50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Slam NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change

[gwb-trading]

I still remember having to write papers in junior high and high school about how global cooling was going to end humanity and the next ice age was coming. Our teachers required us to write papers on how New York City was going to be covered with 400 feet of ice by year 2000.

Where was this nonsense coming from you ask. During the 1970s, the media and university professors were all over the theory that the earth was rapidly cooling and only large sums of government money could cure the problem. The newspapers, magazines, and TV news regularly had reports about the threat of global cooling.

Time Cover in 1977

Of course there is the June, 1974 Time article about "Another Ice Age".
http://newsbusters.org/node/6546

So how is all of this any different than the Global Warming nonsense put forward today?

I see lots of similarities with made-up statistics and self-serving advocates making lots of money off their "science".

 

[pspr]

Quote from Lucrum:

50 to 1 huh?

The question is what does a Cosmologist know of terrestrial science?

The answer is: Very little.

We already know of the corrupt science that is taking place at NASA on global warming. It is with a breath of fresh air that scientists and astronauts are making a stand against those who use science as a tool to promote an agenda and give all science a black eye.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

...is smarter than the 50 astronauts et al put together.

How many climate scientists are among the 50?

That's irrelevant. The point is the science is NOT settled.

Professional doctorates who understand the experimental method better than you or I, have examined the evidence, and found it wanting. Others, have found it convincing. The point is the much lauded and bandied about "consensus" doesn't exist. The social consequences from migrating the entire earth to "green" energy sources are disastrous, especially for the third-world, who the Liberals profess to care so much about. Imagine the fallout of 200 a dollar barrel oil - especially for the third-world. It wouldn't be just a Western Great Depression, but a global one. The ramifications of these so-called "solutions" to climate change harbor incredibly grave and severe consequences for humanity. And I consider myself a humanitarian. This stuff is no joke. I recognize it's trendy and cool to want to "Save the planet", but we're playing with fire here.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from achilles28:

That's irrelevant. The point is the science is NOT settled.

Professional doctorates who understand the experimental method better than you or I, have examined the evidence, and found it wanting. Others, have found it convincing. The point is the much lauded and bandied about "consensus" doesn't exist. The social consequences from migrating the entire earth to "green" energy sources are disastrous, especially for the third-world, who the Liberals profess to care so much about. Imagine the fallout of 200 a dollar barrel oil - especially for the third-world. It wouldn't be just a Western Great Depression, but a global one. The ramifications of these so-called "solutions" to climate change harbor incredibly grave and severe consequences for humanity. And I consider myself a humanitarian. This stuff is no joke. I recognize it's trendy and cool to want to "Save the planet", but we're playing with fire here.

Well said.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Trader666:

Not on climate change. Sorry to break it to you but your science "god" isn't all you "think" he is. Not even in physics.

Yes, Hawking, arguably the most intelligent person alive, has admitted to making a mistake. Have you?

Oh, and how many of the 50 astronauts et al are climate scientists?

 

[ChkitOut]

actually most of hawkings theories are ridiculed in the scientific community.

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

...Professional doctorates who understand the experimental method better than you or I, have examined the evidence, and found it wanting. Others, have found it convincing...

True. Except that you are relying on false equivalency, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The vast majority of top independent scientists in the field are convinced of the dangers of climate change and man's effect on it. A relatively very small minority, notably including scientists funded by Big Oil (remember Big Tobacco?) are taking the opposite side. So it is hardly a case of six of one and half dozen of the other.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from gwb-trading:

I still remember having to write papers in junior high and high school about how global cooling was going to end humanity and the next ice age was coming. Our teachers required us to write papers on how New York City was going to be covered with 400 feet of ice by year 2000.

Where was this nonsense coming from you ask. During the 1970s, the media and university professors were all over the theory that the earth was rapidly cooling and only large sums of government money could cure the problem. The newspapers, magazines, and TV news regularly had reports about the threat of global cooling.

Time Cover in 1977

Of course there is the June, 1974 Time article about "Another Ice Age".
http://newsbusters.org/node/6546

So how is all of this any different than the Global Warming nonsense put forward today?

I see lots of similarities with made-up statistics and self-serving advocates making lots of money off their "science".

Another fantastic point these genius climatologists routinely overlook.

40 years ago, the great scourge to humanity was the New Ice Age.

That proves this entire global warming scare is a complete fraud.

The "evidence" for global warming existed for the past 300 years. It was as much accessible to scientists 40 years ago, as it is now. Yet 40 years ago, scientists examined the data and drew the EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS as their contemporaries today. So either long-term climatology is a coin toss, or climate "scientists" don't know shit. Which one is it?

 

[Brass]

Quote from ChkitOut:

actually most of hawkings theories are ridiculed in the scientific community.

Link?

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

True. Except that you are relying on false equivalency, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The vast majority of top independent scientists in the field are convinced of the dangers of climate change and man's effect on it. A relatively very small minority, notably including scientists funded by Big Oil (remember Big Tobacco?) are taking the opposite side. So it is hardly a case of six of one and half dozen of the other.

Fair enough. What's your source on that?