Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   NASA could halt global warming with the same technology it used to fake the moon landings   (sciam.com) divider line 70
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

3707 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Jan 2009 at 8:30 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-20 04:27:10 PM  
Global warming and fake moon landings, both are myths....
 
2009-01-20 04:52:25 PM  
They'll send Buzz to punch the shiat out of the deniers?
 
2009-01-20 05:25:29 PM  
NRC is far, far, more likely than NASA to develop carbon-free sources of energy, don't you think?
 
2009-01-20 06:14:24 PM  
Nasa faked the moon landings? Is this true? Where is the proof?....Lego of my Ego!
 
2009-01-20 06:18:57 PM  
wookalar: Nasa faked the moon landings? Is this true? Where is the proof?....Lego of my Ego!

it was a soundstage in the basement of what would become tower 1 of the world trade center. in order to get rid of all proof, nasa had to coordinate 9/11 with the cia and the bilderburger group.
 
2009-01-20 06:26:37 PM  
thomps: the bilderburger group

Sounds delicious.
 
2009-01-20 06:27:16 PM  
The climate/environment has and will continue to swing back and forth without regard to humans. We think we can control the climate/environment. Why not try to control volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice ages, droughts, earthquakes, sun spot activity and throw in the Earth's orbit as well?

Controlling the Earth's environment is an illusion. Dream on.
 
2009-01-20 06:28:35 PM  
No need to spend all that money. I will halt global warming within ten years all by myself, and at no charge to anybody. You're welcome.
 
2009-01-20 06:31:07 PM  
Juansmith: Sounds delicious.

they are the secret controlling body of the bilderberg group and can often be found controlling world finance while safely hidden between lettuce, tomato and toasted buns.
 
2009-01-20 06:53:17 PM  
Irregardless: The climate/environment has and will continue to swing back and forth without regard to humans.

Non-anthropogenic climatic change no more precludes anthropogenic climate change than the presence of natural forest fires precludes arson. Altering the planetary energy balance changes climatic norms. This is not a controversial concept.

We think we can control the climate/environment.

By the definition of the word "control" we are already doing so (in the sense that we are exerting influence over it) by altering the atmospheric concentrations of known greenhouse gases. To what extent we continue to do so is largely up to us.

Why not try to control volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice ages, droughts, earthquakes, sun spot activity and throw in the Earth's orbit as well?

Non sequitur. Total control over all geological, meteorological, and astrological processes isn't necessary to exert influence over the climate. Again, alteration of the planetary energy balance is sufficient.
 
2009-01-20 07:46:36 PM  
Jon Snow: ...Non sequitur. Total control over all geological, meteorological, and astrological processes isn't necessary to exert influence over the climate. Again, alteration of the planetary energy balance is sufficient.

Do you sign your emails as "I Am Nomad"?

Sorry, your points are valid, but your vernacular does sound a little like Spock and Data arguing at a cocktail party.
 
2009-01-20 08:37:06 PM  
Boritom: Jon Snow: ...Non sequitur. Total control over all geological, meteorological, and astrological processes isn't necessary to exert influence over the climate. Again, alteration of the planetary energy balance is sufficient.

Do you sign your emails as "I Am Nomad"?

Sorry, your points are valid, but your vernacular does sound a little like Spock and Data arguing at a cocktail party.


He's countered BS global warming denial arguments so many times it's understandable that he's starting to sound mechanical.
 
2009-01-20 08:41:37 PM  
Irregardless: The climate/environment has and will continue to swing back and forth without regard to humans. We think we can control the climate/environment. Why not try to control volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice ages, droughts, earthquakes, sun spot activity and throw in the Earth's orbit as well?

Controlling the Earth's environment is an illusion. Dream on.


A .45 acp bullet weighs something close to an ounce (according to some quick googling). A person weighs around 140-160 pounds, on average (I may be off, but it doesn't really matter). Yet I would venture that very few people would argue that, despite the differences in scale, a bullet can have a very great effect on the functioning of the human body.
 
2009-01-20 08:42:17 PM  
RemyDuron: Irregardless: The climate/environment has and will continue to swing back and forth without regard to humans. We think we can control the climate/environment. Why not try to control volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice ages, droughts, earthquakes, sun spot activity and throw in the Earth's orbit as well?

Controlling the Earth's environment is an illusion. Dream on.

