NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

I am a doubter of human caused climate change, yet I’m a big supporter of space exploration. Did that just blow that brain out of your skull?

 

We should organize an all expense trip to Paris, 5 star all the way, to figure out what to do about this global cooling emergency. Going there in a private jet will be part of our contribution to bringing the temperature back up.

 

Surely you dont expect every bit of damage Obama did can be rectified in 16 months?. Mmm...maybe you do?

 

Oh I dunno

Why not Hawaii or someplace warm and tropical where the women wear bikinis?

We would not want to risk getting snowed in like AlGore at his anti global warming conferences

 

I at least expected him not to make it worse. His budget proposal shuts down funding for the ISS, adds a relative pittance to the NASA budget and instead diverts funding to encourage private sector space travel development.

Lets be clear: Trump is better on this issue than Obama, in my opinion, but only technically. Proposing to add 350 million to a 20 billion dollar NASA budget in 2019 which .05% of the overall proposed national budget is just...pathetic. He stated he wants NASA to refocus on the goal of developing new orbital platforms, and even creating a space tug for trans lunar travel as well as set a goal for us to return astronauts to the moon but he refuses to actually pay for it. Traveling to the moon is expensive. Building new space stations is expensive. Inventing a translunar spaceship is astronomically expensive. He expects NASA to do it with 20.35 billion dollars? Just to be clear, a single aircraft carrier, which we know how to build already, costs anywhere from 8 to 15 billion dollars. For more perspective, the Lunar program that originally put astronauts on the moon cost 30 billion - but that was in 1970. In today's dollars its over 110 billion.

Developing space technology is EXPENSIVE, and retasking NASA to do amazing stuff in space while basically handing them a quarter for the gumball machine is ridiculous.

 

At least the reformed NASA can get back into the business of space travel instead of coddling muslims as it was expected to do under obama

 

No it can't. It doesn't have enough money for that.

I literally just explained this in the post you quoted.

 

Does any nation to your knowledge have a bigger space travel budget than the US?

 

What prize do we get for that?

It doesn't matter if we have the biggest space budget in the world if we can't afford to achieve the goals set for NASA.

 

You want more money when we already spend the most of any other nation?

Hum

 

Your point is worthless and you know it. But like so many other posters here, when its clear your argument has no merit you just stick to it anyway.

How tiresome.

I'll say it again, and when you read it, read it slowly to give it a chance to sink in.

What is the point of being the top spender on space travel if the budget isn't big enough to achieve the goals set by our president?

 

Thanks! How about this one? https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/circulation

 

Just the phony science. What are we up to, about 20 years with no global warming?

 

"Phony science" = a RW response to any scientific data that adversely affects profits. Notable examples were when tobacco executives testified that smoking was no more harmful than eating a Twinkie.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446867/

Spoiler: Junk Science to promote tobacco

(shortened due to 16000 character limit)
Abstract
Despite the tobacco industry's claims that it has changed its practices, the toll of tobacco-related disease and death continues to grow worldwide, and the industry continues to use a vast array of strategies to promote its products and increase profits. This commentary discusses the ways the tobacco industry has created controversy about risk assessment and about the scientific evidence of the health hazards of secondhand smoke.

The authors recommend that policymakers be more vigilant and that they demand transparency about affiliations and linkages between allegedly independent scientists and tobacco companies. They also urge policymakers to be prepared for new and continuing challenges posed by the tobacco industry, because, despite the industry's claims, there is little evidence of fundamental change in its objectives.

TOBACCO COMPANIES CLAIM that they have changed. They assert that their efforts to undermine global tobacco control policy are a product of a past era and that now they seek to engage in constructive dialogue with the World Health Organization (WHO) and national governments.1 Unfortunately, the reality is that the consequences of their actions continue. Four million deaths per year, 1.2 billion smokers in the world today, and high rates of youth smoking are in part the result of the failure of governments to implement tobacco control policies that are known to work. And governments' inaction is largely a result of decades of tobacco companies' untoward influence.

Among the lingering effects of tobacco companies' actions are the insidious ways in which the public health policy agenda and the media debate about tobacco have been influenced. In this issue of the Journal, Ong and Glantz highlight one aspect of industry influence with respect to epidemiologic standards of causality.2 The authors show that tobacco companies carefully planned to undermine accepted epidemiologic practices and hoped that by partnering with a broad range of academic and private commercial interests, they could create confusion about the role of epidemiology and risk assessment in public policy development. The ultimate goal of the industry was to promote the trivialization of the risk of tobacco use, stating that nearly everything from eating Twinkies to crossing the street was harmful, and that tobacco was just one more “risky pleasure.”

Ong and Glantz's work needs to be considered within the broader concerted efforts of the tobacco companies to influence public policy in a manner detrimental to public health. The release of tobacco industry documents following US litigation provides us with access to a snapshot of the truth. These documents show a nearly 50-year effort to improve public relations, rather than public health.

