Former Astronaut/Scientist speaks out against man made GW

[caneman]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/natio ... ion=recent

[x-y-no]

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Just once I'd like to see some documentation of what worthy grant proposals have failed to get funding and why they're more worthy than the thousands and thousands of other proposals that are submitted each year. Getting research funding is extremely hard. That's life in the research community. It takes more than anecdotes to demonstrate a systematic bias.

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Well this is unequivocally wrong. Isotopic analysis definitively shows that almost all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past century is due to burning of fossil fuels.

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

Well sure sea level changes all the time. Is that supposed to be a refutation of the evidence that the current sea-level rise is due to thermal expansion, or that glacial ice melt is accelerating?

[caneman]

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Just once I'd like to see some documentation of what worthy grant proposals have failed to get funding and why they're more worthy than the thousands and thousands of other proposals that are submitted each year. Getting research funding is extremely hard. That's life in the research community. It takes more than anecdotes to demonstrate a systematic bias.

It didn't say they didn't get funding (he said lost). Are you denying that anytime an anti-GW scientist, weatherman, etc.. comes out against GW that they are riduculed, threatend, etc.? I don't have time to find the links for you but but if you believe in fairness and keep an open mind there are plenty of stories out for you to find.

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Well this is unequivocally wrong. Isotopic analysis definitively shows that almost all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past century is due to burning of fossil fuels.

I'd like to see an an article on this. PLease provide a link. Does it mean that the world is going to end tomorrow? Does it mean that the issue shouldn't be given time for good, fair and balanced scientific findings? I mean we do have hundred of thousand of years of cyclical weather in comparison to the last 10-20 years of GW thinking....

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

Well sure sea level changes all the time. Is that supposed to be a refutation of the evidence that the current sea-level rise is due to thermal expansion, or that glacial ice melt is accelerating?

It could be. It could also be that we are in a regular ole warming period or just what he said. In fact, warming could be ending see my other post on last years unusally cold temps. Heck if that goes on for 9 more years. I might start arguing ice age.

[Sanibel]

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

The problem is our present 385ppm is well above any naturally-occurring CO2 level.

There's some things that can't be answered with accusations of bias.

[x-y-no]

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

The problem is our present 385ppm is well above any naturally-occurring CO2 level.

There's some things that can't be answered with accusations of bias.

Well no, it's not above any naturally-occurring CO2 level. But the last time it was this high, the global average temperature was something on the order of 8 degrees celsius higher and the sea level was more than 20 meters higher.

[Sanibel]

I meant to add in the previous ice core samples from 500,000 years. Never the less the point stands.

I'm sure if we rose up to those record CO2 levels many humans wouldn't do well by it. The relevant data is that which relates to current human vulnerability.

More like 388ppm now.

[Sanibel]

Read a NY Times Magazine article about 85 year old genius Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson who says he isn't worried about GW and it is overhyped. The problem is if you read his reasons they are mostly political. Like wanting China to have a middle class and not wanting to spend too much to avoid it. The article outlines how he emulated British thinkers who went against the grain in his youth (in other words he likes taking the opposite side). He says things like "it will make better weather in colder climates".