Big Science At NASA

10 Responses to Big Science At NASA

1. Lance says:

   March 5, 2013 at 3:30 am

   Models never lie…just the input parameters…

   Reply
2. NikFromNYC says:

   March 5, 2013 at 4:35 am

   YOU *deleted* my recent posts.

   No Ph.D. here is allowed!

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     March 5, 2013 at 4:51 am

     Nobody deleted anything. Take your meds.

     Reply
3. omanuel says:

   March 5, 2013 at 4:54 am

   Steven, the integrity of science and constitutional government started to decline in 1946, before NASA was formed, when

   1. Fred Hoyle published misinformation about the Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy, and
   2. George Orwell moved to the forsaken Scottish Island of Jura, although dying of tuberculosis, to write “1984? and warn society about the tyrannical government that has now almost completely engulfed our planet.

   http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204

   There is a ray of hope today from the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology:

   On Wednesday 6 Mar 2013 at 10:00 am the Subcommittee on Environment will hear testimony from Drs. Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), William Chameides (Duke University), and Bjørn Lomborg (Copenhagen) on “Policy-Relevant Climate Issues in Context.”

   The first and last are credible climate scientists. William Chameides is a Dean, and a member of the NAS. The hearing will be Webcast live:

   http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-policy-relevant-climate-issues-context

   I wrote to wish them success – “not just for the future of science – but also for the future of civilization !“

   http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/04/forthcoming-congressional-hearing/

   With deep regrets,
   Oliver K. Manuel

   Reply
4. Chewer says:

   March 5, 2013 at 5:59 am

   But, there’s no worries about future funding as long as they’re within the +/-110% range:)

   Reply
5. oldfossil says:

   March 5, 2013 at 6:56 am

   Ummmm… now I think about it, yes we’ve had a few big flares in the last year or five but against predictions they didn’t knock out all electronics on earth and while they were happening I didn’t even notice a flicker on the TV or more dropped cellphone calls. We’re not roasting like chickens either. So it seems that the highly paid expert scientists at NCAR know as much about what causes the weather as Madame Rue with her crystal ball and her Love Potion No. 9.

   Richard Feynman said that scientists must be very clear about what they know and what they don’t know, because it’s very easy to confuse yourself. The danger is the kind of arrogance in a scientist who is so charmed by the admittedly amazing successes of modern science, that you believe you know all the answers.

   If knowledge were finite and the sum of all possible knowledge would fit into a glass reaching as high as the Moon then if we measured what we’ve learned so far, the level in the glass would not even reach the ceiling of the room in which I am now.

   And that is the essence of a climate change skeptic. We don’t make any predictions for warmer or cooler because we know how little we really know about all everything in the climate system.

   Reply
6. Will Nitschke says:

   March 5, 2013 at 8:05 am

   Solar physics is not well understood either…

   Reply
7. gator69 says:

   March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm

   The consensus says that cycle 24 is a large maximum, time to Hansenize the data.

   Reply
8. omanuel says:

   March 5, 2013 at 4:45 pm

   Formation of the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 brought many benefits to society – reduction in the threat of nuclear annihilation, nationalism, racism, etc. – but hiding information on the source of energy (E) [1,2] stored as mass (m) in cores of

   a.) Heavy atoms like Th, U, Pu
   b.) Planets like Jupiter and Saturn
   c.) Ordinary stars like our Sun
   d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way

   Prevented world leaders from being able to meet the basic needs of society.

   Oliver K. Manuel
   Former NASA Principal
   Investigator for Apollo
   PhD Nuclear Chemistry
   Postdoc Space Physics

   1. ”Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

   2. “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar,” Nature (submitted 12 Dec 2012): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Yes_the_Sun_is_a_pulsar.pdf

   Reply
9. Rosco says:

   March 5, 2013 at 9:57 pm

   http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

   How come THAT inconvenient link still exists ?

   Reply