Posted on 11/23/2016 7:07:00 AM PST by rktman
Sad that NASA used to have scientists but now only has liberal idiots.
“...but I will not be a climate denier. Who in their right mind would deny the earth has a climate?”
I suppose you are being sarcastic, but the “denier” part refers to the supposed influence of humans causing the climate to worsen and destroy the planet.
Notice he stupidly said nature, not man, will have the final say.
Schmidt is the new Hansen?
Just put lumps of coal in his stocking.
Currently as in over the last score of years temperatures have been flat to falling
I grant that climate is changing. Wait awhile and it will change again. Due to lack of sunspot activity we are most likely headed into a mini ice age....just think Washington crossing the delaware
And it used to generally be led by Military leaders. Trump could restore that.
Anytime your science dictates exactly the political result you would like to see in the absence of the science, you should take a very hard look at your results.
Anytime your science dictates exactly the political result your funders would like to see means you should take a very hard look at your results.
Hansen retired from NASA in 2013
1. Maybe the climate is changing, maybe it isn’t. We’re in WAY too short of a timeframe to judge that at this point - especially given the politically- and financially-driven FRAUD of the “global warming” hockey stick.
2. If it is changing, is it necessarily bad? Wouldn’t increased carbon dioxide lead to faster plant growth, including higher food production and all that it would lead to?
3. If it is changing, and it is bad, what part of that change is due to human activity, vs. the activity of that 857,000 mile diameter fusion reactor in the sky, which contains 99.86% of all mass in the solar system? IOW, what can we actually DO about it?
4. Even if it is changing, and it is bad for the planet, and we have a significant impact on it, will changing our behavior enough to affect the climate result in such tremendous economic devastation as to make it not be worthwhile? For example, if the world economy crashes because there is a 200% tax placed on all coal, oil and natural gas usage, the economic depression caused by that kind of shock would have a high probability of causing WW3 - and that would produce not just far more pollution than normal economic activity, but would devastate human and animal life.
5. Even if all of those factors mitigate to say that we must do “something” to “save the planet,” is it possible that natural mechanisms would do the same at no cost to us. For example, higher temperatures (if we’re warming - which we’re not) would cause more evaporation of water, causing more clouds, which clouds would block some portion of the Sun’s rays from warming the planet, which would cool it off. If we’re cooling, the opposite would happen.
There is NO WAY that we should spend a dime on ANY “solution” to global warming, climate change, killer clowns, outreach by NASA to Moslems, or any other such utter bilge.
Oddly enough, more plants photo-synthesizing See Uh O 2 means more O2. Odd how that works ain’t it. They warmunists should be made to answer the following:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.