NASA Officially Smacks Down Climate Change Deniers

Submitted by: ArgusTuft 1 year ago in Science
iceberg-climate-change-au

Will this finally shut the climate change deniers up?

In a recent heated exchange, NASA took to its official Facebook page to clear things up once and for all.

“Do not misrepresent NASA. Fossil fuels are not cooling the planet.”

The complete exchange, with the NASA burn can be read here.

There are 49 comments:
Male 1,207
I don't know anymore...I really believed NASA on their numbers but then this 50 yr old guy who loves cats told me about how they're full of crap. He showed me graphs put together by conservative think tank guys that studied in pol. sci. and were funded by big oil companies so...
0
Reply
Male 1,207
5Cats: Obviously you know something about climate change that NASA doesn't. Maybe you should let them in on it. Obviously climate depot (A blog directed by Marc Morano, who's credentials are a B.A. of political Science at George Mason U.) is waaaay more trustworthy in their data than NASA can ever be. Plus, he's a communications director at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C. that recieves funding from...surprise surprise ExxonMobil and Chevron... Now, I know you'll say something along the lines of "Shut up you stupid liberal, just because his political opinions don't match yours doesn't make him wrong" All I'm saying is I wouldn't go to Marc Morano for climate climate facts just like I wouldn't go to my mechanic for a colonoscopy...
0
Reply
Male 8,124
This was very well done. It will fly over his head like 3rd geometry, but nicely done.
0
Reply
Male 37,697
I'd link the relevant NASA page doiknowyou, but I'm sure you could find it if you cared. I know I've linked it a couple of times before, since no True Believe seems to understand that the data does NOT match AGW theory. >>> NASA's report clearly shows NO upper atmosphere warming, which is the most important place global warming could occur. The NOAA does NOT use this data in it's temperature calculations AT ALL since it would seriously lower their "adjusted" readings. They only use highly flawed 'ground stations' and their own special way of altering even those hot readings upwards. The weather satellite data is the most accurate in all history, and actually measures ALL of the globe, rather than guessing. But if it doesn't match the theory? Out it goes! That's how science works, right? :-| Oh, the oceans aren't warming much either: +0.23C per century. And they're not flooding the Earth anytime soon: NOAA's Own Data Says 9 Inches Per Century And the century before AGW existed? It rose 6 inches... ALL naturally!
0
Reply
Male 37,697
Oh, during this "pause" of 18 years? The temperature is rising, naturally, just very slowly: about +0.2C in that time which is exactly what Skeptics say is purely natural warming we've seen for the past 300+ years. About 1.1C per century. Nowhere near +4.4C which AGW predicts. Same for "rising oceans" as linked above: 9 inches per century will not "flood Florida" anytime soon... 1000 years from now, maybe? Lolz!! Don't hold your breath eh? Nowhere near 6-12 FEET per century the AGW Alarmists scream about... like Bill Nye, the "Science is settled" guy!
0
Reply
Male 6,625
@5cats Bill Nye isn't an "Alarmist". Unless you are using words that have different meanings than how you are intending to use them.
0
Reply
Male 3,393
Yawn.
0
Reply
Male 37,697
And what about the ending part there: " “There is far too much focus on surface temperatures” and are just one measure of warming." It says. Since the NOAA uses ONLY surface temperatures, and not the NASA upper atmosphere readings? The most accurate way of measuring global temperature ever. Who's getting smacked down about what here? NASA Data Says No Warming Up There For 18 Years Tons of charts! All with citations (but not many links) I thought I had the link to the full NASA report, it's on their own NASA website, go find it for yourself if you don't believe it.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
You do understand that to build a consistent data set, readings need to be taken at the same time and location each day, which is impossible for satellites to do thanks to orbit decay? The raw data needs to be adjusted, and the methodology used by "scientists" like Roy Spencer and John Christy has been criticized. It took a team of scientists about 10 years to figure out where Spencer and Christy made their "mistakes".
0
Reply
Male 2,399
You're still shopping for "science" at the Climate Depot?
0
Reply
Male 37,697
So some dudes are mega-trolling some NASA place (it wasn't me! I... I have an alibi!) and they say stupid stuff almost no one believes... and refuting them silences skeptics across the spectrum? Or only 97% of them? :-) I mean really...
