At this link you will find a letter that denounces NASA's support of Climate Change having human activity as a major cause:

On that webpage you can find a link to the report regarding this letter.

If their motive is looked at carefully, what would we find?

Views: 1323

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, sorry, I failed to go back and delete mine. 

I'm not knocking the book or the research but the link to this blogger's book review.  He doesn't really review the writing, or organization, etc. of a book review.  Instead he goes off on his own interpretation by stating the reason conservatives are open minded is their exposure in NYC and the NYT to only ultra-liberal voices.  He uses no other examples, or states big cities, but only NYC.  I cringe at this because I hear the insult JewYorkCity with all that implies. I'm culturally a Jew NOT from NYC although often assumed to be from there because NYC and Jew are automatic associations.  I wish another link to a real review of the book could be found.

Yes, I am glad you picked up on that. There are so many issues I am trying to sort out with Ben, and I doubt he reads for meaning. It feels as though I am responding to a fog. 

Anyway, glad you caught that. I agree. 

Just a quick link for those who think climate change is a liberal issue:

A great article. 

Jessica, I just read this article again. He makes powerful statements; quoting Paul Douglas:

"Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere."

“What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. 

” It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales” 

Fifty three years ago I was on a plane to Alaska and my seat partner was a climatologist headed there to do glacier studies because scientists were seeing a trend of glacial melting and ice sheet thinning. I dismissed our discussion as idle chatter. 

I don't see climate change as something that's worth the amount of energy we spend on it. Activists are spending millions of man hours being offended every time someone points out that many of the proposed "fixes" for global warming are ineffective or economically disastrous or rooted in irrational hate for corporations or thinly veiled attempts to make government more authoritarian or all of those things. Certainly we should curate the planet so that we enjoy living here, but we have to ensure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

Climate isn't my field, but between mixing in leftist economic rhetoric, climate gate, global cooling fears from the 70s, and other inconsistencies, global warming theory proponents have constructed their own cross and pillory, whether dissenting reasons are scientific or not. No one should be surprised that the public is confused when BOTH sides have extremely questionable motives. 

The final reason to remain calm and just watch is that geo-engineering is beginning to come into reality. As we begin to invent true terraforming technology worries about pollution or "sustainability" will become largely irrelevant. A lot of people are as scared of this as they are of climate change, but this fear is rooted in ignorance. Just like they point to climate trends with no thought for how geo-engineering will affect it, they point to limitations or side effects of ~current~ GeoE technology with no thought for the endless improvements that are being invented as they speak. 


You may very well be correct when you write, 

"I don't see climate change as something that's worth the amount of energy we spend on it."

I wonder what the Anasazi, Salado, Mogollon, or Sinagua of the southwest USA would say to your comment? Their tribes had to abandon their ancient sites and drought probably caused some, if not all of them to move. I wonder what they thought after a few years of no rain, failing crops, hunger, and death or deciding to make journeys to find more hospitable places to live? 

One thing human beings are good at is being flexible in the face of evidence ... perhaps that is why this species survived as long as it has. 

You're not making any sense. Indians died because of European diseases and wars with the early US army, they moved because of restriction to reservations and absorption into the invading culture. None of that has any significant link to climate change.

Not all droughts are caused by global warming, the dust bowl of the 1930s for example, and the SW USA has been a desert since well before the industrial revolution. 

You would be right if that is what she actually said.  Unfortunately for you., that isn't what she said.

No? Enlighten me.

She said they had to MOVE not that they died off.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service