Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[diver0008]

Certainly true! In 2016 the City of Houston was advised by climate scientists, based on recent flooding data, that the city's infrastructure was at serious risk of continued catastrophic flooding. With Harvey, the city of Houston has just experienced the third 500 year level flooding in three years. The city managers dismissed this advice as a bunch of scientists "with an agenda."


View attachment 426742National Climate Assessment

This charts the number of these extreme flooding events in a given decade, relative to the average number for the period of 1900 to 1960. The 1990s saw 30 percent more of these heavy rainmakers than the typical decade between 1900 and 1960 did. In the 2000s there were 40 percent more of these events.

I am always skeptical of charts and graphs, as I may have mentioned in a previous post; so often they are created to influence, not to reflect. Yours, by the way, does not show up for me.

I think a big problem with data sets, for skeptics, are limits that are too constrained. I have seen data, for example, that supports climate change theory over a specific time period, but when that time period is expanded, the variations are less significant.

I think I will leave this thread with this: charts and graphs are not going to change the mind of a skeptic because there is too much history of manipulation and corruption. The occurence of extraordinary events neither. I think we have to see it to believe it, and as long as the radical doom rhetoric is used, that is what we will be looking for. Where I live, I don't see it, and I live on an island that by some estimates should have already been flooded. The other 2 things that stay in my mind about this are the sacrifices, by few, at great cost, for unknows, and the possibility that the sun is playing a larger role than we may be led to believe. I do not think that we human animals, the growing billions of us, all over this smoke-spewing planet, are actually disciplined enough to get it done. There are too many people and too many fragile economies. I believe that these factors are of prime importance and should be addressed with priority, which they are currently not. I similarly think that there are other dangers facing humanity that have a more impending nature, namely terrorism and social unrest. These too, in my mind, require more immediate attention and resolution. I am hopeful, but remain skeptical, as I anxiously await an affordable electric car while I sort my trash for recycling, and pay my exhorbitant taxes for lacklustre services to bloated, inept, and wasteful governments, while watching millionaire so-called celebrities take their private jets to pontificate and drink champagne.

 

[NAM001]

This sounds like the typical scotus screening. The fitness question is always......Do YOU support roe v wade,,,,, and your stance on the use of commerce clause. Positions like that need to be occupied by those that function from facts not agendas. Those that are too familiar with the department often later get in the way because they soon become too separated and outdated from day to day changes. There is a point where your plumber becomes head management and knows nothing more than use of leaded solder and then resists "by law" changes in the companies use of leaded solder. The head of this organization is a political position and not a senior technical position. He needs to surround himself and manage those who are the technical experts and not to be an expert , pro or con, themselves. I would much rather have a justice department that operates IAW the law than one that operates IAW political convictions. Likewise I want this guy to be able to say,,,, some conclusion is BS because of this or that rather than tree huggers wont like this and we could loose votes. Facts are facts and for every one that likes a decision there is an equal amount that doesn't. Poor process and management too often cause more problems than they cure if they cure any at all. Does anyone remember the Clintons plans for a 14 trillion program to make zero emissions vehicles just to find out that when the volcano's quit erupting the Ozone grew again. And attached to that each eruption was calculated equal to 10,000 years of auto emissions. We need some one to say that if our auto nemissions will never grow to that of ONE eruption and that we have to except that we can not cure the ozone problem with auto emission regulations. Much like making a budget that reduces the deficit. we need a budget that reduces the debt.

 

[NAM001]

Certainly true! In 2016 the City of Houston was advised by climate scientists, based on recent flooding data, that the city's infrastructure was at serious risk of continued catastrophic flooding. With Harvey, the city of Houston has just experienced the third 500 year level flooding in three years. The city managers dismissed this advice as a bunch of scientists "with an agenda."


View attachment 426742National Climate Assessment

This charts the number of these extreme flooding events in a given decade, relative to the average number for the period of 1900 to 1960. The 1990s saw 30 percent more of these heavy rainmakers than the typical decade between 1900 and 1960 did. In the 2000s there were 40 percent more of these events.

In my area I have a lot more flooding that in years past, Instead of every few years its 2-3 times a year. I quit smoking and that did not help.....what was the change. construction of salt water dams to save the fish. The dams impedes the draining of water till it backs up during heavy rains. The tree huggers have killed so much of californias growing acreage because of the save the schmelt agenda. With decisions like that who can trust the pro global warming folks. Especially with all the studies that disprove it in whole of part.

