Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[itfitzme]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

You are right, he isn't a rocket scientist. He sits in a rocket that was designed by rocket scientists.

 

[Skylar]

Key phrase."warmest decade on record".

Indeed. And given that the time period that Dr. Tsonis is citing is the last 15 years, 10 of them being the hottest on record kinda puts the 'cooling' claim to bed.

And given that the good doctor was the one and only source offered for the claim that the earth is cooling......the claim doesn't amount to much.

 

[Skylar]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

You are right, he isn't a rocket scientist. He sits in a rocket that was designed by rocket scientists.

I'm not sure Cunningham even understands what global warming is. As he offered us this analytical gem:

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

Which even advocates of his position can't make even remotely relevant to what Cunningham is discussing. And given that Cunningham's criticism is based on *his* capacity for analysis, the meaningless jabber about 'CO2 alarms on submarines' demonstrates that capacity doesn't seem up for the task.

 

[Peach]

How many of you believe in God? If you believe in God, please shut up about science because you don't know about science.

No thank you.

 

[Rambunctious]

The gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.

 

[Skylar]

he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

You may want to look outside your own opinion when trying to speak for everyone else.

 

[daveman]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

You are right, he isn't a rocket scientist. He sits in a rocket that was designed by rocket scientists.

Yes, he's just along for the ride. It's not like he has to actually fly the thing.

Dumbass.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

 

[Skylar]

he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.
This isn't a conservative thing. It's an honest, objective thing. AGW is a lefty thing and those opposed are generally non-lefties. Doesn't make us conservatives. But the fact that you took this into a political premise demonstrates that AGW theory is a politically driven non-science.
Do a little research and you'll see there are vast numbers of experts who disagree with AGW theory. You just don't hear about them in the MSM. And none of the AGW proponents will ever debate them. Just disparagement.

 

[Skylar]

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.

Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.

Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.

Then why do you continue to support the AGW nonsense?

 

[Skylar]

That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.

Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.

Then why do you continue to support the AGW nonsense?

For the same reason NASA, the NOAA, and 97% of polled earth scientists do:

The evidence of AGW is compelling and overwhelming. And its the evidence that is swaying governments, scientists and the public.

 

[BlindBoo]

I have three problems with global warming alarmism.

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And drum roll......

ta da!

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

Record increase in the minimum ice in 2013 because the 2012 minimum ice level was the lowest on record.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

I hope the trend continue and the threat of runaway global warming diminishes. 2 and a half months and we'll know.

 

[Rambunctious]

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally

. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

Public opinion? That's your argument? first of all that's not true. The opinion polls are all over the place on this issue. Ask the question when it's 15 degrees outside in May and you will get a whole different answer. Anyone that puts the weather changing at the top of his list of things to attend to is not a thinking person. Either you're advancing economically by this hoax or you're an idiot. The weather changing by a degree or two kills no one. Never has and it never will.

 

[Mustang]

I have three problems with global warming alarmism.

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And drum roll......

ta da!

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

It's difficult to believe that anyone can be as ignorant as you are regarding climate and weather, and the difference between the two.

 

[jc456]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

 

[jc456]

Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.

Then why do you continue to support the AGW nonsense?

For the same reason NASA, the NOAA, and 97% of polled earth scientists do:

The evidence of AGW is compelling and overwhelming. And its the evidence that is swaying governments, scientists and the public.

What evidence? Let's see the 120PPM of CO2 drives climate!

 

[jc456]

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

nope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

The planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Costa Rica each year while the entire human race simultaneously pumps CO2 into the atmosphere 24hrs/day. China's pollution can be seen from space and there is a field of plastic trash in the Pacific ocean the size of the continental United States.

If you think that this can't have an effect on the environment then you are not a scientist.

Your point?