so why do you think the astronauts had big heavy clothing when going in to space. some joker thought it would be a good idea to hamper them while in space. or was it perhaps they did their homework and found out what the climate would be like and designed the suits so that the astronauts could actually survive up there.
To keep them warm if they had to pop outside for anything, obviously. Why else?
.. a bunch of other NASA people who are experts in other fields matter to anyone except people trying to validate their own inexpert, contrarian views?
.." or "I've flown at Mach 3") but nothing to most other fields of science.
Maybe it's because some of us understand what some of these NASA people's job titles actually involves. Picking one at random*-
Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
Well I was merely responding to your statement not to context. And don't ever run away with the idea that science is always right or that scientists always draw the right conclusions. Let's take a look at meterology where again millions or even billions have been poured into getting weather forecasts right. On Monday I looked at the forecast for Tuesday. Out of some six or seven forecasts none of them agreed, meaning that at most only one could have been right. In the even, only one was nearly right.
The very idea that these people can even think of forecasting 10, 14 and even more days ahead only goes to show how deluded they are about their own abilities.
Or perhaps it's the instruments that are wrong.
The analogy I use every time someone tries to equate highly localised weather forecasting with global climate forecasting is that of two dice. We have great trouble predicting what two dice will throw next but, the longer it goes on the more accurate our predictions get for the average.
Is that right? If listed as signatories to such a letter, wouldn't their credentials be similarly summarised? I think so.
It's right. Their credentials are listed for anyone who understands what those people do/did.
What do you think-
Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
Might have actually done during their day job? Count tree rings? Or do you think they might actually have a pretty good understanding of the atmosphere.
Of course the SkS's chief scientologist dismisses them as engineers and administrators over at the Grauniad. What 'peer-reviewed' science has Nucitelli ever published.
The analogy I use every time someone tries to equate highly localised weather forecasting with global climate forecasting is that of two dice. We have great trouble predicting what two dice will throw next but, the longer it goes on the more accurate our predictions get for the average.
We've been weather forecasting for far longer than we've been assessing global warming so I'd suggest on that basis we ought to be better at weather forecasting. The reality is we're lousy at it. And scientists do get things wrong.
We've been weather forecasting for far longer than we've been assessing global warming so I'd suggest on that basis we ought to be better at weather forecasting. The reality is we're lousy at it. And scientists do get things wrong.
We've been rolling dice a long time, it's still easier to predict the long term average than the next throw.
On the contrary, I have a very good idea of what they really think, because I can read what they have written.
Of course, I can't read what they haven't written, so presumably your contention is that the "many climate scientists" who doubt the instrumental temperature record have not bothered to express their doubts via the medium of the written word, but have instead communicated their private thoughts on the matter to a man who thinks that watts are the same thing as joules, in the belief that he will be better placed to communicate their doubts to the wider public.
And now back to ex and former NASA employees:
at least one is still employed by NASA. Oh dear, you do have just as many problems with English as you have with science. Which bit of:not all are ex do you not understand
At least one out of 49? How about a name? And if you are right (which would be an exciting and unprecedented development) why did the letter refer to all of them as former NASA employees: "As former NASA employees..."?
They don't appear in the qualfications of Hansen, Mann, Schmidt either. As for qualifications, Burt Rutan only got a BSc, so what could he possibly know about the atmosphere? No need to understand any of that stuff when you're building high performance, novel and innovative aircraft I guess.
Feel free to tell us where you think the overlaps are between the stuff Rutan needs to know about the atmosphere (and which I suspect he just looks up) and climate science.
It seems to have convinced you, but then some people are suckers for appeals to authority.
Indeed they are. Look at this fellow, for example. Goes by the name of Eel:
It's right. Their credentials are listed for anyone who understands what those people do/did.
What do you think-
Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
Might have actually done during their day job? Count tree rings? Or do you think they might actually have a pretty good understanding of the atmosphere.
See how "Eel" is appealing to authority too? The difference is that his authorities haven't actually done any relevant research. But Eel does like those job titles!
And, more importantly, he likes what they are saying: There isn't a problem! All those actual climate scientists with their hundreds of actual published papers are wrong! We can carry on belching out CO2 with impunity! NASA must be muzzled to avoid frightening the horses!
