Science vs Politicians

[highfigh]

This is really not very compelling! If you asked me if there are likely to be 50 NASA scientists & Astronauts who were willing to be on record as denying climate change, I would not consider that a stretch. NASA currently employs 17,365 people so if we only use that number and lets generously allocate 9 secretaries, janitors, etc. per scientist/astronaut so we'll say 1,736 of them are scientists/astronauts, the 49 nay-sayers represents 2.8% of NASA scientists. Note that none of the Scientist appear to have a background in Climate Science (albeit, one is a metrologist).

What would impress me:
1) If 3 to 5 scientists directly involved in the research came forward to claim it used false or specious data/methodology.
2) Now that Trump is in office, NASA caters to him (as is the premise of your earlier post) and revises their conclusions to indicate that Climate Change is a hoax.
3) This letter had included technical information, specifically pointing out instances of flawed/biased methodology. The research is publicly available, and since these guys are holding up the NASA Scientist/Astronaut credentials, show us some rigor! As soon as they get specific, their concerns can be affirmed (or exposed as bogus).

If you're going to point out that the people at NASA who deny climate change is due to CO2 aren't climatologists, I'm going to point out that Bill Nye isn't one, either. His education is in Mechanical Engineering and he worked for Boeing for several years but quit so he could concentrate on his comedy career, according to Wiki.

This doesn't mean he couldn't have done a lot of independent study on the subject or that he's not a very intelligent person, but I'm not sure he's as much of an expert as he wants people to think he is.

That said, I think it's stupid for anyone to create a huge stream of pollution wherever they go. The Grand Canyon has signs all over with "Take only pictures, leave only footprints".

 

[highfigh]

I am likewise convinced of the spherical shape of the Earth. While I have not seen the Earth from the heavens, there is much evidence to suggest of its spheriodal shape. For instance, there has been no reports of a planetary 'edge' or 'angle' that would indicate a non-globular shape. Also, we have sent men into outer space and they have claimed to see the Earth as "ball-shaped" (in their words) and have also taken photographs which depict the Earth as a sphere. There are those who say that the Earth is a flat plane, but here is the thing- if the sun is a sphere, and the moon is a sphere, then why too would the Earth also not be spherical? They would say that if the Earth is a sphere, why do we not see the roundness all about us? This is a short-sighted proclamation, for if the Earth was a very large sphere, which is exactly what one would expect given its mass and gravitational pull, than the overall curvature would be so slight as to defy notice from a simple glance. Prey tell me this you nay-sayers: if the Earth is indeed flat, than where do the ships go that vanish over the seas' horizon!? Huzzah!

They don't fly off of this side, why would they not just go over the edge and sail on the other?

 

[Pogre]

They don't fly off of this side, why would they not just go over the edge and sail on the other?

Because gravity doesn't work like that. if the earth were flat, gravity would get weaker and weaker as you got toward the edge. You would begin to feel like you were walking uphill more and more as you get closer.

 

[KEW]

While a signifiant contributor is just gross mismanagement on a broad scale, there was also less rain. A lot less. Global warming or climate change due to CO2 emissions was floated. However scientists found that as the Amazon was deforested, the vapor that used to be above the trees was diminished to the point it affected rainfall elsewhere. In fact in their opinion the effects of this deforestation had effects on the climate as far as Texas.

To build a bit on the above, some may recall in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, he was taken to task for erroneously attributing droughts in a section of Africa where there was a mountain to rising CO2 levels. As it turned out the reasons had to do with the cutting down of trees.

Perfect examples of how science is used to prove or disprove theories! In both of these instances a situation was (incorrectly) attributed to rising CO2 emissions. Scientific evaluation revealed that CO2 was not the cause. So, doesn't this run counter to the argument that scientists have an agenda to blame Climate Change on human activity?

The point in this is that changes in the climate that are occurring cannot solely be attributed to CO2 but to what we as people do to reshape our environment.

Do you have some reason to believe that science is saying that CO2 emissions are the sole source of climate change? That is generally not how science works (in my limited understanding/experience). You can evaluate the correlation between a cause and effect to establish how well-linked they are, but that absolutely does not eliminate the possibility of other contributors.

In fact one rarely hears that scientists have also measured that the temperature of Mars has risen so it's reasonable to state the earth's rise in temperature is due to factors unrelated to human activity.

Absolutely not! It is reasonable to state that the Earth's rise in temperature may be partially due to factors unrelated to human activity.
The establishment of a likely influence on climate change would never be considered reason to eliminate the possibility of other contributors!

 

[KEW]

If you're going to point out that the people at NASA who deny climate change is due to CO2 aren't climatologists, I'm going to point out that Bill Nye isn't one, either. His education is in Mechanical Engineering and he worked for Boeing for several years but quit so he could concentrate on his comedy career, according to Wiki.

This doesn't mean he couldn't have done a lot of independent study on the subject or that he's not a very intelligent person, but I'm not sure he's as much of an expert as he wants people to think he is.

That said, I think it's stupid for anyone to create a huge stream of pollution wherever they go. The Grand Canyon has signs all over with "Take only pictures, leave only footprints".

As I said before, I did not (and, for that matter, would not) link Bill Nye as a source of proof of Global warming. I linked him for an overview of what the Science March was about. When the existence of climate change as a truly global event was challenged, I used NASA'a well developed website as my source of information on how Climate Change was established as a global phenomenon.

 

[KEW]

Your logic is faulty.

