back to article NASA aborts third attempt at finally settling man-made CO2 debate

NASA's third attempt to bring some much-desired clarity to the debate over human-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been postponed today after two previous rocket liftoffs ended in disaster. The space agency’s last effort to measure the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere was the Glory satellite in 2011, which crashed into …

Page:

      1. dan1980

        Re: Ying Yang?

        @Martin Budden

        * There is no scientific consensus (it's a lie)

        * There is no scientific consensus ('consensus' is irrelevant in science)

        * There is no scientific consensus (no true scientist . . .)

        I'll join you in the fire.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ying Yang?

        They're all TopGear fanbois who worship Clarkson as a god, and oppose any suggestion that petrol heads are in any way to blame

        1. dan1980

          Re: Ying Yang?

          @AC

          Clarkson good; Fry bad?

          1. LucreLout

            Re: Ying Yang?

            <i>Clarkson good; Fry bad?

            </i>

            Both are good at playing their respective caricatures.

      3. Scroticus Canis

        Re: Ying Yang? @Martin Budden

        Think you will find that those who post the most (the non-believers as you assert) may just be fed up with the hysteria of of the AGW zionists/jihadists who actually believe the science is 'done and dusted'. It's not by a long way.

        I for one have little faith or trust in anything that has been shown to be based on cherry picked data sets and dubious modelling. Show me the science.

        1. dan1980

          Re: Ying Yang? @Martin Budden

          @Scroticus Canis

          "Show me the science."

          Do you have the training and experience to understand it properly?

          I don't, which is why I trust the 'scientific consensus'. Skepticism is a very solid position to take but, for the sake of practicality, you just can't understand everything for yourself. The world we live in is extraordinarily complex and people spend decades learning and training and researching in areas of knowledge that seem ridiculously narrow to non-scientists.

          People who say "show me the science" don't really what to see 'the science'. That's available and if you were one of the people with the training and knowledge to understand it, you likely would have already read it. When someone actually explains the scientific reasons why there is a warming slowdown (not a pause, not a cooling), and how the models really do still hold up, 'show me the science' people simply reject those explanations as 'fudging'.

          It's impossible to win against 'show me the science' people because they don't understand the science and will always have an excuse why they won't accept what they're shown anyway.

          They say that there is no consensus amongst scientists. You show them all the polls and numbers and statistics, all the official statements from every scientific body around the world, and they come back with "consensus is a word that means nothing in the world of 'real' science". Right, well, why did you make such a big deal that there wasn't one then?

          They point to individual results and claim that the 'warmists' and 'alarmists' can't answer them. You show them the explanations and the reasons why those specific results are either taken out of context, incomplete or mitigated/explained by other factors and they come back with claims that the scientists involved are "fudging" the data to make it fit or committing out-right "massive fraud". Why ask for an answer from a body you assert is run by liars and frauds?

          They claim the models don't work - after all they didn't predict this warming slowdown. You show them that, first, the result they are saying doesn't fit is not actually the result we have (as their view is based on isolated numbers), and second, even without needing to correct for that error, the models fit the results far better than is claimed. They reply that these are only mathematical models and computer simulations anyway and no one has ever seen any proof in the real world. Why try to prove the models are inaccurate then?

          In these arguments, those who believe that humans are impacting the climate are often derided as holding views akin to religion in that they have their cherished beliefs and ignore all evidence to to contrary.

          In reality, it is the people who react as above who resemble religious fundamentalists the most and the progression is much the same: first there's no evidence, then the evidence doesn't count, then the people who collected the evidence aren't trustworthy, then the entire scientific edifice (except for a few individuals whose views accord with those of our 'denier') are in some kind of conspiracy to hide the real truth from the world, bullying and ruining the careers of any 'real' scientist who dares to even question the status quo.

