Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

[Roger Bacon]

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

by Nick Hallett 26 Apr 2014, 6:00 AM PDT

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/26/Former-NASA-Scientist-Global-Warming-is-Nonsense

[avxo]

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

by Nick Hallett 26 Apr 2014, 6:00 AM PDT

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/26/Former-NASA-Scientist-Global-Warming-is-Nonsense

I generally don't read stuff on Breitbart, but I figured I'd give this a read despite the shitty, attention grabbing headline. So, while I don't necessarily disagree with what Dr. Woodcock said according to the article, I got very frustrated with this gem:

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

Assuming he's being quoted accurately, I'm not sure if Dr. Woodcock has gone senile or he normally utters meaningless drivel. You see, "scientifically reproducible" is a tricky bit, what with the arrow of time and all, and our inability to simulate the entire atmosphere accurately enough. So this statement is a bit shaky already. But it gets worse. It's unclear what he even means by "CO₂ has significantly increased". Does he mean the amount of CO₂ generated? The amount released to the atmosphere? The airborne fraction?

The fact is that the amount of CO₂ emissions has dramatically increased in the last 100 years, and a big part of that increase is the result of the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. There's no debating this - it's a cold hard fact.

Research also suggests that despite the increase, the airborne fraction (the amount of CO₂ that is in the atmosphere) has remained at around 45% with small, non-statistically significant variations over the past 150 years or so, suggesting that the natural mechanisms controlling/managing CO₂ levels are still operating as they did for the past century. For more, see 2009 paper by Wolfgang Knorr.

So does our dumping tons and tons of CO₂ in the atmosphere matter? Maybe, but then again maybe not. It almost certainly does have some effect and there's likely a upper limit above which natural carbon sinks won't be able to buffer or sequester any more. But the facts suggest we're not there yet. Nor should we try to find out what it will take to get there either. We should try to develop clean energy sources (yes, nuclear qualifies) and reduce the need to burn fossil fuels, but we should do this sensibly; there's no need to abandon our cities in favor of kolkhozy and a reversion to an agrarian society.
   
There are plenty of contentious points to discuss and debate - from big, broad and attention-grabbing topics, like whether humans are causing global warming (or whether global warming is happening) to specialized, highly technical evaluations of evidence and interpretation of results. But what is not up for debate are the facts. And the facts are simple: the amount of CO₂ being emitted to the atmosphere has increased.

But I digress. You may go back to your regularly scheduled debate between the "there's no global warming, rabble rabble rabble" Hatfields to the "there's so global warming, rabble rabble rabble" McCoys.

[240 is Back]

A lot of really stupid people from both parties bought into this when it was politically convenient, and dropped it when that was convenient.

unless a person was 100% AGAINST it being a manmade thing since the beginning, I feel they're stupid enough to be tricked by Al Gore and a slideshow and thus too stupid to hold public office.

[OzmO]

I dont see the significance of 1 NASA scientist say GW isnt true when there is plently other scientists that say otherwise

[240 is Back]

I dont see the significance of 1 NASA scientist say GW isnt true when there is plently other scientists that say otherwise

I know for a fact that 100% of these scientists were paid by Al Gore.   End thread. 

[OzmO]

Lol

[Soul Crusher]

What year what the earth at its pervect temp and balance?

[240 is Back]

What year what the earth at its pervect temp and balance?

1981.   Reagan knew how to run shit.

[bears]

1981.   Reagan knew how to run shit.

lol

[bears]

A lot of really stupid people from both parties bought into this when it was politically convenient, and dropped it when that was convenient.

unless a person was 100% AGAINST it being a manmade thing since the beginning, I feel they're stupid enough to be tricked by Al Gore and a slideshow and thus too stupid to hold public office.

I don't know dick about global warming.  all I know is this shit is on the politics board and not a science board.  it has become a political issue.  that's what scares me. 

any potential solution will first have to run the gamut of political acceptance before anyone considers it as a scientific solution.  we're all fucked.  surfs up.