48 thoughts on “Former NASA Scientists… Global Warming Hoax

  1. MrReadandlearn

    I see you refuse to accept science and revert back to using your paint brush to color everything. Gleick did NOT expose any fake science. What he did was try to expose donors to hostile acts. You just can’t win on facts mister. Smoking has nothing to do with climate. The sciences don’t even overlap. The scientists stand on their own merits. I can point to many more articles and research but you’ve once again proved your only desire is ridicule. BTW, is Maurice Strong a scientist? LOL

  2. manoffireandlight

    I never mentioned fake science, but clearly that’s what you admit that the Heartland Institute engaged in regarding the (harmful) effects of tobacco. The facts are already settled, so I don’t need to win – just to show you as the imbecile that you so clearly are.

    It isn’t the science that overlaps, it is the policies of misinformation and deceit that Heartland and it’s paid schills engage in.
    Clearly you can’t point to any more articles otherwise you would have.

  3. manoffireandlight

    I had to google Maurice Strong, because I had no idea who he was. Obviously that was some retarded effort at suggesting that as someone who is concerned about humanity’s effect on the environment, I must follow the example of one or other (apparently) prominent environmentalist. However, unlike your type, I don’t need other people to tell me what to think. My concern stems from an understanding of the science and it’s implications for the future.

  4. MrReadandlearn

    I understand science too. Like I said before, if there is no documentation to review, which is why the climate-gate emails brought us to question where peer reviewed material was, then it isn’t science. You have no science backing up your theory. All you have is a bunch of “scientists” making a living off political influence peddlers like Maurice Strong, Al Gore and George Soros. It’s investment science that upon review shows massive profit schemes, political powers beyond what leads to tragedy.

  5. MrReadandlearn

    Here’s some real science, glaciers are growing and verified by satellite. Warming seems to bring on ice. canadafreepress com/index.php/article/46067

  6. manoffireandlight

    As ever, one study does not disprove the entire wealth of evidence in favour of AGW. The original paper ( bit ly/J4ajKN ) gives a mass gain of 0.11+/- 0.22 m/yr mass gain and does highlight that little is known about the hydrology of the region, though if the spring flooding of recent years in Pakistan is anything to go by, it has increased somewhat. It occurs to me that there is then 0.05mm/yr of sea level rise that must come from other sources, eg thermal expansion (continued)

  7. manoffireandlight

    “The rest of the glaciers in the Himalayas are mostly melting, in that they have negative mass balance, here we found that glaciers aren’t,” study researcher Julie Gardelle, of CNRS-Université Grenoble, France, told LiveScience. “This is an anomalous behavior.” ( bit ly/HKwMyp ). Again you deniers have cherry-picked part of the study and failed to accurately report the science as it was published, but then that’s what we have come to expect from bullshit artists.

  8. manoffireandlight

    But then you deniers don’t trust computer models eh? This study didn’t actually measure the glaciers. It compared satellite photos from 1999 and 2008 of a 2167 square mile region (roughly a quarter of the Karakoram Range). The limitations to the study are huge and yet here you are claiming one study has overturned conventional GW theory. Your response and that of deniers everywhere to this paper just confirms your status as a half-wits.

  9. MrReadandlearn

    What I see is just what you see, a study that only begins to examine a system so vast and complex it defies logic to say if this happens we now know why. Even looking at paleoclimates only tells us approximate values not why. In some instances there are smoking guns like thousand year lava floods, large meteor events or massive volcanic plumes which trigger climate changes. Those changes are not even on the scale we’re attempting to use as an indicator.

  10. manoffireandlight

    Apologies for my assumptions on the last post. Agreed, massive events that trigger cooling trends are found throughout the paleoclimatic record and indeed there have been massive events that triggered warming trends too – methane clathrate releases for example. It is indeed true that this current trend is a lot more complicated, but there is a wealth of evidence in support of the popular theory and barely any that contradicts it.

  11. MrReadandlearn

    I can’t find that “wealth of evidence” or find it compelling to be considered a trend given the time periods. Remember, last time it was global cooling being hustled and that had the exact same kind of evidence. I haven’t seen only a theory that methane hydrates may have been released on a grand scale. While the law of averages says anything is possible it is probability that must be established with evidence supporting not just a local event. It must also coincide with geologic records.

  12. manoffireandlight

    The reason you can’t find the evidence is that you choose not to look, perhaps because you dismiss the scientific method and the peer review process unless it agrees with your own pre-conceived ideas of the state of the climate. There are only scientific theories or hypotheses, no facts – and these are reinforced by evidence that support them, so you have only seen a theory of methane hydrates/clathrates is true, but this is a good explanation for large CH4/CO2 increases in short periods.

  13. manoffireandlight

    “Last time it was global cooling…” was a period in the seventies before the various clean air acts, where excessive amounts of aerosol particulates where being released into the atmosphere by human activity. Apart from that, this argument is just another denier straw-man that is now so discredited that it is laughable that you even bothered to mention it. Given the intellectual level of this exchange, I assumed you were smarter than that!

