It's the Sun, stupid!
More recent observations indicate that Mars' south pole is continuing to melt. "It's evaporating right now at a prodigious rate," says Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). The pits in the ice are growing by about 3 meters per year. Malin states that conditions on Mars are not currently conductive to the
( Read more... )
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
Variations in Solar Luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
This graph demonstrates that the Earths temperature has been declining as we enter(ed) a new Ice age until about 1750, which directly coincides with the start of the Industrial revolution.
HTH d^;
Reply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect."Paraphrasing the rest of the article: We've only been tracking the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) since 1970, and even though that's only increased by .1% (not enough on its own to explain global warming) if extrapolated as a trend over the last Century or more can easily explain the warming through the 19th and 20th centuries ( ... )
Reply
Furthermore, NASA shelves climate satellites reports that NASA has drastically reduced its study of climate change due to political pressure.
Political appointee Michael Griffin, not a scientist, has issued a gag order on NASA scientists prohibiting them from speaking about climate change. here he draws criticism from scientists. "NASA's position is that it provides scientific data on the issue, but policymakers are the ones who decide."
I therefore wouldn't put much faith in what NASA says on the issue until they get an independent administrator without a political agenda.
Reply
The first two articles you cited have headlines that don't even apply to the topic covered in the article. The headlines themselves are biased commentary on the article... and the meat of the article doesn't really support your opinion. All the articles refer to is that NASA's primary mission has changed to be more in line with the president's policy of space exploration... the headlines are B.S. spin-doctoring from a biased editor.
The third article you cited says that Griffin's position is that global warming may not be a bad thing -- who are we to say that the current climate is the best climate for humans? (paraphrased) Then it cites a few people criticizing him for that position ( ... )
Reply
No more ridiculous than your references. I trust data that is collected by thousands of scientists, regardless of their funding, that jives with data from other thousands of scientists.
Regardless, I wonder why I bother to even read your journal anymore. You clearly are trolling for conflict and I don't need the agitation these days. HAND
Reply
I've been posting my own frustration with current political situations in my own journal, which you may choose to read or not... that's not trolling.
You, however, fit the very definition of a troll, posting in *my* journal a response designed to illicit conflicting opinion.
You don't need the agitation and you are free to leave. Buh-bye... don't let the virtual door hit you in the ass.
Reply
Reply
Quoting someone else's opinions to reinforce one's own doesn't prove validity.
Reply
Reply
If I was posting off-topic in another forum, that'd be trolling. If I was spouting anti-muslim rhetoric in C.A.I.R.'s community, that'd be trolling. (and sounds like fun, actually...) But posting one's opinion in their OWN journal is not "trolling for conflict" as Jim put it.
I also never said I don't expect people to disagree with me, but when they disagree with me in my own journal, I respond. That's not trolling.
What happened last week in Patgund's journal is another matter... I disagreed with his opinion in his journal, and he started screening my posts as a result. I'd expect no less (and in fact have done that to people in my journal in the past) and don't blame him a bit for it.
;)
Reply
Reply
I enjoy intelligent argument and thoughtful debate. It promotes thinking and awareness. Listening to opposing views (unless they are simply riddled with snipes and sarcasm) is always entertaining, not to mention educational.
Trolling, however, is not looking for argument as much as it is looking to anger. I don't do that.
Reply
The article you cite clearly says that the statement was changed to delete "understand and protect our home planet" in favor of "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research".
The new wording, in no way, requires NASA to drop planetary monitoring. I doubt that "scientific discovery" could possibly be interpreted as "NOT understanding our home planet". As to "protect", in what meaningful way could NASA perform such a mission? Nuking pollution centers from orbit?
Furthermore, the original "understand and protect" clause was written in 2002 --- not prior to Bush's presidency. NASA's own spokesman stated in your article that the reason for the rewording was to refocus on manned exploration of the Moon and Mars, policies that Clinton publically ordered removed from NASA's mission objectives during the '90s.
I call that an improvement, however minor it may be.
Reply
Leave a comment