Rutan needs to know about the atmosphere (and which I suspect he just looks up) and climate science.
Looks it up.. where?
See how "Eel" is appealing to authority too? The difference is that his authorities haven't actually done any relevant research. But Eel does like those job titles!
What is Nucittelli's job title by the way? And what relevant research has he done that qualifies him to judge-
..and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.
What is the Grauniad/SkS's Chief Scientologist suggesting here? Science quality should be measured by the oz/kilo, presumably of paperwork produced? Never mind the qualtiy of the data, feel the weight of the paper.
Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).
I hope poor Gavin Schmidt doesn't find that too offensive, he being a NASA guy who's just a mathematician to.
But in you rush to rebutt and support Nucittelli's judgement you glossed over the papers I cited by Bogard on Argon. Just to be clear, do you think his work has/had no relevance for climate 'science', which presumably has found alternative ways to date their isotopes.. Which may or may not involve dinner and a movie.
NASA must be muzzled to avoid frightening the horses!
Sheeple dear boy, sheeple.. But they've already done their job with you.
You think that nothing is known about the atmosphere, and that anyone designing an aircraft, or a spacecraft, must research it anew each time? Where can I find details of Rutan's breakthrough advances in atmospheric science? Or has he thrown them away so that the next person who designs an aircraft has to start again?
You really do have some unusual ideas about reality, don't you?
and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.
It's true. None of the signatories know anything about climate science. They are rather like you in that respect.
But in you rush to rebutt and support Nucittelli's judgement you glossed over the papers I cited by Bogard on Argon. Just to be clear, do you think his work has/had no relevance for climate 'science', which presumably has found alternative ways to date their isotopes..
I looked at the two papers you offered. One was written in 1975 and discussed cosmic ray exposure ages of stone meteorites. No relevance whatsoever to climate science. The other was written in 1999 and concerned the radiometric age of Martian meteorites. Some relevance to the composition of the Martian atmosphere, but no relevance to its climate, or to Earth's climate, or even to Earth's atmospheric composition (which is not in any case in doubt). But feel free to explain in detail why you think his work has relevance, and to what.
And that was the closest you could get to a climate scientist in that list of 49 ex-NASA employees? I can see why you people struggle with credibility!
Sheeple dear boy, sheeple.. But they've already done their job with you.
There should be a Godwin's law corollary to be invoked as soon as the conspiracy theorist mentions "sheeple"...
Yes. There was no science in their letter. None at all. It was just a stunt orchestrated by Harrison Schmitt of the Heartland Institute. Same old, same old.
Posting a list of names of people who have scientific or engineering qualifications to endorse a letter which has no scientific content does not magically imbue it with scientific value.
<list of names -snipped>
That's not what I said. I said their letter has no scientific content. I pointed out that none of the signatories has ever done any climate research.
Not if there were plenty of cardiologists available. Your analogy requires us to believe that cardiologists don't exist, or that if they do, we should ignore them in favour of chiropodists.
No. It's a very sensible attitude.
They might be capable, but they show no signs of having made the effort.
My physics is boringly mainstream. But feel free to find examples where it isn't.
Unlike Eel's - who thinks CO2 is a cooling gas, that neutrino shields exist, that protons decay in the atmosphere, and that ultra high energy cosmic rays might be affecting the climate through solar influences.
And unlike bmillam's, who thinks that watts are the same thing as joules (no more needs to be said about him, because his misconceptions aren't even amusing).
And unlike you, who thinks (or thought, or pretended to think, or pretended that he had pretended to think) that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would eventually cause the planet to cool because it is rotating and there wouldn't be enough hours of sunlight to let it reach equilibrium.
Ah, true to form, attack the critic rather than address the criticism. In this case the criticism is that NASA and GISS are making claims which cannot be substantiated by the underlying research/science and the people making the criticism are perfectly capable of understanding the underlying science.
So why not explain why the criticism is wrong or accept the cricism.
What's unreasonable about that, I'm sure the experts are up to it.
Ah, true to form, attack the critic rather than address the criticism. In this case the criticism is that NASA and GISS are making claims which cannot be substantiated by the underlying research/science and the people making the criticism are perfectly capable of understanding the underlying science.
