You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work at NASA
HathawayWilson2006-preprint.pdf
Red is predicted. Green is what happened.
NASA’s solar forecasts are every bit as good as their climate forecasts
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Market Volatility
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- arn on Market Volatility
- arn on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bill on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Market Volatility
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- stewartpid on Market Volatility
- William on Record CO2 Growth
- Greg in NZ on Hottest Summer Ever
This is the scientific principal known as “drinking your own urine.”
Since all weather and climate originates from the sun, it follows that if you get one wrong, the other will be wrong (or have to be made wrong) as well.
If you’re going to post up every scientific prediction that experts got wrong, it’s going to be a very long list.
They are 97% certain to be wrong.
But you hear about the 3% that got it right an awful lot. 😉
(Classic example, where in a past exchange here, David Appell compared himself to Albert Einstein.)
I bet they have a super computer too!
Maybe, just maybe, they will now see a link between low solar activity and lower temperatures.
I guess not, but you never now. Maybe they should by a super printer instead!
*know (sry)
*buy (that’s it, I call it a day…)
Forecasts have a long tradition of.being linear extrapolations of.the recent past
Interesting take on NASA’s “official” leftist positions on AGW in Global Warming: One NASA Scientist [Hansen] Vs. More Than 20 There’s no “consensus” among current and former NASA scientists, yet the party line is that there is.
“Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.” -James Hansen, NASA
“[in 2008 ] the West Side Highway [and so most of Manhattan] will be under water… And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of [constant] high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” -James Hansen, NASA
What absolute unmitigated bs, and Hansen knew it. Now, several years beyond 2008, and we see that the sea hasn’t risen any discernible amount. None. The birds… are the same. The trees… ditto. There’s no constantly taped up windows because of wind. What a joke. And crime… has gone down! The temperature, has gone down or stayed the same. Hansen needs to be handcuffed and put away for this crime, because largely as a result of his knowingly false ecoloon propaganda society has squandered overall perhaps trillions of dollars on the agw fantasy. Lock the man up.
Got the link wrong somehow to the article (One NASA Scientist [Hansen] Vs. More Than 20) which talks about the larger number of NASA scientists that oppose the charlatan criminal Hansen. Try again: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012513-642054-nasa-scientists-engineers-global-warming-facts.htm
“Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
The only thing he got right was this blatantly racist stereotype.
It’s not a crime, nor should it be, to make predictions and get them wrong. However, claiming you are 99% certain of something when no such certainty is possible, is something of a grey area.
To willingly (not WILLingly!) mislead can be a crime, especially when you consider the stakes to society (the huge expense of the pro-AGW programs that were implemented in 1990s), and the personal profiteering involved (and this applies to Hansen). Look at the Climategate emails for proof that many have been purposely misleading us… lying. Are the oil company execs criminals instead? To repeat:
“Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.” -James Hansen, NASA
“Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us.., we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (agw skeptics) — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” -David Roberts, Grist Magazine
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the IPCC [it would seem to be criminal to scare-monger {in seeking personal or political gain} when you know full well that it is fanciful bs that you are spouting]
“It is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts [on agw].” – Al Gore
“We have to offer up [knowingly fabricated] scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, ipcc author, 1989
Thought Crime is something Progressives fantasize about. (As can be seen from the list you provided.) That doesn’t mean that therefore Sceptics should indulge in such behaviour, simply by virtue of the fact that the enemies of rationality do.
Will, I knew that you were going to give the ~ “two wrongs don’t make a right” defense of the AGW fraudsters. But at least consider the high cost to society of their deceptions, and what would have happened to society if their most insidious programs had been enacted? Like the 2009 Cap & Trade bill that passed in US House that would have cut CO2 by 83% by 2050, with huge cuts right off the bat. That would have been devastating. And just a few brave senators stood in the way of it passing. It was -that- close to reaching Obama, and Obama would have happily unleashed the devastation upon us.
Critically, when the public at large finally realizes that AGW was little more than a fabrication foisted upon them by the bullshit artists, we need to ensure that these perpetrators don’t rise against to commit their next eco-fraud.
I’m sorry to let you know that your country is in such a mess economically that all of the wrongs caused by CAGW is really chicken feed relative to what you are going to have to face up to over the next few years and decades. The thing about economic fundamentals is that you can duck them for a long time because markets don’t behave rationally, but they always catch up.
Ok, but, that’s another issue. I can’t say I disagree with you. Still, don’t underestimate how much massive damage an effective carbon control regime could do. Combine runaway govt entitlements [actually, abrupt cuts in overextended entitlements] with a draconian cap & trade, and we could get that de-industrialization (and “emergency socialism” & tyranny) that the left pines for.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism,.. our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
I understand why you’re upset. It upsets me too. But if you want to jail people for being unethical as opposed to actually engaging in criminal conduct, we would have no government and considerably fewer government employees. And as much as that idea has a certain appeal, I have little confidence anarchism would be better than the systems we have now.
Unethical is one thing, but we’d have to have criminal deception, fraud. But I appreciate your restrained and rational approach. So, I’m going to concede this ‘argument’ to you. In any event, serious policy formulation would require a lot more then just the musings of some commenters on a blog, even if it be a really good blog, lol.
@Andy. I agree. Pull the plug. It’s now become the agency of Muslim Outreach and AGW propaganda.
Way off, even a good guess would have been closer, they are using best fit nonsense, statistical analysis that not only get the physical timing wrong but also the intensity of the cycle wrong. They have no grounded physical process to measure and have been reading tealeaves. Even the eleven year timing is a fuzzy estimate of an average. They do not understand the science of how the sun works, all their complex talk is just that, complex babble.
Now that we have no space program worth mentioning, why not pull the plug on NASA?
One of the best measurements to define the solar influence on our planet is the magnitude of the Van Allen belts and the magnitude of Magnetospheric depression and the amount of time it is depressed/distorted via the solar wind/CME impacts. The belts can and do disappear completely at times and when they are missing for some time, the correlation with dropping planetary temperatures (oceans 1st, ground mass 2nd) tell a big part of the story.
The THEMIS program has been yielding more information to further our understanding of the
inter-planetary forces (magnetics and plasmas and the mechanisms at work and the structures derived), but all the data is new without any data to reference it to…
The sun may be telling us it’s taking a snooze, but that won’t stop the Cult leaders from trying to scare the shit out of people, since that’s their best approach for control.
Reading tealeaves.
As the computers get bigger and smarter, the scientists get lazier and dumber.