  14. manoffireandlight

    Unfortunately, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is the politicians making a living off science that is at least a century old. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Denying this denies that heat-seeking missiles work, considering that the USAF were only able to make them work when they allowed for the absorption wavelengths of CO2. Of the thousands of climate-gate emails you people could only find a few sentences or partial sentences as ‘proof’ of deceit – and then your proof was built on lies.

  15. manoffireandlight

    Your climategate ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’, which were the most touted instances suggesting evidence of malpractice were methods of making proxy records agree with observed data – where the ‘trick’ was akin to ‘method’ or ‘calculation’, rather than ‘deceitful way of hiding the truth from the world’. If you truly understood science, you would stop flogging this dead horse.

  16. MrReadandlearn

    It’s a vastly larger data set than the ten glaciers claimed to support melting, out of 54,000 glaciers. Evidence proves a theory. bettering the pool of evidence does not make one a “denier”. If you wish to debate please do so sincerely and stop with the ad hominem attacks. I’ve been dealing with people for decades and when I come across people who are so sure of themselves but they can’t put in words how so they just blither and insult. I’m not an analyst but I know what wasting my time is.

  17. manoffireandlight

    Oh yes, another denier strawman. The ten glaciers representing 54000 canard is, as you might expect, nonsense – but it has been seized upon and repeated by the denier blogosphere until some people believe it to be true. The reality is that such an important mountain range bordering THE two most populous nations on the planet is extensively studied and there have been nearly 4000 papers published since 2009 – bit ly/HWJI3W . Sorry for personal language. Might I suggest the same – you stop too.

  18. viewer517

    Dear Mr Lovell, (patriot network)
    In the first 40 seconds of this video you make the claim that you have made a substantial case against global warming etc etc. Where have you published your work/research and findings for peer review, as i am trying to see your evidence and science for myself. As you are a professor, you would clearly know about the importance of having your science peer reviewed. I have searched but cannot find any reference to a Terry Lovell relating to climate science.

  19. viewer517

    Patriot Network…. are you there???? I would really like those documents, because i would love to prove for myself that Global Warming is just a hoax, and we are being lied to by the entire scientific community. I could sleep easier at night.

  20. uskylemo

    The scientists admonished NASA for its role in advocating man-made CO2 as the “sole” cause. No legitimate scientist would ever argue that CO2 is the sole cause, yet this presenter feels it’s OK to substitute his “major” for “sole”. He is intentionally re-framing the argument to make it appear that these scientists don’t support man-made CO2 as a major cause. They do believe in Global Warming, but were upset that the directer had misspoken in referring to it as the sole cause.

  21. Drsnerby

    It is insulting to hear a professor bless an inspirational group like NASA with God, for which there is no more phyisical evidence than that for the tooth fairy – by the way, thats a fact. Evidence for man made global warming grows every year – next time please open with your belief in magical fairy tails before I waste a few minutes of my life watching your vid, thnx Dr G

  22. rheechashaipu

    what the fucking hell. to be honest, as scientist mentioning god or gods for two fucking seconds in a video shouldn’t bother anyone to the point where the whole video is immediately discredited.

  23. uknowispeaksense

    49 former NASA employees with hundreds of collective years of employment at the space agency and not a single climate expert amongst them. Not one single hour of work spent researching climate amongst them. This sort of appeal to authority is so silly it beggars belief because there is no authority amongst them. As for Lovell….pffft where’s your evidence dopey? I’m yet to see a paper from you. idiot

  24. FantasticBob7000

    Maybe you can explain why proxy data was removed after the 1960’s but kept prior to the 1960’s. Either proxy data is reliable or else it’s unreliable, but I’m sure you can explain it.

  25. manoffireandlight

    Proxy data is arrived at by measuring indicators of climate (tree/coral growth rings/ sediments) and comparing them to as much observational data as possible to get rough temperature trends. The proxy record diverged from observational data in the ’60s – clearly agw is abnormal & there is no historical precedent with which current warming can be compared in the data sets. Rest assured, the best data available was used at all times, the peer review process would not allow anything less.

  26. FantasticBob7000

    Harrison Schmitt has a Harvard Ph.D. in geology. He is not only an expert in the scientific method, but he also understands climate as it has a direct effect on geology.
    I forgot how many hours you’ve spent researching climate.

  27. FantasticBob7000

    You predictably failed to answer the question. If proxy data diverged from measured data, it’s clearly unreliable. Why was it kept in the earlier part of the hockey stick? How does measured data differ between pre & post 60’s? Why use proxy data at all if measured data is required to validate it? How “rough” are the temperature trends, keeping in mind claims of accuracy & precision supporting doomsday forecasts?
    Your “rest assured” comment is equally predictable & typical, as well as laughable.

  28. manoffireandlight

    Do you understand the concept of proxy data? If all proxy data were unreliable, then all paleoclimatology would be junk science, but clearly it isn’t. The difference between the two is that it is an approximate stand-in for measured data. It is calibrated by comparing with observed climatic conditions. Post ’60s satellite data provided far more precise data sets. The Hockey Stick is compiled from several data sets and only reliable data was included, hence the proxy’s omission.