A .45 acp bullet weighs something close to an ounce (according to some quick googling). A person weighs around 140-160 pounds, on average (I may be off, but it doesn't really matter). Yet I would venture that very few people would argue with the statement that, despite the differences in scale, a bullet can have a very great effect on the functioning of the human body.


FTFM
 
2009-01-20 08:50:13 PM  
National Air and Space Administration...

Their job has traditionally been to explore the limits of aircraft and spacecraft technology. I see nothing in there about global warming study or resolution.
I believe you are looking for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... you know, the weather people.
 
2009-01-20 09:00:24 PM  
Global warming? We need help with our global cooling! I'm freezing my ass off here.
 
2009-01-20 09:05:47 PM  
way south: National Air and Space Administration...

Their job has traditionally been to explore the limits of aircraft and spacecraft technology. I see nothing in there about global warming study or resolution.


The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are the main climate-related branches of NASA.
 
2009-01-20 09:07:13 PM  
RemyDuron: Boritom: Jon Snow: ...Non sequitur. Total control over all geological, meteorological, and astrological processes isn't necessary to exert influence over the climate. Again, alteration of the planetary energy balance is sufficient.

Do you sign your emails as "I Am Nomad"?

Sorry, your points are valid, but your vernacular does sound a little like Spock and Data arguing at a cocktail party.

He's countered BS global warming denial arguments so many times it's understandable that he's starting to sound mechanical.


This is the Geek tab people! Cut me some slack. ;)
 
2009-01-20 09:16:57 PM  
comslave: Global warming? We need help with our global cooling! I'm freezing my ass off here.

Ditto. This is the coldest year I can remember in a long time. The last thing we need is NASA bringing about climate stagnation.
 
2009-01-20 09:21:18 PM  
soy_bomb: comslave: Global warming? We need help with our global cooling! I'm freezing my ass off here.

Ditto. This is the coldest year I can remember in a long time. The last thing we need is NASA bringing about climate stagnation.


And yet 2008 was warmer than every year of the 20th century, save one (1998). What short memories we humans have.
 
2009-01-20 09:25:54 PM  
All this is BS. The only way that NASA could impact climate change is figure out how it could be profitable beyond 2 quarters out for some big company. Combating climate change is a huge money sink, so it not going to get done.
 
2009-01-20 09:28:52 PM  
Wolf_Blitzer: soy_bomb: comslave: Global warming? We need help with our global cooling! I'm freezing my ass off here.

Ditto. This is the coldest year I can remember in a long time. The last thing we need is NASA bringing about climate stagnation.

And yet 2008 was warmer than every year of the 20th century, save one (1998). What short memories we humans have.


Just because the year was warmer on average doesn't mean that the winter was warmer. Also, since it is the global temperature average it has little to do with many regional temperatures. Some are hot, some are cold, some are average, there just happens to be a few more that are hot.

/thinks global warming and it's effects are exaggerated, but still happening
 
2009-01-20 09:33:06 PM  
thomps: it was a soundstage in the basement of what would become tower 1 of the world trade center. in order to get rid of all proof, nasa had to coordinate 9/11 with the cia and the bilderburger group.

Impossible! They could never pull it off without the Trilateral Commission.
 
2009-01-20 09:44:07 PM  
Global warming? Ha, that's a laugh! It's COLD out tonight. So duh.
 
2009-01-20 09:45:34 PM  
Well, we do have a well known climate astroturfer on Fark who claims to have fixed global warming using MSPaint technology on graphs with NASA logos on them, so I'd say the author of this article is behind the curve here...
 
2009-01-20 09:48:52 PM  
Global warming is quasi-true. While the earth has been experiencing a warming trend since the inception of the industrial revolution, it is in fact not man made. Sure we might have increased the speed at which climate shifts occur, but we are definably not the cause.

tl;dr: The earth has always had a cycle of warming and cooling. We just jump started the cycle.

/Side note, Al Gores super computer farked up by saying that the whole globe had experiences a 10 degree rise in temps, yet it was in fact only most of Russia that had experiences that rise in temperature.
//To quote Riddick: "Its all circling the drain, it had to end sometime."
 
2009-01-20 09:54:44 PM  
kryptochroniconolite: Global warming is quasi-true. While the earth has been experiencing a warming trend since the inception of the industrial revolution, it is in fact not man made. Sure we might have increased the speed at which climate shifts occur, but we are definably not the cause.

tl;dr: The earth has always had a cycle of warming and cooling. We just jump started the cycle.