So why not explain why the criticism is wrong or accept the cricism.
What's unreasonable about that, I'm sure the experts are up to it.
What criticism? It was just the usual vague allegations of malfeasance, in this case by their former employer, unsupported by anything as vulgar as evidence.
NASA publish their research. These clowns should do the same. Once they've done some.
What criticism? It was just the usual vague allegations of malfeasance, in this case by their former employer, unsupported by anything as vulgar as evidence.
So if you had familiarised yourself with the underlying science and found it couldn't support the claims being made would you not just raise the matter with the people concerned rather than pulishing another paper?
The experts ought to be able to put you straight if there had been a misunderstanting.
Ah, true to form, attack the critic rather than address the criticism. In this case the criticism is that NASA and GISS are making claims which cannot be substantiated by the underlying research/science and the people making the criticism are perfectly capable of understanding the underlying science.
So why not explain why the criticism is wrong or accept the cricism.
What's unreasonable about that, I'm sure the experts are up to it.
Yes but those claims themselves weren't true. Which would be why they can't be substantiated.
So if you had familiarised yourself with the underlying science and found it couldn't support the claims being made would you not just raise the matter with the people concerned rather than pulishing another paper?
The experts ought to be able to put you straight if there had been a misunderstanting.
And where have they done that, these signatories, prior to publishing their science-free letter? Where is the evidence they have familiarised themselves with any of the underlying science?
See above and stop attacking the critics it's not the way thinhgs are done.
Irony failure. These "critics" think the way things are done is to send a letter for viral dissemination by all the usual denier websites. So much easier than refuting the science, which they reject on ideological, rather than rational grounds.
They may have some relevant knowledge but it looks like the climate is not within the expertise of any of them. I asked above (#1993) if anyone could spot anyone in the list with climate expertise but Abe's answer seemed to imply that he thought Spencer had been an astronaut. If not, which astronaut did he mean?
Of course they can comment as non-experts, and so can you or I. NASA's atmospheric scientists have provided climate data but how does the 'discomfort' of a bunch of other NASA people who are experts in other fields matter to anyone except people trying to validate their own inexpert, contrarian views?
Why this obsession with astronauts, what do they offer? Certainly one of the best chat-up lines ("I've been to to Moon..." or "I've flown at Mach 3") but nothing to most other fields of science.
A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.
According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.
Interesting when you compare the survey with this paragraph from the same article.
In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
No prizes I suppose for guessing which one you'd champion.
On the contrary, I have a very good idea of what they really think, because I can read what they have written.
that is not what they think, it is what they are prepared to put on paper.
And now back to ex and former NASA employees:
At least one out of 49? How about a name? And if you are right (which would be an exciting and unprecedented development) why did the letter refer to all of them as former NASA employees: "As former NASA employees..."?
Comments
Maybe it's because some of us understand what some of these NASA people's job titles actually involves. Picking one at random*-
Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703776900284
On the calculation of cosmic-ray exposure ages of stone meteorites
So probably understands a thing or two about using isotopes as proxies..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01353.x/abstract
Argon-39-argon-40 “ages” and trapped argon in Martian shergottites, Chassigny, and Allan Hills 84001
Argon isotopes being used to date and/or calibrate terrestrial proxies as well..
The Monahans chondrite and halite: Argon-39/argon-40 age, solar gases, cosmic-ray exposure ages, and parent body regolith neutron flux and thickness
Yup, looks like I was right.. many of his articles were published in a planetary science journal as well.
The analogy I use every time someone tries to equate highly localised weather forecasting with global climate forecasting is that of two dice. We have great trouble predicting what two dice will throw next but, the longer it goes on the more accurate our predictions get for the average.
It's right. Their credentials are listed for anyone who understands what those people do/did.
What do you think-
Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
Might have actually done during their day job? Count tree rings? Or do you think they might actually have a pretty good understanding of the atmosphere.
Of course the SkS's chief scientologist dismisses them as engineers and administrators over at the Grauniad. What 'peer-reviewed' science has Nucitelli ever published.
and you are no better.
perhaps because when the sun came up they would cook. but don't let little things like that spoil your day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit
We've been weather forecasting for far longer than we've been assessing global warming so I'd suggest on that basis we ought to be better at weather forecasting. The reality is we're lousy at it. And scientists do get things wrong.