          The point of being a skeptic is that you should be open to the idea that the proposition you are skeptical of is actually true. You may strongly believe that it isn't but there must, at least in theory, be some evidence that would settle the matter and change your opinion. The evidence you seek, of course, must be reasonable for the proposition being tested.

          Anyone who says they are a 'skeptic' should therefore be able to say what evidence will convince them that, though their skepticism was a valid provisional stance, they have now seen proof and are satisfied that the proposition is in fact true. If someone calling themselves a 'skeptic' can't - or won't - do that then they are hiding behind the more defensible label of 'skeptic' when in fact they won't believe the proposition whatever happens; they are a 'denier'. So too is anyone who reaches the last stage, above, of calling the whole of mainstream science liars and frauds - that's a convenient (if extreme) 'out' for our denier as no matter what evidence is arrayed in support of the proposition, it can always be asserted that it's faulty.

          So, to you, @Scrotius Canis, what evidence could be produced to move you from your skepticism? In short, what 'science' could you be shown?

  1. FrankSW

    Japan already has a CO2 monitoring satellite

    Launched in 2009 the “IBUKI” satellite measurements were announced in 2011.

    No more speculation, we now know who the real CO2 polluters are - developing nations, countries like the UK do their bit and absorb their excess CO2.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-absorbed-by-the-rich-oh-the-irony-and-this-truth-must-not-be-spoken/

    1. dan1980

      Re: Japan already has a CO2 monitoring satellite

      @FrankSW

      Reading the link, I don't see how it's ironic. Developed nations off-shore production to cheaper nations.

      One reason is that in more developed nations there are tighter regulations and environmental controls, which reduce emissions but push up costs of manufacturing. Thus they relocate manufacturing to locations without these restrictions.

      Take Australia - we export pig iron to China and then import steel. One effect, other than a loss of jobs and a missed opportunity to sell a high-value product instead of a low-value one, is that the pollution involved in steel production is 'offshored' to China.

      The only point I'm trying to make is that it's hardly ironic.

  2. dncnvncd

    Space vs. Earth

    I am an avid supporter of NASA when they stick to space research, like measuring the effects of stellar and solar radiation generated eons ago reaching Earths atmosphere. Monitoring for Climate Warfare per U.S. treaties, etc.. But as pointed out in your article, the measurement of Earth's radiation of anything into space is not easily evaluated. There must be Earth level measurements first. With all the Air Quality Boards and their ground, atmosphere, stratosphere and troposphere measuring systems, I fail to see the value of measuring CO2 from space. The Earth's atmosphere is living thing. Therefore it will change. Ozone can be harmful at ground level, yet is totally necessary at upper levels. When Earth was much warmer, there was probably more carbon gases emitted than today. Although Carbon gases react with ozone to create CO2, the Earth is still here, not burned to a crisp by the Sun due to destruction of the Ozone Layer. In fact, there was an Ice Age. Cause still being debated. "Environmental scientist" can't solve known events, yet they are all seeing, all knowing about the future?

  3. roger stillick
    Headmaster

    NASA's 3rd Attempt Fails to settle CO2 debate...how about Methane n Permafrost melt ??

    In the last few Years tens of thousands of Northern Arctic Permafrost has melted, leaving mud bogs n hundred of thousands of acres of new Arctic Birch n White pine trees...Russia from Archangel to Vardo, and the Yukon River estuary in Alaska...40 ft tall trees, by the millions...

    The permafrost melt released methane gas in huge amounts (the thawed product is being studied by Japan as a commercial fuel gas)...per experts, Methane is a global warming gas...and only being studied by the NASA C-23 flights each summer in the Yukon delta...no data published...

    IMHO= CO2 and Methane gas emitted by global warming of arctic permafrost is real and not even being studied...Q= why is this not being added to the human city temperature rise readings ??

    FYI= all of the rotten wood on the planet is eaten by termites and methane is released as a digestion byproduct... the quanity is huge and not even looked at...RS.