One example, from 1977, is Operation Berkshire,3 which shows how 7 of the world's largest tobacco companies colluded to promote doubt about tobacco and health. These companies created the International Committee on Smoking Issues (later the International Tobacco Information Center) to internationally coordinate a network of national manufacturers' associations to block tobacco control measures. In another example, Philip Morris convened a meeting of its top executives in 1988 in Boca Raton, Fla, to develop an action plan aimed at attacking WHO's tobacco control programs at the national level and targeting the structure, management, and resources of the WHO.....

BUYING SCIENTISTS
The tobacco industry continues to fund, directly or indirectly, prestigious academic centers and scientists in its effort to achieve scientific credibility.10 Among the notable academics enlisted by the industry are professors such as A. R. Feinstein of Yale University, editor of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, who on many occasions has presented the argument that the epidemiologic methods used to assess the risk of passive smoking are inadequate. In a 1992 article, Feinstein supported the tobacco industry's right to defend itself against the label of “bad guy” and criticized the “current atmosphere [in which a tobacco industry] consultant's stature, credibility, and integrity become instantly impugned and tarnished by the depravity of associating with the tobacco ‘bad guy.'”11 He did not mention, however, that he was a tobacco industry consultant and the recipient of highly secret “special project” awards....

DISTORTING RISK
There are many groups and consultants who were funded by the industry, both directly and through subsidiary companies, and who provided the tobacco industry with ample material, in the form of testimony, reports, and other publications, to fight tobacco policy and regulations. For example, ILSI and its Risk Science Institute—a nonprofit worldwide scientific research foundation focusing on the areas of nutrition, food safety, toxicology, risk assessment, and the environment31—gave the tobacco industry an opportunity to blend secondhand smoking risks with other low-dose risks and continue to create doubt and controversy about the harms of secondhand smoke.32 ILSI is a particularly relevant example, given that it has a formal relationship with WHO and IARC and thus offered the tobacco industry the potential for additional access to these institutions.33,34 (Note: Since the writing of this commentary, ILSI executives have agreed to review all aspects of their affiliations with commercial interests.)

In addition to creating front groups and contributing funds to groups that have a mission broad enough to carry some of the tobacco industry's goals, the tobacco companies also use publications by allegedly independent think tanks, such as the Virginia-based Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. This group's 1994 report “Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination”35 criticizes the US Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment methods in 4 areas: environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous cleanup. It dismisses in its first chapter the agency's risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, using arguments similar to the tobacco industry's “junk science” arguments described by Ong and Glantz.

This report has been widely used by the tobacco industry in its quest to dismiss the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. And although no direct financial link has been established, several members of the report's academic advisory board have been involved with different tobacco companies' activities.36The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz.37,38 He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on “junk science,” defending the industry's views.39

The junk science saga continues. In February 2001, on the Web site JunkScience.com, Martha Perske provided a critique of studies linking passive smoking and lung cancer.40 In the article, she grossly misstates the WHO's work in this field. Perske has no formal scientific training and her one publication in the peer-reviewed literature is a letter to the editor—which appeared, incidentally, in the journal edited by Alvan Feinstein.41 She describes herself as a “smokers' advocate,” but industry documents show that she stayed in close contact with Philip Morris, asking for their review of and comments on her activities.42

The goal of the tobacco industry's “scientific strategy” was not to reveal the truth but to protect the industry from loss of revenue and to prevent governments from establishing effective tobacco control measures. The industry's goals of creating doubt and controversy and placing the burden of proof on the public health community in policy forums have, therefore, met with a certain degree of success. Tobacco control policies are not being implemented worldwide at the rate that current scientific knowledge about the dangers of tobacco warrants. But this scenario is changing as the negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control continue to advance. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control marks the first time the WHO has used its treaty-making right to support member states in developing a legally binding instrument in the service of public health. Negotiations are progressing well, and it is likely that member states will vote on ratification of the convention in mid-2003.

What do the revelations about tobacco company actions mean for public health policy? In general terms, they call for policymakers to demand complete transparency about affiliations and linkages between allegedly independent scientists and tobacco companies. Academic naïveté about tobacco companies' intentions is no longer excusable. The extent of the tobacco companies' manipulation needs to be thoroughly exposed, and students of many disciplines (public health, public policy, ethics, and law, to name a few) should be provided with the evidence that is increasingly available through the tobacco industry documents.

Initiatives such as the American Legacy Foundation's $15 million grant to the University of California, San Francisco, to establish the Legacy National Documents Library and the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education43 must be lauded. The foundation's example should be followed by other donor institutions that want to address international public health issues seriously. After all, every gain in tobacco control in the United States is an incentive for tobacco companies to globalize their operations.

Strict codes of conduct are needed to protect the integrity of the public health policy process from undue influence, especially from the likes of the secret and deleterious influences that were brought to bear over decades by the tobacco industry. Ethics committees need to consider conflict of interest as important as patient confidentiality.26,44

NEW AND CONTINUING CHALLENGES
For tobacco control research, the challenges are not over, but they have changed. No longer will tobacco companies dispute the scientific evidence that active smoking of traditional cigarettes causes harm. However, they continue to deny the scientific evidence about the harm caused by exposure to secondhand smoke and continue to suggest ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans in public places.45,46 Added to the debate is the issue of determining whether and how newly developed tobacco products confer reduced harm. The tobacco companies' investment, statements, and research in this field make it clear that they regard new “reduced harm” products as an important strategic and financial priority. But what standards of proof will be used to measure reduced harm?

