Posted by Tina
The following is from the article “Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science,'” by Craig Bannister at CNS News
Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that’s only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today’s space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.
Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) has a point. It’s something to think about. What is all the hysteria about?
BREAKING: Neurologist Claims Widespread Fraud at the American Heart Association
BREAKING: Brett Favre Requests Induction into Baseball Hall of Fame
BREAKING: Duck Dynasty Stars Take Aim at Tyra Banks for Corrupting the Fashion Industry
BREAKING: Astronaut Scolds Climatologists, Asserting Superior Understanding of Climate
BREAKING: Arrogant, propagandized college grad pretends to be funny…flops. Big time!
Had you read the article Chris you would have discovered that this astronaut, whom you dismiss as a know nothing without any evidence, you would know that he did exactly what you always lecture others to do before coming to his conclusions.
I notice you have nothing to say about the C02 levels that the government allow in enclosed spaces before being concerned for the health and welfare of those enclosed in those small spaces.
The space program demanded a lot of the men that they chose to go into space. If I had to bet I would guess his ability to understand what he reads would be far superior to yours.
From the article:
“Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that’s only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today’s space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.”
Look, I pride myself on being able to imagine myself in most people’s shoes, and seeing multiple points of view. But I am having a hell of a time imagining how anyone could possibly be persuaded by an argument this egregiously terrible.
The concerns regarding CO2 on a space shuttle have to do with oxygen deprivation, Tina. 4000 parts per million is enough to start causing oxygen deprivation.
I know you’re not very informed on the actual views of climate scientists, but surely even you know that no scientist is concerned about global warming causing massive suffocation of the human race. The concerns deal with more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, melting polar ice, etc. etc. 400 parts per million is well enough to cause concern about those potential problems.
Last I checked, these potential problems don’t exist on space shuttles.
Cunningham is literally comparing apples and oranges, in the stupidest way possible.
And you didn’t. Even. Notice. You actually thought this was such a great point that you quoted it in your own article.
How embarrassing.
The point Col. Cunningham is making is that CO2 concentration is not the forcing factor CAGW hysterics (like the English Major ass) think it is. Do not focus on this one element as his defining statement, read the rest.
“Cunningham urges Americans to look at the data and decide for themselves, instead of taking anyone else’s word for it.”
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT???
Damn straight! Don’t take the English Major ass’ word for it either. He is a pigheaded punk who defecates on the brains of his students, if he actually really has any.
Re #2 Tina : If Chris managed to get sent aloft by NASA or anyone else, the others on board would space him.
Oh. How. Dramatic!
Could be the man was being absurd to expose the absurdity that C02 levels produced by humans is toxic and dangerous. You apparently believe that and for some reason you aren’t embarrassed.
I predict that one day you will be…about a lot of things.
The man still claims to have read all of the available literature and finds the alarmists absurd, as do I.
Tina: “Could be the man was being absurd to expose the absurdity that C02 levels produced by humans is toxic and dangerous.”
Tina, don’t think I haven’t figured out that this is your go-to defense whenever a conservative makes an argument that doesn’t make any sense.
Cunningham was clearly attempting to make a logical argument. You clearly interpreted it as a logical argument. No that it’s obvious illogic has been pointed out to you, you’re going to pretend it was a piece of satirical comedy? Ridiculous. Why can’t you just be intellectually honest? For once?
“You apparently believe that and for some reason you aren’t embarrassed.”
Yeah, I tend not to be embarrassed over accepting scientifically proven facts. CO2 in the environment has reached a dangerous level.
“The man still claims to have read all of the available literature and finds the alarmists absurd, as do I.”
And thus we get to the heart of things: he agrees with you ideologically, and that’s all that matters.
Put aside NASA Distinguished Service Medal awarded Cunningham’s comments. Also put aside the GOAA’s recent bizarre (to say the least) and unwarranted manipulation of surface station data that creates a false warming signature.
Take a look at the satellite data. So far 17 years and 10 months no warming.
Go look it up yourself, I refuse to do any homework for anyone tonight.
Chris the title of the piece is, “An Astronaut’s Experience of C02 Levels”
You are free to mock his opinion all night long. I could give a rip.
You’re also free to bait me, mock me, and make a complete jerk of yourself. I have come to expect no less.
I still do not know what was in Cunningham’s mind when he wrote about the CO2 levels, I only found it interesting and thought others would too. You can walk off a high bridge for all I care.