  29. manoffireandlight

    Why use proxy data? In order to gain a greater understanding of past climatic conditions. The past and it’s climatic conditions are important in helping scientists understand modern trends and how they diverge from normal? Unfortunately, before the ’60s there were no weather satellites and so data from remote locations was found using proxies. Proxy data sets are cross-verified to ensure reliability, but the uncertainties will always be greater than with observed data sets.

  30. manoffireandlight

    There are some proxies that are more reliable than others. Ice cores contain trapped air bubbles which in turn – along with coral) contain isotopes which decay at a known and predictable rate, so the time before present can be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy. Check out NOAA’s Paleoclimatology explanation, because I can no longer be bothered to explain established science to trolls.
    Your question which ended with ‘…doomsday forecasts?’ was prejudiced and doesn’t warrant an answer.

  31. uknowispeaksense

    and you your local GP has a medical degree. I guess that qualifies him to perform the delicate brain surgery you so clearly need? Come to think of it, using your logic, your local veterinarian is qualified to perform brain surgery. But if you want to put your 49 non-experts against the tens of thousands of actual experts, be my guest. But really, your ignorance of scientific convention is apparent. Good luck with the brain surgery.

  32. FantasticBob7000

    LOL by my logic my local veterinarian is qualified to perform brain surgery on you. He’d have half a chance to improve the twisted mess in your head by just scrambling the eggs.
    I see you neglected to list the tens of thousands of experts peddling the bullshit. Come to think of it, you also forgot to say how many peer reviewed climatology papers you’ve authored.
    I’ll talk to the vet first thing in the morning.

  33. FantasticBob7000

    My calling “the end of human life/civilization as we know it” doomsday forecasts doesn’t make me prejudiced or a troll. It puts me in agreement with most rational people.
    Your generalized polemic on proxy data again failed to answer the question. The proxy data wasn’t just less precise than the measured data, it was grossly inaccurate.
    If you don’t know the answer just say so, and quit the pretentious confident act like you know what you’re talking about.

  34. manoffireandlight

    Haha, it really is an over-reaction to call agw a doomsday forecast especially if you think of it as “the end of…etc”, so if you aren’t exposing a prejudice, then you are an ignorant fool. You are clearly articulate and internet savvy enough to return and post your replies, so are also able to google the answer. Thus troll seems right.
    Only tree ring proxies are removed post 1960, they agree before and diverge after, probably due to warming induced drought and global dimming.

  35. manoffireandlight

    AGW is predicted to be a slow, gradual change over the next century and beyond. This is no “Day Of Judgement” that many are conditioned to expect.
    Day to day life will not change dramatically – there may be more freak weather & from year to year climate may become less predictable, but we are adaptable. Civilisation as WE know it is unlike that of 50 years ago & sci-fi compared to a century ago, yet here we sit.

  36. manoffireandlight

    Denial of agw is the bullshit here and peddling it IS harmful. I am endeavouring to convince the ostriches of the world that the best way to deal with climate change is to be aware of and prepared for it. The odds are that the ‘new normal’ is more abnormal seasonal extremes & events. The more people are convinced of this, the greater the chance of us weathering the (more frequent) storms rather than lurching from one to the next, as we seem to be doing at present.

  37. uknowispeaksense

    Every major scientific institution in the world says its happening and you’ve got a bible bashing geologist. Well, good luck with that. You’re clearly just another ignorant troll and you have my pity.

  38. FantasticBob7000

    Let me see, no list of the “tens of thousands” of “actual experts,” and of course no list of “every major scientific institution.” And you still forgot to list your Ph.D.’s and peer reviewed papers. It all seems vague somehow.
    Try this Einstein, google the scientists who say global warming alarmism is bullshit, you might learn something.
    Now learn to think for yourself instead of parroting the numbers game and calling people trolls. You’re being played for a sucker.

  39. Apollo Olo

    There is NO new normal, and easy to prove look up the records and it shows that we are still in the old normal. NOTHING is happening more now than in the past

  40. manoffireandlight

    Afraid I’ll have to show you up here. There has been in recent years an increase in record high temperature extremes and a corresponding decrease in record low temerature extremes. If nothing were changing/ warming we would expect these extremes to be split roughly 50/50, but they aren’t.

  41. macinz1230

    Nobodys being shown up, Recent ice core samples show that during the last interglacial the Eemian 130 000 years ago, temperatures were 8 deg celcius warmer than today, I.e anthropogenic CO2 is irellevant in global temp change. CO2 has never caused temp change in 4.54 billion years why would it now? (given that CO2 has been 20x present levels in the past)

  42. macinz1230

    If you can give me a solid example which shows me that an increase in carbon dioxide has ever preceeded a significant temperature increase in the Earths history I would love to see it. Please turn me into an AGW believer.

Leave a Reply