0
Reply
Male 7,740
And the IRS is a completely honest and non-political organization that definitely would not target your non-profit group if its name included the words 'Tea Party' or 'Patriots'...
0
Reply
Male 315
You are citing one scenario involving a different agency to discredit every stance everyone every agency in any way associated with the American government takes? Arguing by anecdote is silly and foolish.
0
Reply
Male 7,740
I'm not arguing for or against the subject of Global Warming at all. I AM pointing out that pretty much every government organization that can be cited in 3 or 4 letters have pretty much lost any shred of credibility they may have once enjoyed. The CIA is corrupt, the TSA is inept, the IRS targets political opponents of the administration, the DOJ refuses to enforce the law equally, or fails to prosecute certain people while targeting others, and NASA lost any semblance of integrity when their main mission became, not space exploration, but "to improve relations with the Muslim world".
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Feel however you want about American agencies. The rest of the planet can question why it seems to be mostly Republicans in climate denial.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Although, other polls place the US at the top.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Fair enough: Australia - 17%, Norway - 15%, NZ - 13%, and US - 12%
0
Reply
Male 4,071
Before April 2015 it was the Australian Freedom and Prosperity Party.
0
Reply
Male 4,071
The Liberal Party of Australia holds the most politically elected climate skeptics and Australia holds the most skeptics per capita followed by Norway in 2nd, New Zealand in 3rd, and finally America in 4th.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
No, the rest of the planet can still question why it seems to be mostly Republicans in climate denial. Which other political parties have taken that stance?
0
Reply
Male 7,740
Might be because many liberals tend to think of government as their mommy. Whatever can be used to draw in more redistribution of wealth by the government is to be pursued. And you seem to be under the delusion that questioning AGW is an American-only past time. You would be mistaken in that.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
I don't want to fuck up your argument or anything, but not only did the FBI conclude there hadn't been any targeting, some of the other keywords that flagged for scrutiny included "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," and " "medical marijuana".
0
Reply
Male 7,740
Actually, that's not what the FBI (at the direction of the DOJ) found. They 'found' no criminal intent.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
"Officials told the Wall Street Journal that thus far, investigators have found no evidence of the type of “enemy hunting” that would warrant federal criminal charges being filed." Sorry "hunting" not "targeting". http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/officials-say-no-evidence-criminal-charges-warranted-so-far-in-irs-targeting.html
0
Reply
Male 4,071
"Will this finally shut the climate change deniers up?" You mean like Christopher Scolese, NASA's director of the Goddard Space Flight Center? Or John M. Grunsfeld former chief NASA Scientist and present Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate? Or Roy Spencer former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center? No, more like just the two idiots who they were replying to.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
A bureaucrat, the "Hubble repairman"(Have either published anything on climate change?), along with the guy who said 'joggers account for about 10% of global warming'? No, personally, I think the first two are merely a little skeptical.
0
Reply
Male 4,071
I was just showing a few major figures in NASA who didn't agree, I could have spouted off more names but I didn't think I would need to in order to prove my point. But if you want NASA scientist with peer-reviewed articles who don't agree with climate alarmism and are not Roy Spencer how about Richard Lindzen, Pål Brekke, Fred Singer, Robert Jastrow, or Les Woodcock? I also find it highly disingenuous that you quoted a satirical tounge-and-cheek article by Spencer when he was mocking a bill in congress, or did you really think he suddenly became a global warming alarmist for one day and was pushing a pro-AGW law called the "Spencer-Spencer bill". What I find really jarring is that you didn't have a problem with the other things in the fictional bill like all roads and buildings painted white, a $10 gas tax, reducing the national electricity consumption by 90% in 10 days, a national speed limit of no more than 35 mph, and only "policymakers, scientists, and policymaking scientists" would be allowed to fly in planes.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
I'm truly sorry if you hadn't heard, but Robert Jastrow passed away.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Cool, thanks for coming back! Ya, it is a good point. While I'm not sure off hand where there was volcanic activity, certainly man made aerosols would have been more pronounced in the N.H. I'll have to look into it. Thanks again!
0
Reply
Male 4,071
Sorry posted at the same time. But yes he did, at that time Aerosols were produced and released mainly in the Northern Hemisphere the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the Southern Hemisphere should be more pronounced. Yet the two hemispheres display the same pattern of temperature change. He finds that because the cooling is a feature of the temperature records of both hemispheres indicates that the absence of the predicted global warming cannot be due to aerosols.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
And thank you!
