Comments on: NASA to Earth: Global Warming is for Real, Folks! http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:33:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: Eve http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-8736 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:31:45 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-8736 Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.

]]> By: Eve http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26126 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:31:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26126 Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.

]]> By: Eve http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26127 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:31:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26127 Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.

]]> By: Robert Ragsdale http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-8735 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:01 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-8735 The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.

]]> By: Robert Ragsdale http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26124 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26124 The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.

]]> By: Robert Ragsdale http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26125 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26125 The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-8734 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:00:50 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-8734 Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26122 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26122 Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26123 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26123 Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-8733 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:57:17 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-8733 I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26120 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:57:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26120 I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.

]]> By: Chris Ryan http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/24/nasa-to-earth-global-warming-is-for-real-folks/#comment-26121 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:57:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=5712#comment-26121 I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.

]]>