Posted on 03/20/2014 2:49:38 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The heart of liberalism: Persuading people to discount their own experience.
“The Great Lakes, in particular, were chilled until they reached nearly 91 percent ice cover.”
It was actually 92.2% coverage on March 6.
Actually, that's "according to spacepolicyonline.com". This is what NASA says is according to NASA (from here):
NASA Today
NASA conducts its work in four principal organizations, called mission directorates:
- Aeronautics: manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation.
- Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations, development of commercial spaceflight capabilities and human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
- Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
- Space Technology: rapidly develops, innovates, demonstrates, and infuses revolutionary, high-payoff technologies that enable NASA's future missions while providing economic benefit to the nation.
NASA's fine. The problem we got is with all the mindless political hacks on both the extreme left and extreme right that make up stories about what NASA's saying and doing. So it boils down to being our job of taking the trouble to see what's really going on.
"WHOA - that's telling... long on being a 'true believer' - - short on science...."
And he co-authored "The Population Bomb" and has published similar papers over the years. Holdren (since becoming Obama's Science and Technology Adviser) has lectured graduate students that America can't expect to be number one all the time, that in fact the world is better when we step back and let other nations develop.
NASA’s not fine.
The linked information I gave you states their vision/mission statement correctly. NASA HAD dropped “space” and “aeronautics” and now it has been replaced (but that’s just for show while they totally gut the agency).
The Population Bomb? Gads that takes me back... Nice thing about being liberal is no matter how often they’re wrong they get a pass... Amazing.
was this one at "Spacepolicyonline.com". Sure, it looks good but 'good' doesn't make it 'NASA'.
...NASA HAD dropped “space” and “aeronautics” and now it has been replaced (but that’s just for show while they totally gut the agency)....
Whatever, but seriously NASA still has about 18,000 employees and their $17.7B FY 2014 budget is looking like about 90% space ops, exploration, and space tech.
Go to Dr. Roy Spencer's website for an expert opinion that mirrors what I said above. Even though he explicitly points out the reality of greenhouse gasses, Dr. Spencer has come under constant attack by the alarmists, as he does not believe that warming will be a major problem going forward.
This article by NASA is fair enough, in that the important thing from that perspective is the global average temperature, not the temperature of the eastern US in particular. It is undeniably true that the West Coast had an unusually warm winter. I personally don't believe current temperature measurements are being tampered with, as there are several sources for them. (I will say I think the historical record has suffered some corruption.)
It seems to me that a more productive approach than arguing about how much the planet will warm, is to identify win/win scenarios that reduce CO2 production while also stimulating real economic growth and improving the human condition. I will point out that many rabid environmentalists seem to be set on humanity having a lower-tech and in fact generally lower standard of living in the future. That is idiocy, and that is the main thing that needs to be fought.
The low-hanging fruit among win/win scenarios is replacing all coal-fired electricity generation with nuclear. Even current generation nuclear is extremely safe, and if a reasonable amount of R&D were put into it, thorium based nuclear power would completely solve the world's energy needs for the foreseeable future, certainly for long enough to develop either LENR or fusion.
Solar power is also a great technology, but it should be used mainly for endpoint generation (roofs are generally wasted space anyhow). Solar isn't a good fit for industrial-strength electric generation. I'm against wind power, if nuclear expands as it should wind won't be competitive and every wind turbine out there will be a rusting monument to environmentalist stupidity.
Replacing coal electric generation is simply a good idea, independent of global warming. There are plenty of interesting things to do with coal besides burning it, so there is not necessarily a huge impact to coal producing areas in the long run, although coal mining is a pretty environmentally unfriendly thing given some of the common practices. What makes burning coal such a bad idea, independent of CO2, is the particulate and mercury pollution emitted. It is simply a dirty form of power, killing tens of thousands of people a year.
The other motivation for advanced nuclear is that civilization needs powerful, high-density energy sources for many things, including space travel. Once practical nuclear/LENR/fusion spacecraft exist, there will be a new wave of pioneering and an explosion of wealth like nothing seen before.
We are seeing the effects of no frontiers - oppressive government, limited opportunity, less self-reliance, squabbling over limited resources and a general oppression of the human spirit. We need a new frontier! We need to open up access to the Solar System, and let the next dynamic age of humanity begin!
(If you made it this far, congratulations! Obviously I have strong feelings on all this. BTW, NASA is not the right entity to cause the space frontier to take off. That will take commercialization.)
drivel...... you have been duped
What an eloquent argument. On what basis do you dispute (very) basic physics?
Let me repeat - there is some warming associated with increased CO2. If it will be 0.1 degree C, it is absolutely no problem. If in fact it will end up at the upper end of the IPCC predictions (which I seriously doubt) it will be catastrophic.
Again, the best approach is a win/win solution. In a low-warming scenario, we have abundant energy and cleaner air. In a high-warming scenario, we have the technology and energy to do some form of geoengineering. If the worst IPCC predictions are correct, geoengineering will be absolutely necessary, just stopping CO2 production (even completely) won't be enough. We're right at 400 PPM CO2, and I see very little chance of stopping short of 600 PPM - at a minimum.
You know the old saying: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst!".
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.