In anticipation of this shift in focus, WHO has established a scientific advisory committee on tobacco product regulation to address these very issues. This committee has met with certain tobacco company scientists. On February 22, 2001, the Institute of Medicine released a report calling for strict scientific analysis and regulatory policy of tobacco products that claim to be “less harmful” than products currently available on the market.47 On the same day, Philip Morris announced that it is following other tobacco companies and intends to launch a “safer” cigarette in 2 years.48 It is noteworthy that recent reports on these “safer” cigarettes address only the carcinogenic properties of tobacco and largely ignore the fact that cancer is but one in a long list of diseases caused by passive and active smoking.

Whereas in the past it was public health scientists who raised the alarm and called for solutions, it is now predominantly industry scientists who claim to have found solutions. The burden of proof of reduced harm must rest on the tobacco industry, and the public health community must take the proactive step of developing internationally accepted means of verifying whether any tobacco product can truly be labeled safer than another. Tobacco companies will find that the epidemiologic standards they so vigorously opposed (for example, dismissal of studies with odds ratios of less than 2) are the very standards they will need to use to demonstrate whether their new products are indeed safer.

Admittedly, Al Gore politicized global warming, making it more about emotion than science to persuade others. Republican businessmen, just like the tobacco businessmen, reacted by buying scientists and denying the science while mixing in junk science to muddy the waters.

FWIW, I don't give a ****. Humans will adapt even if it causes a complete collapse of the global economy. A few billion could die, but the human race will survive and start over just as it's done several times in the past. Two steps forward, one step back should be the Human motto.

 

Well of course, we would all be dead if there was far too much Co2 in the air that we breath, but we are nowhere close to such levels of co2, and life has been quite viable when our co2 levels in the past have been exponentially much higher. And it is probably impossible for humans to add enough co2 to the environment to ever make mammal life not viable on earth as long as the natural system for co2 extraction is in place.

It looks like given the natural system that is in place that it would take something highly unusual in order for co2 levels to reach toxic levels. And what exactly are those levels? Co2 on submarines is exponentially much higher than what we see outside of the sub. And no one is even predicting that the levels of co2 that sailors live with aboard subs, will be reached by the burning of fossil fuels.

I think it is impossible for co2 levels to reach toxicity by using fossil fuels. And until it gets close, calling co2 a pollutant is only done in order to create hysteria. It was done not because it is a pollutant, but because it allowed the EPA to treat it like it was. And dictate policies that they have been able to dictate in regards to real pollutants. It is no different than calling o2 a pollutant when clearly it is not. A real pollutant is called that because no matter what the levels are, it is in a category of its own, which does not include the natural gases of our atmosphere. A pollutant is an element which does not appear naturally in our atmosphere. It is something that we add, which is not already there, naturally. It adds an additional element which does not occur naturally.

 

Uh... I got barred from a similar thread about global warming.

But I can't pass this up. OK?


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

No, its the science that reality has demonstrated to be fake.

 

I at least gave a reference.

 

So, given the data provided, and even accepting for a serious amount of skepticism about the accuracy of the Goddard data, the fact that the average fell over two years seems to be pretty problematic for those who express a linear relationship to CO2 induced warming. Simply stated, there is no corresponding dip in CO2 concentrations that would also explain the temperature reversal. Can we finally put the CO2 induced warming to bed now?

 

Well, how long have mammals been on this planet? And why the 400,000 year cut off? Why not show co2 levels way farther back than that? And still remain within the parameter that couples it with mammals existing?

I would also imagine that you could correlate the rise of co2 with the loss of forests and flora as well as the burning of fossil fuels. Since there is more related to co2 levels than just fossil fuels.

So, if there had been no fossil fuel burning, and yet over time man got rid of forests, one would expect to see co2 rise, given that plants extract co2 as they require it and emit o2 in the process. And we have seen the demise of a huge number of acres of forests over time, attributed to man.

I don't think anyone would deny that the burning of fossil fuels has not added co2, for they would be an idiot to ever maintain such nonsense. But it may very well be just as idiotic to claim that the PPM added by fossil fuels is a doomsday scenerio, risking all life on this planet.

One must also consider that we will get off of depending upon fossil fuels for energy in the not too distant future, and the co2 problem will reverse itself. As long as we have the natural means still in place to extract co2, as our oceans and flora on land does. So why the hysteria and concern, given this fact? This is a problem, if indeed it is even a problem, that will correct itself anyways.

 

I don't think I should talk about global warming.

I posted a picture and a reference is all.

 

The article states "According to RealClear Markets NASA says" So we have an article which quotes another article about a source but nothing from the source.

Go find the NASA source that made this claim and I will take it seriously.

 

Everything is an estimate

Even reports that I like

There are just too nany variables

But yiur point is a fair one

There is a link to NASA but I cant find the definative quote either

 

Would you also say evolution is an estimate?

 

that's what climate has always done