0
Reply
Male 4,071
Yes, I too know the troubles of trying to relate sarcasm over text all too well. As far as funding, it's cool, as long as you at least hear out the premise it isn't wrong to notice discrepancies. Thanks @jay for a great and civil conversation, they are too rare on the internet and I find it to be a real mark of character. I look forward to our next one. Kudos
0
Reply
Male 2,399
"As far as Dr. Jastrow goes.." -> Interesting theory, did he account for the rise in aerosols at the time?
0
Reply
Male 2,399
I agree I could have denoted sarcasm as I paraphrased a silly quote I read somewhere. When questioned, I expressed criticism of Spencer due to his professional conduct, as well as his work. I stand by my decision to mention funding. If a doctor was telling everyone how healthy cheeseburgers are, and it was discovered he was being paid by McDonalds, I expect that would be brought up too. Yes, you are correct about the distinction between Climatologists and Climate Scientists. My mistake.
0
Reply
Male 4,071
Firstly, let's get this out of the way. The reason I said you were being disingenuous was because you were attempting to use an obvious satire piece as the legitimate views Spencers. You were giving the impression that Spencer was advancing an obviously absurd position, when in reality that position was never really advanced by Spencer. Trying to be quick and you not liking him, are not justifications on why you forwarded a false position of his. Had you said "I was trying to be quick and I made a mistake," then it was unintentional and I would have totally understood. But you never said it was unintentional, instead you said you didn't like him, which came across to me as justification rather explanation. To say I don't like him, I don't like his funding, and he has been criticized is not grounds for dismissing premises given by that author. That is known as the "Appeal to motive" fallacy, hence why I said it was "flawed logic" and "I base all of my disagreements with him on his work, not his funding." That's why I wrote what I wrote, I wasn't trying to be cantankerous. Look, I've made mistakes before too, you even found one as far as who Singer was replying to, another would have been calling Freeman Dyson a "her", he is a "him." As can be shown by the time it was late for both of us. But before I get to that little debate, I'd like to discuss who is a climate scientist, since this issue was brought into question formerly. They are all indeed climate scientists, I believe you meant "climatologists" am I correct? An atmospheric physicist with focuses in middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry is definitely qualified to talk about the nature of atmospheric gasses and how much heat they can hold and why. Climate scientists are notable persons who have contributed to the study of climate science, a climatologist is a specific type of scientist with their focus being the study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Physicists are often cited as climate scientists by both sides of the climate debate and those I have mentioned are widely considered climate scientists by both circles. Now back to Singer, again you were correct as to whom he was referring to. Stringer was asserting that the oxygen Sietz was talking about in the quote is something known as "reactive oxygen" which is chemically reactive molecules containing oxygen like peroxides, superoxide, hydroxyl radical, and singlet oxygen, not "radioactive oxygen." The sentence in parenthesizes is a comment added by Oreskes/Conway. The little "99" reference is to a paper by Michel Ter-Pogossian that discusses the use of O-15 as a tracer in respiration studies. Michel Ter-Pogossian is the father of the PET scan, which is is one of the most promising techniques for cancer detection. O-15 is what PET scans use as a tracer to find cancer, not make cancer. Oreskes/Conway had mistakenly believed Sietz was talking about the O-15 as causing cancer, which if they knew what O-15 was, that it was a tracer of cancer with a lifespan of only 122 seconds, and not a carcinogen in the cigarettes, or anything about the work they were commenting on, it would have been obvious. As far as Dr. Jastrow goes other than being the founding director of Nasa and founder the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he created GISS formula which allows Nasa to switch objectives and maintain high research productivity. His work at Princeton led to discovery of the Jastrow Potential. But as far as climate goes he pointed out that although it is very possible that humans are responsible for some warming, but that because of cooling phases like those during his time between the 1940's and the 1970's that humans could not be considered the main climate forcer, otherwise the climate would have continued to warm in conjunction with societies co2 output. He reasoned that brightness of the sun along with change in the circulation of the oceans might be what is more responsible.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
The excerpt was cut off, let's try that again: "Seitz saw irrationality everywhere, from the attack on tobacco to the "attempt to lay much of the blame for cancer upon industrialization." After all, the natural environment was hardly carcinogen-free (Seitz) noted, and even "the oxygen in the air we breathe ... plays a role in radiation-induced cancer". (Oxygen, like most elements, has a radioactive version -- oxygen 15 -- although it is not naturally occurring.)" --> Ironically, it was Singer's buddy Seitz that was talking about isotopes, and the critics that pointed out it doesn't occur naturally.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
"..fortunately dying doesn't refute one's claims." -> What claims did he make, besides expressing doubt?