/Side note, Al Gores super computer farked up by saying that the whole globe had experiences a 10 degree rise in temps, yet it was in fact only most of Russia that had experiences that rise in temperature.
//To quote Riddick: "Its all circling the drain, it had to end sometime."


farking typos -.- both experiences should be experienced.

/iFail
 
2009-01-20 09:58:48 PM  
I thought it was climate change? Can we get these names straight please?
 
2009-01-20 10:00:08 PM  
NASA can only postpone it. Judgment Day is inevitable.
 
2009-01-20 10:00:18 PM  
the moon landings are real, for zenu sakes.


they had to go to the moon to get the glonculator crystals for the E meters.

sheesh
 
2009-01-20 10:03:28 PM  
Jon Snow: way south: National Air and Space Administration...

Their job has traditionally been to explore the limits of aircraft and spacecraft technology. I see nothing in there about global warming study or resolution.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are the main climate-related branches of NASA.


I'm not saying that NASA and company don't build weather birds when asked. But to make climate machines the main focus will become a growing distraction from their original duties of expanding our air and space capabilities.

If they want a Global Warming Bureau they should just make that and keep the spaceflight brain trust away from the ensuing fracas over carbon credits and doomsday scenarios.
At least this way, if the whole theory implodes, it wont affect launch schedules.
 
2009-01-20 10:09:49 PM  
NASA's traditional goal included the the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet." Until it was deleted in 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html (farking NY Times).

Didn't seem to distract them from getting to the moon and most (or is it all now that Pluto's been demoted?) solar planets up until then. Why should it now?
 
2009-01-20 10:12:35 PM  
way south: National Air and Space Administration...

Their job has traditionally been to explore the limits of aircraft and spacecraft technology. I see nothing in there about global warming study or resolution.
I believe you are looking for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... you know, the weather people.


Yes, but if they go through NOAA, they can't draw money away from space exploration towards more "climate change" crap.

These kinds of people are after power and money, and if we could get off this rock and colonize another rock, then they'd see all the intelligent and hard working people desert this place faster than you could say "Vespucci." They don't want a repeat of what turned their old fiefdoms in Europe into second-rate nations, so they'll do whatever they can to keep their hold over as much of the human race as possible.
 
2009-01-20 10:15:22 PM  
way south: But to make climate machines the main focus will become a growing distraction from their original duties of expanding our air and space capabilities...

At least this way, if the whole theory implodes, it wont affect launch schedules.


1. Did you actually read the FA? If so, what "climate machines" are you talking about?
2. The National Aeronautics and Space Act established the agency in 1958 and the first objective is listed as "the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space."
3. In order for "the whole theory to implode" you'd have to overturn either the greenhouse effect or the existence of glaciation cycles. In short, don't bet on it.
 
2009-01-20 11:19:35 PM  
Why are people so emotionally invested in debunking global warming? I mean, I can basically understand creationists rationale for what they do, but, unless you work for an oil company, the amount of energy expended by farkers attempting to debunk global warming is kinda ridiculous.
 
2009-01-20 11:28:53 PM  
I could only find the problem, not the solution

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-01-20 11:34:43 PM  
attackingpencil: Why are people so emotionally invested in debunking global warming? I mean, I can basically understand creationists rationale for what they do, but, unless you work for an oil company, the amount of energy expended by farkers attempting to debunk global warming is kinda ridiculous.

But...but...but...da Libruls want to take my Hummer! AAAAAAALLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRE!
 
2009-01-20 11:36:22 PM  
Wolf_Blitzer: And yet 2008 was warmer than every year of the 20th century, save one (1998). What short memories we humans have.

A less than one degree variance above the average. If that is a heat wave generated by man made Global Warming, we suck at it.
 
2009-01-20 11:41:12 PM  
attackingpencil: Why are people so emotionally invested in debunking global warming? I mean, I can basically understand creationists rationale for what they do, but, unless you work for an oil company, the amount of energy expended by farkers attempting to debunk global warming is kinda ridiculous.

Look at the amount of wasted effort to combat a less than 1 degree difference in average temperature over 100 years. Global Warming is intelligent design for Prius owners in a world of $1.49/gallon gasoline.
 
