House GOP Wants to Eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in New Budget

The study was plenty in depth and it was sponsored by the CDC. The NRA is supported by members in both parties damnit man we have been through this before..

You were fooled by the Post.. Get over it.

 

Fight fire with fire. A blog chart for a blog chart.

 

Once again a Republican majority make petty ideological gestures that will weaken US technology all in the name for themselves.

 

The less tax money we have to spend on the AGW religious movement, the better.

 

Or maybe people are sick and tired of being forced to subsidize Democrat pet projects that are nothing more than flimsy excuses to increase taxes and regulations.

There isn't a single thing in the world, except abortion, that Democrats don't want to increase taxes and regulations over.

 

I agree. The government should not be taxing us and spending it on supporting a religion. Damn good thing we're talking about science when referring to research into AGW.

 

Yea, like this one: CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama

Maybe the Grizz meant to say that they haven't paid for the right results?

I don't know how many times I've refuted that dishonest 97% factoid over the years, but true to form, the AGW cultists keep trying to resurrect it.

 

Let me see; CDC ? ? - - what does the "D" stand for?? Gun shots are not a disease.

NASA: there is no warming in "SPACE" and they can't launch people into SPACE so they want to be funded to look at the EARTH. I can do that right out my window.

 

I've proven it wrong several times. The 97% figure is a total fabrication, just like most of the evidence supporting the AGW religion.

You have ZERO evidence to support this dishonest claim.

 

AGW is a religious and political movement masquerading as science. It's one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated in human history.

 

This doesn't go far enough.

Slash ALL Federal spending by 50% at least!!!!!

 

As evidenced by any wanted cuts that would materialize. If it was a REAL problem, noone would cut a penny. The things right in front of our noses which destroy the narrative.

 

AGW is just another excuse in a long line of excuses for Democrats to pile even more taxes and regulations onto humanity.

It's based on fear-mongering, distortion, and outright lies like "damn near 100% of scientists now support AGW".

Thank goodness there are still some scientists out there who are brave enough to question this dogmatic movement of opportunistic control freaks and money-grubbers.

 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Oceanic and Atmospherics Administration

As you can see one organization is specifically named after space and the other is named after oceans and the atmosphere. NASA's only job should be focusing on getting us to Mars or working on that EM drive they are currently touting. Not a single dime should be wasted on global warming or any earth bound endeavor. That is what NOAA is for. If it were up to me I would completely eliminate NASA and hand everything over to the Air Force.

 

Except for the fact that every climate research institution has endorsed the theory. And then of course there are the direct scientific polls.
this one shows that the most well researched climate scientists support it 98%


This one shows that scientists in general support it 87%


Yup. Looks like no evidence to me. You've certainly proved everyone wrong with your exactly 0 scientific polls.

 

Every phrenology research institute endorsed its own theories as well. Doesn't prove that "damn near 100% of scientists" were in support of phrenology, though, anymore than your fact proves that "damn near 100% of scientists now support AGW".

I'm always happy to look at your flawed and biased polls and to meticulously refute them.

Please provide the original source so that I can demonstrate how flawed it is.

Unfortunately for you, membership in the AAAS is based on a person's willingness to pay subscription fees, which means anyone can join, regardless of their scientific expertise, or lack thereof.

Furthermore, the AAAS survey's sample size was 3,748 people, and it was limited to US members only. So not only was it not representative of the global scientific community of scientists, it was barely representative of its own 100,000 plus members.

The fact is, AGW dogmatists have yet to produce a single valid poll of scientists views on AGW. Without exception, every poll they produce is highly flawed in several ways.

I don't have to prove anything because, unlike you, I never made a claim about what percentage of scientists do or do not support AGW.

 

GOOD, fewer no work jobs in govt is a very good thing.

 

Who are you and why do I care what you think about the methodology of these polls? These polls were done by statistical experts. I'm not looking for your unqualified opinion on them. If you want to debunk them then you need to provide alternative facts. Other scientific polls.

I provided the goods. You have failed to provide any of your own.

 

Your dodge of the facts was as lame as it was predictable.

You got nothing, as usual.

 

Your "god" said it'; you believe it; that settles it. Yeah, I heard that crap before. And any freakin' time you want to post the 'correct' theory of AGW, backed up by the science of about every scientist on the planet, I'll listen. Until then, you and yours are little but background noise.

 

I'm sure you have. What you haven't done is to publish the results where 97% of climate scientists agree with your political fantasy. Until then, you really don't have very much except noise, do you?

 

I posted scientific polls and all you're doing is talking and acting like that's a retort. I posted my evidence. I've done my my job. It's you who has nothing.

Flapping your gums (or in this case fingers) is not a retort. You need to provide actual evidence as I have.

So I think I'll continue saying it. 9.8/10 of the most well researched scientists endorse AGW.

 

Here you go

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

 

The hardcore deniers need to come up with a theory that explains the observed evidence. Specifically, the stratospheric cooling, decreasing outgoing longwave radiation, and increasing backradiation. Those are smoking guns for greenhouse-gas induced global warming. Global warming theory predicted it all ahead of time, and it happened. That's how actual science is done. None of the "natural cycles" theories explain such observed evidence. Hence, hardcore denialism fails as science. It does not explain the observed evidence, hence it is wrong. Global warming theory is currently the only theory that does explain all the directly observed evidence, hence it is currently the only accepted theory.

Hardcore denialism -- the complete denial that human-caused global warming exists -- is no longer a tenable theory. No honest person can profess such a belief which is so completely contradicted by the evidence. Only the most ridiculously brainless and brainwashed cultists now deny global warming is real. That's why the smarter deniers have already fallen back to a "Well, humans are causing warming, but the warming will be less than predicted" position, as it's still possible to defend that claim.

 

Observable facts would tell you that with the conditions you mentioned above, we should be in an increased warming period but we are now going on 17 years with no observable warming.

That kind of blows a hole in your theory there.

Those are the actual scientific facts.

When you have constant variables, and the results change, then your variables are incorrect.