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Are you sure that was in the EPA report? Seems like it was an attempt by Singer to respond to critics: "Oreskes’ and Conway’s science is as poor as their historical expertise. To cite just one example, their book blames lung cancer from cigarette smoking on the radioactive oxygen-15 isotope. They cannot explain, of course, how O-15 gets into cigarettes, or how it is created. They seem to be unaware that its half-life is only 122 seconds. In other words, they have no clue about the science, and apparently, they assume that the burning of tobacco creates isotopes — a remarkable discovery worthy of alchemists." --> Yet, the actual excerpt he is responding to paints a different picture: "After all, the natural environment was hardly carcinogen-free [Seitz] noted, and even “the oxygen in the air we breathe … plays a role in radiation-induced cancer”.98 (Oxygen, like most elements, has a radioactive version — oxygen 15 — although it is not naturally occurring.)99" (from ScienceBlogs.com)
0
Reply
Male 2,399
And calling someone disingenuous while citing individuals, several that aren't climate scientists, with sometimes questionable funding is flawed logic. "His work is often criticized." Ya, I suppose I could have gone into more detail, besides describing posts that can be found on IAB, and what I mentioned below of his work with Christy.
0
Reply
Male 4,071
You may not like Roy Spencer but attempting to mischaracterize him because you feel he mischaracterized the studies you like is flawed logic in and of itself. I like-wise don't like that James Hansen collects millions of dollars in speaking fees, honorariums, participation fees and media consulting services. But you'll find I base all of my disagreements with him on his work, not his funding. I personally think a background in chemical thermodynamics is actually quite apt for determining the effects of gases in the atmosphere especially ones like CO2. I'm glad you like Brekke, you might like juddith Curry too. She actually believes in AGW but is frequently labeled a skeptic because she has warned against what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community and because she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of skeptics views. I also saw your conversation with @Grendel, Freeman Dyson is a liberal, democrat, obama-supporting climate skeptic, you may be interested in her. Fred Singer is actually sitting on an advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, but you're right he still calls the 1993 EPA report on 2nd hand smoking "junk science." Mainly for things like linking lung cancer from 2nd hand cigarette smoking to things like the radioactive oxygen-15 isotope. But perhaps you are able to answer how an isotope with a half-life of 122.24 seconds lasts days, weeks, months, etc. in a pack of cigarettes and are created without the aid of any type of Particle accelerator. But yes I had heard Robert Jastrow had passed, fortunately dying doesn't refute one's claims.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Fred Singer? Is he still denying the health risks of passive smoking? (I don't think highly of him either ;)
0
Reply
Male 2,399
I apologized if I misled, I was trying to be brief. I don't think highly of him. His work is often criticized. He also appeared in a vid posted here last year ("Greener on the Other Side") that misrepresented a study, after leading with a strawman about asphyxiation from rising CO2 levels. He once raised an alarm on his blog about adjustments to data, only to make a retraction a few days late to avoid blogs from picking up the story and wind up here. Add to that his ties to groups that receive funding from fossil fuel (George C. Marshall Institute ; his books were published by "Encounter Books" which is a project of "Encounter for Culture and Education", which receives funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation).
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Lindzen's another controversial one. Brekke, while not specifically a climate scientist, does have some interesting ideas. I'll look more into his work. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 2,399
Has Les Woodcock ever published anything on climate change? He's a professor of chemical thermodynamics.
0
Reply
Male 1,185
Yeah, brought to you by the same people who faked the moon landings!
0
Reply
Male 6,625
Just another part of the LIBERAL AGENDA! Or something.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
Science has a well-known liberal bias. The scientists of the world are in on a giant conspiracy on behalf of solar city and tesla. Elon Musk is a lizard man in charge of the illuminati. The only people keeping the truth alive are oil lobbyists, obscure bloggers, right wing pundits, and idiots on the internet.
0
Reply
Male 1,786
i thought elon musk was a masonic crab person trying to get back to mars where his home is.
0
Reply