2009-01-20 11:46:46 PM  
Also, a corollary to my first question. Why is this a partisan issue?

If you assume that global warming is a liberal myth than you have to posit a.) that there are no conservative climatologists in America and b.) that scientists in other countries modify/doctor/misinterpret their data in order to further the goals of American liberalism.
 
2009-01-20 11:47:08 PM  
Jon Snow: way south: But to make climate machines the main focus will become a growing distraction from their original duties of expanding our air and space capabilities...

At least this way, if the whole theory implodes, it wont affect launch schedules.

1. Did you actually read the FA? If so, what "climate machines" are you talking about?
2. The National Aeronautics and Space Act established the agency in 1958 and the first objective is listed as "the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space."
3. In order for "the whole theory to implode" you'd have to overturn either the greenhouse effect or the existence of glaciation cycles. In short, don't bet on it.


1) I'd be referring to the machines asked for at 4 and 6.
They already collect data and make it available but we have problems understanding it. That's why its good to compare with other planets (and that takes more expensive probes).

2) If you put that line in context with the title ("To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.") or the 8 other vehicle and flight policy objectives listed below it, I don't think the phenomena they meant had much to do with global warming back then.

3) The climate change debate right now rests on detailing how the climate is changing, how fast its changing, how far it might change and whats causing the biggest changes. I don't know how that is not NOAA territory.
Because its become politically charged I also don't know how GW supporters will avoid being chased around with an AXE the next time a Republican gets in office (which is bound to happen sooner or later).

NASA already does studies and releases data on many atmospheric and flight related things. So several of the listed ideas are redundant.
It more seems to me that they want to use NASA as a front man to legitimize the climate change cause... but all it gets from the deal is more risk if they turn out to be wrong or the movement becomes unpopular.

I'd think the old policy was best: Give no opinion, dish out the raw data and let numbers speak for themselves.
Its better to make up a climate change agency, with whatever charter and powers are needed, and then let the president flip its administrator a dozen times a week as the politics change.

Keep spaceflight out of the fray.
 
2009-01-21 12:13:04 AM  
Global warming is a scam - even the UN is warbling on the issue:


What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

-Timothy Wirth
President of the UN Foundation
 
2009-01-21 12:14:03 AM  
UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the "global warming movement [is] falling apart."
"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website.
 
2009-01-21 12:17:37 AM  
The United Nations and its cohorts took a tiny little, temporary problem and decided to make a big issue out of it for their own purposes.

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


JUSTICE and EQUALITY in the world. I like that. Take the developed nations and reduce their standard of living so the whole world lives in equality. No thanks, I've seen the third world.
 
2009-01-21 12:19:15 AM  
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Program


I'm taking that guy off of my Christmas Card list.
 
2009-01-21 12:24:54 AM  
nicksteel: Spammity spam

Yes, you've convincingly found some quotes from scattered cynics and presented them as consensus. Congrats?
 
2009-01-21 12:32:05 AM  
Give it a rest nicksteel. You're just a second rate Bevets.
 
2009-01-21 12:35:57 AM  
nicksteel: Global warming is a scam - even the UN is warbling on the issue:


What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

-Timothy Wirth
President of the UN Foundation


If someone said "Even if I were seven feet tall, I probably couldn't play in the NBA. I'm a terrible shot.":

1) Does the speaker believe they are seven feet tall?
2) Does this statement make the speaker seven feet tall?

Congratulations. You now understand the concept of a hypothetical.

Wirth is very clearly stating that sustainable, clean energy is a laudable goal even without its impact on climate. If you're going to argue against Wirth, that's the point you have to argue against.
 
2009-01-21 12:36:07 AM  
soy_bomb: Look at the amount of wasted effort to combat a less than 1 degree difference in average temperature over 100 years.

The difference between an Ice Age and an interglacial is...what, again?
 
2009-01-21 12:43:31 AM  
way south: National Air and Space Administration...

Their job has traditionally been to explore the limits of aircraft and spacecraft technology. I see nothing in there about global warming study or resolution.
I believe you are looking for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... you know, the weather people.


NASA's always done a lot of the work with satellites, spectroscopy, etc. Multiple agencies each handle facets of the overall issue-- the NSF funds basic research, the EPA (theoretically) handles some of the policy issues within the US, etc. The issue requires an interdisciplinary approach, and it's for the best that one organization doesn't try to do everything-- we have specialization for a reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report