<sigh> I keep forgetting how little you understand.
I was saying that Black Cloud is believing everything scientists say, just not the most expert scientists in the field of climate science.
But you are right in that I don't know better than climate scientists.
We've been rolling dice a long time, it's still easier to predict the long term average than the next throw.
Of course, I can't read what they haven't written, so presumably your contention is that the "many climate scientists" who doubt the instrumental temperature record have not bothered to express their doubts via the medium of the written word, but have instead communicated their private thoughts on the matter to a man who thinks that watts are the same thing as joules, in the belief that he will be better placed to communicate their doubts to the wider public.
And now back to ex and former NASA employees:
At least one out of 49? How about a name? And if you are right (which would be an exciting and unprecedented development) why did the letter refer to all of them as former NASA employees: "As former NASA employees..."?
Indeed they are. Look at this fellow, for example. Goes by the name of Eel:
See how "Eel" is appealing to authority too? The difference is that his authorities haven't actually done any relevant research. But Eel does like those job titles!
And, more importantly, he likes what they are saying: There isn't a problem! All those actual climate scientists with their hundreds of actual published papers are wrong! We can carry on belching out CO2 with impunity! NASA must be muzzled to avoid frightening the horses!
Looks it up.. where?
What is Nucittelli's job title by the way? And what relevant research has he done that qualifies him to judge-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff
..and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.
What is the Grauniad/SkS's Chief Scientologist suggesting here? Science quality should be measured by the oz/kilo, presumably of paperwork produced? Never mind the qualtiy of the data, feel the weight of the paper.
Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).
I hope poor Gavin Schmidt doesn't find that too offensive, he being a NASA guy who's just a mathematician to.
But in you rush to rebutt and support Nucittelli's judgement you glossed over the papers I cited by Bogard on Argon. Just to be clear, do you think his work has/had no relevance for climate 'science', which presumably has found alternative ways to date their isotopes.. Which may or may not involve dinner and a movie.
Sheeple dear boy, sheeple.. But they've already done their job with you.
So you think you can spend billions on scientific research and projects yet be no better at it than rolling dice?
You really do have some unusual ideas about reality, don't you?
It's true. None of the signatories know anything about climate science. They are rather like you in that respect.
I looked at the two papers you offered. One was written in 1975 and discussed cosmic ray exposure ages of stone meteorites. No relevance whatsoever to climate science. The other was written in 1999 and concerned the radiometric age of Martian meteorites. Some relevance to the composition of the Martian atmosphere, but no relevance to its climate, or to Earth's climate, or even to Earth's atmospheric composition (which is not in any case in doubt). But feel free to explain in detail why you think his work has relevance, and to what.
And that was the closest you could get to a climate scientist in that list of 49 ex-NASA employees? I can see why you people struggle with credibility!
There should be a Godwin's law corollary to be invoked as soon as the conspiracy theorist mentions "sheeple"...
Or do you think we can't predict the long term average of dice throws?
Ah, true to form, attack the critic rather than address the criticism. In this case the criticism is that NASA and GISS are making claims which cannot be substantiated by the underlying research/science and the people making the criticism are perfectly capable of understanding the underlying science.
So why not explain why the criticism is wrong or accept the cricism.
What's unreasonable about that, I'm sure the experts are up to it.
NASA publish their research. These clowns should do the same. Once they've done some.
So if you had familiarised yourself with the underlying science and found it couldn't support the claims being made would you not just raise the matter with the people concerned rather than pulishing another paper?
The experts ought to be able to put you straight if there had been a misunderstanting.
See above and stop attacking the critics it's not the way thinhgs are done.
Yes but those claims themselves weren't true. Which would be why they can't be substantiated.
Irony failure. These "critics" think the way things are done is to send a letter for viral dissemination by all the usual denier websites. So much easier than refuting the science, which they reject on ideological, rather than rational grounds.
How about these guys then? Do they pass muster?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/
Interesting when you compare the survey with this paragraph from the same article.
No prizes I suppose for guessing which one you'd champion.
or Black Cloud:p:p
dont know I didnt write the letter