There are so many facts associated with the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and especially carbon dioxide (which has effects beyond warming, like making the oceans more acidic), that the arguments against humans having an effect on the environment just sound clueless. Ignore global warming; do you really want the oceans to become more acidic? We might live with a warmer planet, but less productive oceans? That sounds worse.

While I am convinced the evidence shows that humans have changed the atmosphere and the environment (e.g. deforestation) in ways that increase the average global temperature, I would rather live with a warmer planet than go back to the 19th century. Or redistribute wealth in a way that kept Asia and Africa from becoming the carbon emitters they are projected to be. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but exponentially increasing technology tends to solve problems we thought were unsolvable just a few years ago. I remember in high school reading about the worries of another ice age. Now it's warming. Oil was going to run out. Wrong. Metals were going to run out. Wrong. Pollution in the US was out of control and there would be a Silent Spring. Wrong. Cars and trucks guzzled fuel and the auto companies said there was nothing significant they could do about it. Wrong. Now you can buy electric cars that get almost 250 miles on a charge, brake for you, avoid bad lane changes for you, and tell you how to navigate. It only took 40 years for a smart phone to make a 22nd century Star Trek communicator look archaic. IMO, nothing beats exponentiating technology. Of course, if you want to make that bet you need to make a huge side bet on science and technology investments. Too bad so many Americans are afraid of both.

(Extra rant - anti-science types always want scientific pursuits and scientists to be perfect. A few flaws in results or people and the whole of science is discounted. That's like looking at a down day on the S&P500 index and saying the S&P500 is a lousy investment. Looking at the S&P500 20-year trend line, anyone saying that sounds like a damned fool. The processes of scientific discovery and technology advancement are like that.)

I agree that technology has great potential to solve our problems, but it definitely cannot be considered a panacea. As you say, it is a gamble. While the modern phone is far beyond the communicator of Star Trek, we have not been able to crack the nut of Fusion (or Cancer) despite a sustained substantial investment of expertise, time, and money.

Whether or not technology can develop a workable solution to Global Climate Change is anyone's guess at this point.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Kinda like Bill Nye?

Yes, exactly. He is not a climatologist. He relies on them for the info about global warming, I am sure.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, your view simply does not conform to the Koran and a Tunisian doctoral student is looking to refute this in her thesis, https://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/is-the-world-flat-again-how-an-old-debate-was-revived-in-tunisia

Yep, no it doesn't. Good thing.

 

[ski2xblack]

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Whether or not technology can develop a workable solution to Global Climate Change is anyone's guess at this point.

Well, the problem came upon us since the industrial revolution, a long time, and accelerating exponentially. The task is monumental that may not be achievable with our meager efforts.
Pay now or pay later with huge interests.
A warmer or much warmer planet has its own issues.

 

[highfigh]

Because gravity doesn't work like that. if the earth were flat, gravity would get weaker and weaker as you got toward the edge. You would begin to feel like you were walking uphill more and more as you get closer.

If gravity is weaker at the edge, I would think it would feel more like a large, winged creature was lifting me.

 

[highfigh]

Well, the problem came upon us since the industrial revolution, a long time, and accelerating exponentially. The task is monumental that may not be achievable with our meager efforts.
Pay now or pay later with huge interests.
A warmer or much warmer planet has its own issues.

And what roughly coincided with the industrial revolution?

 

[highfigh]

Many gases can cause a greenhouse effect, including CO2, Methane and water vapor but water vapor is the one that's most plentiful. Why they chose CO2 as the one to go after, who knows? Aside from power/politics, it would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall.

 

[Pogre]

If gravity is weaker at the edge, I would think it would feel more like a large, winged creature was lifting me.

Gravity gets stronger as you get closer to the center of the mass (earth). That's why you'd feel it pulling toward the center and the effect is that it feels like you're walking up a hill.

 

[shadyJ]

Many gases can cause a greenhouse effect, including CO2, Methane and water vapor but water vapor is the one that's most plentiful. Why they chose CO2 as the one to go after, who knows? Aside from power/politics, it would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And what roughly coincided with the industrial revolution?

Oh, so hard to imagine what came with the industrial revolution.
Let me see, perhaps CO2 started to be increased from human activity?

Oh, yes, it is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

CO2 exacerbates what water vapor is also doing.

But I have no standing in climate science or any other science so the experts may be wrong.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Many gases can cause a greenhouse effect, including CO2, Methane and water vapor but water vapor is the one that's most plentiful. Why they chose CO2 as the one to go after, who knows? Aside from power/politics, it would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall.

Yes, methane is one. But, at least in the US, it was only 10% emission in 2015, CO2 82%.

Who knows about CO2? Really? Yes, water vapor is plentiful, CO2 causes a major feedback loop:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Unfortunately there will never be any consequence to anyone who opposes and delays action. Will the grandkids and their grandkids even know that their relative in the past had their head in the sand?

 

[highfigh]

'Plucky'- what a great word.

"Just a bunch of plucky rich kids with a dream".

 

[highfigh]

Gravity gets stronger as you get closer to the center of the mass (earth). That's why you'd feel it pulling toward the center and the effect is that it feels like you're walking up a hill.

We're not seriously discussing the Earth being flat, are we?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Gravity gets stronger as you get closer to the center of the mass (earth). That's why you'd feel it pulling toward the center and the effect is that it feels like you're walking up a hill.

Yep, at least that 2nd movie Total Recall had it.