Nasa says no global warming

You must have missed the part about how we have done the same thing but in about 1/10 to 1/100 the amount of time. The IPCC is predicting the same 3~4°C temp rise that occurred in the late permian to occur again over the next 100 years. Something else worth noting is that nearly every IPCC prediction is conservative. So as has been discussed the 3~4°C rise in temps will most likely come sooner than later. IE say in the next 50 years or so.

so no its not good that we have burned all that fossil fuel as fast as we did. Basically its exactly what the problem is. To much CO2 being added to the atmosphere ( at least 10 times faster than ever before ) its what caused the permian extinction and its what's causing this one.

you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

 

So you believe in the permian extinction, and seem to comprehend that the cause was climate change driven by CO2, which triggered a feedback ( methane hydrate ) and ended up killing off just about everything. But your going to insist that todays abrupt rise in CO2 ( at a rate at least 10 times faster than ever before, including in the permian triassic extinction ) is somehow a good thing? Yikes, might want to take the eye patch off and put on some reading glasses.

love
B

 

IPCC is full of 5h1t.

 

Wind farms kill 80 golden eagles per year in northern California alone, yet get no fines or sanctions from the Federal government. Unequal treatment? I dare say yes. Raptors need protection as much as seagulls and pelicans.

http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=3717

 

http://carbon-sense.com/2010/04/15/carbon-dioxide-time-lapse/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

 

The IPCC has been extremely accurate in there predictions when there past predictions are measured against current average data. Not much arguing it unless you want to engage in another loosing position.

simple reality is the information is only collated by the IPCC. Its developed independently by researchers using mostly blind grants or educational funds. So saying the IPCC is full of it is basically denying the entire scientific community. Since just about every scientific discipline is involved in climate science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/

so lets leave the IPCC out of it and just go with the scientists who estimated the CO2 levels of the late permian as compared with the mid permian and the scientists who have measured our own CO2 increases today :idea:

Maybe then you will be able to see past your difficulties with the IPCC and engage the actual science. IE, take off those blinders

 

wayull shuks. Ah jist think you-all is rong abowt theus krap.

 

thats what I thought

although I'm sure the readers appreciated the detailed rebuttal


From
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

good accent tho
suits you

cheers
B

 

It's either "you all" or "yall".
Don't be fooled folks, he's a freakin yankee poser!

 

"yall" is a type of sail boat guys.

"Nasa say no global warming", but what does Nasa know...?

-Tom

 

"Yall ridin in that?"
That aint no sailboat!

 

Foolish is the only response deniers have, its expected.

you might try reading post #21 by George

or my own post #26

the article is a crock by a guy who is well known for being on the payroll of the polluters

try Post #28 by Stan

Turns out Tom Nasa didn't say no to global worming at all, it was just another piece of disinformation

or you could just continue blindly denying a few hundred years of science and the work of tens of thousands of dedicated scientists.

best of luck
B

 

Bos,

I don't really care what they said, my point was:

"What does Nasa know?"

In your fury, you've missed what my opinion actually was.

That's okay, I know you're hugely distracted.

Carry on, as you were, sorry for the interruption.

-Tom

 

no furry nor any distraction

I'm never really trying to explain anything to Hoyt anyway, he's religiously opposed to positive change It is however a golden opportunity to spread the word and hopefully illicit positive change in others.

but clearly you didn't read the information presented either

like some other folks who seem to have missed the part about the article being written by a known climate denier and not an official publication by Nasa at all, try reading post #13

what does kinda bake my noodle tho is that If I'm wrong and we impliment mitigation measures, we end up with at worst a healthier more livable world with a more complete ecology. If the deniers are wrong and they continue to impose there pollution on the world then they not only cause the next great extinction but do it within the lifetimes of my children, Which infringes on the well-being of everyone, two legs or four, fins or flies. I call that pretty dam selfish.

so yah I'm not sure at this point exactly what your point was, but your previous statement about NASA would lead most folks to believe you thought they had made a statement of some kind, they didn't, there was however some data from NASA cooked by the climate deniers, which was exposed as such early on in the conversation. Which has been the salient point all along, well that and keeping Hoyt going so that the additional information presented lends to the readers who might still be on the fence concerning rapid global climate shift being swayed in the correct direction. Deal is its got to be obvious to them that one side has endless scientific data and every major university behind the truth of Rapid Global Climate Shift, and the other can't even present a contrary hypothesis let alone a contrary working theory, of any kind let alone one with a 97% consensus

 

The question(kwestyun) is not only whut does NASA no, but when was it they noed it.