Given the high profile story today about the 49 NASA astronauts, engineers, and scientists who wrote a scathing letter to NASA director Charles Bolden, Jr. saying Jim Hansen and NASA GISS are exemplifying the “wrong stuff”, I thought I’d share this poster contributed by WUWT reader NickFromNYC:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Actually there is a climate scientist. Most geologists have a good understanding of these issues. Geologists have a good idea of thermodynamics, techniques for extracting data from auxillary minerals, and at the very least, all can read and understand graphs relating to fluctiations in the earths past. The sedimentary record in particular is loaded with catastrophic episodes. Floods or earthquakes deposit sands in quiescent areas, the bedload in rivers usually represents maximum flooding events for example. Most geology programs now have some sort of courses directly related to these topics as well. Understanding the fossil record necessitates a general understanding of fluctating ecological niches with various factors through time.
about time they are slowly coming around to the global warming FRAUD
Kasuha says:
April 10, 2012 at 10:16 pm
I think this further proves that global warming “cause” (or opposition to it) is matter of faith….
I think the main argument for “skepticism” is that people are starting to see effects of global warming on their wallets….
_____________________________________
The main argument of most long time skeptics is that Climate Scientology plays fast and loose with the scientific method. Climate Scientology has more in common with L. Ron hubbard’s Scientology than with real science.
As one Science Fiction writer at a Boston S.F. convention in 1972 noted, “I knew L. Ron when he was just a small time crook” ~ L. Sprague de Camp, when approached by a Scientology Missionary on the streets outside of Boskone-9
The same could certainly be said of Climate Scientology.
Religion is a real moneymaker as any cult leader will tell you. Climate Scientology is a cult that has caught the fancy of politicians who see it as a really big money maker and a method for getting the Sheeple to accept the implementation of Agenda 21.
Unlike real science you can not separate Climate Scientology from the goals of the “CAUSE”
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
Here we have these 5 American heroes, who put more than thier career or reputation on the line, but their LIVES on the line – placing their lives in the sound and rigourous designs, engineering, and scientific methods to execute their missions; something they would not do blindly, but with proper vetting and critical examination. Their proven ability to judge the scientific merits of any hypothesis is way beyond reproach, espcially when compared to the likes of Hansen, Mann, Gore and Gleick.
As seems the norm for the BBC science team, they slipped in another Hansen article mid-page with no discussion or challenge. It appears Hansen is pushing nuclear, that won’t please some of his acolytes!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17669368
Unfortunately, Sally Ride is not among these heroes. I attended one of her lectures back in 2009/2010 (can’t quite remember which) and she spouted off all kinds of CAGW/CACC non-sense and even included the infamous 98 Mann “Hockey Stick” graph as proof! She also showed a picture taken from the shuttle that showed the atmosphere from the edge and wailed about how thin and fragile it must be. (From the picture alone, it seemed to be microns thin.)
There were microphones in the aisle for questions at the end, but they were loaded up with school children asking all of the wrong questions, except for one: Doesn’t the space shuttle contribute to “green house” gases? Of course, she had a ready response on hand: they produce their own hydrogen without creating “carbon” (not sure how that works) and NASA buys carbon offsets so the space shuttle is supposedly completely “carbon free”. Of course, now they only emit naphthalene.
What a disgrace.
The editor of the Sunday Seattle Times told me years ago that the proper name for the “slash” was *virgule*.
My contribution to continuing education!
I love this site!
The discourse over “ to / or not to / THAT is the question” is so deliciously ahhh….
…..Nerdey?
…..Engineerish?
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Dead wrong. It’s ‘Back Slash’ of ‘Forward Slash’. The difference being fatal to computers!!! Right???
As a former shift leader in the HQ of one of the worlds largest computer services company, i can say you are all dead wrong. It’s ‘Back Slash’ or ‘Forward Slash’. The difference if you get it wrong being fatal to computer programs.
Reblogged this on Cmblake6's Weblog and commented:
I found this over at 1IDVET’s place, and it is good. Oh, damn is it good!
“Climate science” is currently a pejorative term to true empirical scientists. It is just about as ‘scientific’ as ‘Christian Science,’ ‘Creation Science,’ or ‘Political Science.’
In fact it shares much in common with these.
REAL OSes use /.
There. That’ll keep y’all busy until some of those
climatologistsclimate modelers come by to troll, again.Hugo Van Dofrenzeim says:
April 11, 2012 at 5:35 am
Exactly, Hugo.
And that’s why Mann had to resort to trees to get his share of the CAGW grant gravy train. Oops.
(As a geologist, I can speak for many thousands of other geologists–we don’t claim Mann. He fell off the science wagon years ago and pursued filthy lucre instead. Shame on him; shame!)
Drudge has linked to the Washington Examiner piece.
Reblogged this on BenfromMO.
I had to reblog this myself. This one along with the picture, kudos to nickfromNYC, just makes this worth the time. Thanks to Anthony and everyone at WUWT for all their hard work and time, because its times like these which makes me think that the truth in science will someday come out.
is any of the signatories someone who currently works at NASA?…..I do not believe so. No change at the source of the bad science.
Luther Wu says:
“I have long since abandoned Google.
Need I say why?”
Sure. Feel free. You could also explain why you think a symbol for a guitarist indicates sarcasm.
Taphonomic says:
April 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
“…”
_____________
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..”
–Wm. Shakespeare- Hamlet: Act1, Scene 5
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Many pilots (Airbus and Boeing) are in agreement with NASA astronauts. NASA astronauts are the elites of course. They have expressed their own opinion. Yes this was good news. But no scientific evidence. Scientific reasons must be sought elsewhere. This open letter from the astronauts, is like writing a petition.
“This open letter from the astronauts, is like writing a petition.”
Or like getting a Shakun paper past pal review.☺
[Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]
Made me laugh.
Luther: Seen enough of your comments to know it was sarc.
Slartibartfast: Don’t get me started. Worked multiple OS & remembering which one I was on was a real pain!
DaveE.
Next stop, the AMS,
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
I hope that the October 2012 “policy” statement is less unbridled advocacy and more objective science. The AMS policy statement on climate change has always bugged me.
-Frank
Luther Wu says:
April 10, 2012 at 9:36 pm
……..
Apologies to all for being obtuse.
[Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]
Robt
it is even better if you know that we used to call — / — an OBLIQUE stoke (in the days before PCs; / was oblique stroke and \ was backslash …but obtuse stroke is so much more descriptive ….)