wrong...
I recall many articles on Big Foot and UFO's, I recall Jeanne Dixon predicting California would fall into the ocean, that doesn't mean it was the focus of scientists.
So show me a study that was accepted by the scientific community.
I don't recall me or you spending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on any of those, can you prove me wrong? Of course, you may find some obscure...blah blah blah.....but continue....
Lefties continue to change to goal post....
Show me a study that is accepted by the ENTIRE scientific community and NOT the 97% of global warming scientist. You cannot.
Well... the FACT that the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration's primary purpose is "up" and not "down" should point to an anachronism in your logic.
You missed the point. NASA has become the major govt agency to study climate change due to the satellites it's launched. USGS and NOAA have been given a smaller role despite probably being the agencies you'd want or combine in order to study climate with NASA being the agency to put satellites into orbit.
Quote:
And did I say they weren't credible? Point out to me where I said they "weren't credible".
I said that they've lost credibility - a big difference to those who understand the English language.
Here's what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71
I'm sorry, but as a scientific agency, NASA has lost a ton of credibility. I'm beginning to wonder who actually did win the space race - NASA, or Russia (the replacement country of the bankrupt & now defunct Soviet Union) to which we have to beg/catch a ride up to the ISS?
You can go ahead and quantify or elaborate what that means. It doesn't seem you trust them too much when you claim they lost a "ton" of credibility. You could have used a different word, but you choose a "ton".
Quote:
And NASA is a government institution, one in which depends on the whims of the US government for funding, if it wants to keep functional. I thought you would be smart enough to know this.
Ok? What does that mean?
Quote:
And when did I ever state that I disagreed with their findings? Did I ever state in any of my posts that they were wrong?
Pick any of my posts and prove to me I said NASA was wrong. I dare you.
You said they lost a ton of credibility, it doesn't seem you trust them too much.
Quote:
I merely pointed out that NASA, as a government agency, and therefore dependent on the government dole, is no longer the agency that it once was. At one time, the appointment of the NASA chief went to one that understood the science behind the primary goal of NASA's purpose. Starting in the mid 1970's, it became a political appointment to those in current favor of the commander-in-chief. The "science" took a back seat to other goals with differing agendas and priorities. Anyone with some knowledge of the time would understand this.
I don't think science took a back seat, we just haven't had a "space race" since the Soviets and don't seem to concerned with beating the Chinese back to space.
We have had an explosion of new information in the last decade in regards to Mars, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and Pluto. Voyager 1 left our solar system in 2013 and has been sending back information. I'm at a loss to what you mean.
Quote:
Nowadays, NASA is still a government organization, but a mere shadow - scientifically speaking - of what it was in the 50's and 60's. The mere fact that we haven't been anywhere near the moon in almost half a centuryis evidence of this.
We didn't go to the moon for "science" in the sense of knowledge but of fear of being left behind our enemy.
Quote:
NASA is no longer the agency you once thought it was... I'm sorry, but you need to accept this. It's more about politics than science nowadays and most people in the know acknowledge this.
It really doesn't seem you have kept up with NASA.
So, those scientist back then just did not know enough, they just had a conjecture, nothing to back up their claim but they pushed their conjecture.....
.....they used what they had and look at what they provided....
This last quote above just shows that lefties don't care about how or what you think. If you go against them, you are wrong, (thanks for proving my point, BTW), and tell you that you are wrong...
Anyway, blah blah blah......
Blah blah blah.
We simply didn't have the tools like we do today to study the climate. Would you rather go with the evidence based on better techniques or not?
Since the late 1800s, tide gauges throughout the world have shown that global sea level has risen by about 8 inches. A new data set (Figure 2.25) shows that this recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years. Since 1992, the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century, providing evidence of additional acceleration.
Again, CO2 is not the only cause of warming. You're not willing to consider the possibility that CO2-related warming could piggyback a brief period of natural warming?
Piggybacking is a possibility, but since the current trend began at the time of the US Civil War, and since the global climate over the past 2000 years has been impacted by the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age making the norm unknowable, the contribution attributable to CO2 elevation, if any, would also be unknowable.
That the current trend of 3.41mm/year global sea rise, what the alarmists are all nervous about, is low-average based on the past 19,000 years of recovery from glaciation, I fail to see the problem or, aside from a new Little Ice Age, a solution to what is claimed to be a problem.
Man made?
Give any thought about Earths inner core heating things up?
Or maybe Archimedes' Principle in the unseen deep recess of our oceans causing the rise of sea water?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