 

[Altamira]

In my area I have a lot more flooding that in years past, Instead of every few years its 2-3 times a year. I quit smoking and that did not help.....what was the change. construction of salt water dams to save the fish. The dams impedes the draining of water till it backs up during heavy rains. The tree huggers have killed so much of californias growing acreage because of the save the schmelt agenda. With decisions like that who can trust the pro global warming folks. Especially with all the studies that disprove it in whole of part.

What studies are you referring to? If you are perhaps referencing the 6 June 2017 Breitbart News article, “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”, you might want to see what Snopes has to say about that article. Spoiler Alert: Rating FALSE.

 

[diver0008]

What studies are you referring to? If you are perhaps referencing the 6 June 2017 Breitbart News article, “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”, you might want to see what Snopes has to say about that article. Spoiler Alert: Rating FALSE.

Snopes vs. Brietbart, both biased.

So futile.

 

[KenGordon]

Snopes vs. Brietbart, both biased.

So futile.

Do you really believe your position or are you just trying to wind people up for the fun of it?

 

[KenGordon]

While on the politics of these sorts of agency, this might be an interesting read: US forecast models have been pretty terrible during Hurricane Irma

 

[chrisch]

....
I think I will leave this thread with this: charts and graphs are not going to change the mind of a skeptic....

I agree. Data and facts are never going to change the mind of someone that doesn't want to believe anything that contradicts their prejudice.

That is why this subject will always degenerate into idiotic arguments and people posting Internet links to things that are clearly lies. The data to prove that fossil CO2 has a greenhouse effect and thus creates a measurable amount of warming of the environment has been around a very long time and is only disputed by dishonesty. The legitimate discussion of how much effect is created by fossil CO2, how that relates to changes that are unavoidable and what we - as a species - should do about our output of fossil CO2 is lost in the first volley of the opposition under a barrage of lies.

If it were not possible to continue human life and development without fossil CO2 this dilemma would be very hard to resolve. None of us want to live in a world without cheap energy and all the massive advantages to life that this brings. We cannot turn the clock back 3,000 years and reduce the world's population accordingly.

The good news is that fossil CO2 is not needed. The alternatives are there and available now. All that is needed is to switch our energy creation away from fossil fuel, albeit with some degree of urgency. While it is true that some damage might be done to the big oil companies it is fair to say that damage is not huge nor is it of much consequence in the light of the opportunities new fuel sources would bring.

Liquid biofuel for automotive transport for example would need to be distributed to retail outlets for sale to vehicle owners. This network already exists and is mostly owned by the oil companies. If you own a gas station and make a dollar a litre on what you sell it isn't really important whether it is mineral based or vegetable based. The guy with the pick up will probably still buy a six pack and some smokes too.

This is why I don't understand why such huge sums of money are spent telling lies to convince the gullible that fossil CO2 is not a problem when even the most stupid person that ever lived can see it is. The lies are great for those people that don't want to face up to their responsibilities - I get why people prefer to believe the made up stuff. But even that is to miss the opportunities and the chance to create new jobs and whole new industries. We are where we are. I cannot go back in time and delete my contribution to the billions of tonnes of fossil CO2 that is out there. I'm not even going to apologise for it - you get smarter as you get older - this wasn't an issue 40 years ago.

Let's just accept the problem and do what humans do best. Solve it. With everyone on board it will not take long and let's play fair too - let's compensate the oil companies, give them a tax break to move over to renewable. The skill is there to do it.

Or keep telling lies and killing your kids.

Why is it such a hard choice for some folks?

 

[The Chairman]

Certainly true! In 2016 the City of Houston was advised by climate scientists, based on recent flooding data, that the city's infrastructure was at serious risk of continued catastrophic flooding. With Harvey, the city of Houston has just experienced the third 500 year level flooding in three years. The city managers dismissed this advice as a bunch of scientists "with an agenda."

Is this true??? Wow. Don't you hate it when the smart asses are simply being smart? I guess the "agenda" was saving lives and property.

 

[RyanT]

Is this true??? Wow. Don't you hate it when the smart asses are simply being smart? I guess the "agenda" was saving lives and property.

Unfortunately, it is true. Harvey was actually estimated to be an 800 year flood event. Think of all the money those sneaky scientists would have made if Houston had taken better steps to control flooding.