    1. Wraith Leader

      Re: NASA's 3rd Attempt Fails to settle CO2 debate...how about Methane n Permafrost melt ??

      The basic reason is that there is no one in that situation that can be taxed. Tax on farmers for their cows belching. Taxes on cars. Taxes on small business than cannot afford the "carbon credits" deals the high-priced corporate lawyers facilitate, etc.

      Anytime politics is involved... follow the money!

      1. Smitty Werbenjaegermanjensen

        Re: NASA's 3rd Attempt Fails to settle CO2 debate...how about Methane n Permafrost melt ??

        As far as I am aware, methane lasts a relatively short time in the atmosphere - so whereas farm animals continue to make Methane (as do we all), events like permafrost thawing are not continuous and as a one-off will have some short-lived impact on atmospheric Methane levels.

        As an observation, it does seem that most people here are zealots one way or the other. As yet I'm not convinced that man's effect on climate change is either proved or disproved but for that reason alone I think that research should continue as this stuff matters - even if what we find out is that it is all natural that's a pretty important thing to know.

        1. dan1980

          Re: NASA's 3rd Attempt Fails to settle CO2 debate...how about Methane n Permafrost melt ??

          @Smitty Whatsits.....

          ". . . I think that research should continue as this stuff matters . . ."

          The question is: what do you think should be DONE whilst research continues?

          It's an important question because 'do nothing' is exactly what the 'non-AGW' side says we should do and exactly the opposite of what the 'AGW' side say we should do. Moreover, if the scientists who say that AGW is happening are correct then we are making things worse the longer we sit on our hands waiting until people like you are convinced.

          If you are truly "not convinced that man's effect on climate change is either proved or disproved", do you support any precautionary measures?

          It's a difficult question because 'doing something' is not without side-effects. There is no neutral choice here; Inaction is a choice in itself.

          If waiting for more research is prudent, what is the prudent course of action while you do wait?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely the most sensible solution would have been to have lied about the launch and forged the data. Dr Hansen would have approved this behavious as it would have produced the right results.

  5. Bunbury

    Another entirely predictable set of climate change vs denier comments

    El Reg, wouldn't it be more efficient if you parsed all previous comments and put these "IS! ISN'T!" style arguments in one place on the site? You could number them so that instead of a constant series of "global warming is a proven fact" followed by "not in the last n years" type arguments and "glaciers are melting/growing and it's due to CC/other causes" we could just put "arguments number 5 and 7".

    The comments tend to be quite repetitive and you can't tell who actually has knowledge from those who are just typing for the exercise.

    1. dan1980

      Re: Another entirely predictable set of climate change vs denier comments

      Hey - it helps keep my fingers nimble when I can't play guitar!

      Although . . .

  6. Chris Hunt

    Hmmm...

    Apparently, according to most of the people on here, environment scientists are corrupt - willing to falsify their results, interpret them in bizarre ways, and god knows what else in return for large sums of money.

    The Oil industry has truly colossal amounts of money, way more than any possible green conspiracy could muster.

    Why does the Climate Change message make any headway at all, when the oil guys could simply buy up all the scientists?

    Also, in my experience, it's very much easier to get heard (and to get funded) when you're telling people what they want to hear. So the message "Climate change isn't happening ... or if it is happening, it isn't our fault ... or if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it" should be easier to deliver than its opposite. That being the case, it's odd that the opposite side is in the ascendency.

    Unless, of course, it's because that's the way the vast majority of the evidence points...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who Doesn't Want This Study?

    One wonders if maybe certain people don't really want good scientific evidence?

    What of those who believe that the Global Warming/ Climate Change (GW) story is a political movement designed to legitimatize big government? Are they really very likely to be persuaded by a government funded study?

    But what if the study were legit, and if it were to provide real scientific evidence that Anthroprogenic Global Warming isn't a problem? There are many powerful people who would NOT want that to happen. For the "true believers" this has downside risks and little upside.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like