The thing I found fascinating is that our government has no problem with high concentrations of C02 in a confined spaces for humans…it not only says it’s not dangerous at very high levels it upped those levels AND YET it is trying to alarm the American people over a fractional rise in the entire atmosphere.
Now I may not have expressed that right but I do get it; the government’s position is absurd. I believe Cunningham found it absurd also.
Deception is the game in alarmist circles and money and control is the motivator. You are simply a dupe.
Re Tina: “You’re also free to bait me, mock me, and make a complete jerk of yourself. I have come to expect no less.”
Damn Tina, please be so kind as to feed the English major ass some more rope. You and Jack both extend the same to Dewey and Libby. Works for me, dear hearts. I may be getting a clue. I didn’t quite get you and Jack enabling these twits. Open and free discussion should Post Scripts always be with Jack and Tina at the helm. May God bless you both! Happy 1776!
Re Tina to Chris ” You are simply a dupe.”
On this we must agree to disagree. He is just not very bright.
Tina: “The thing I found fascinating is that our government has no problem with high concentrations of C02 in a confined spaces for humans…it not only says it’s not dangerous at very high levels it upped those levels AND YET it is trying to alarm the American people over a fractional rise in the entire atmosphere.
Now I may not have expressed that right but I do get it; the government’s position is absurd. I believe Cunningham found it absurd also.”
Can you read?
I just explained, very clearly, why those two concerns are in no way related. I explained, very clearly, why this comparison makes no sense. On a space shuttle, the concern is suffocation; on earth, the concerns are very different.
You show no indication that you understand this, or any other scientific matter which you erroneously believe yourself qualified to form an informed opinion on.
Idiot.
Why would I take the word of someone who blindly believes in man made global warming? Why would I listen to someone who dismisses the opinions of 31,000 professional scientists with multiple degrees and accomplishment? Why would I believe anything a person with a degree in literature, and buys into the hoax, who passes himself off as someone who has superior ability than the scientists labeled as skeptics? Why would I even consider your opinion over the growing number of scientists who, A. Now say we have been in a cooling period for some time, B. Acknowledge there is much to learn and the idea of consensus is crap (my word not theirs), and C. Continue to reveal new evidence that points to natural causes and the balance of nature.
Especially knowing the radical left a I do.
“Why would I take the word of someone who blindly believes in man made global warming?”
I’m not asking you to take my “word” for anything. I explained why a specific argument presented here was illogical. You then pretended that this attempt at a logical argument was a joke, then in your next comment simply repeated the same illogical argument as if it made perfect sense. Now you’re just making generalizations and ad homs and ignoring the specific argument we were discussing. At no point did you show an awareness as to why this specific argument was illogical, nor have you tried to defend it using logic.
I don’t “blindly” believe anything, Tina; you are projecting. You lack basic logic and critical thinking skills, so you just parrot the talking points of people who already agree with you, no matter how stupid those talking points are. Then you assume that everyone else must do this too, because you can’t imagine any other way.
“Why would I listen to someone who dismisses the opinions of 31,000 professional scientists with multiple degrees and accomplishment?”
Thank you for once again demonstrating your gullibility and poor research skills.
“The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
You know nothing real about this topic.
I explained, I explained…yeah you did. So what?
It doesn’t take a degree in climatology (around for how long?) to understand the effects of the sun, the ocean, volcanoes, and other things.
According to aip.org:
Not very long.
On the other hand the ability to understand what the newbies are up to is present in those who have studied in the fields of science from which it branches: oceanography, biogeochemistry, physics, atmospheric chemistry, nah nah, nh nah.
Dr. Jean Louis Pinault:
Thank you for the endless explanations…I am comfortable hanging with men like Dr Pinault…and Pie…and Anthony Watts!
Were I forced to comment on your last comment I’d say you are more interested in being a jerk than you are in the science.
Again Chris argues good science is done by consensus by trying to discredit a “consensus”. *YAWN*. It does not take a degree in “climate science” to understand “climate science.”
This whole “consensus” issue is bullshit, one side or the other.
But what may the closest to the truth could be http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
Re The English Major” “You know nothing real about this topic.”
Like you do! A Puffington Host and Media Matters dork fer sure. March on.
Science blog io9 reports on more astoundingly stupid statements on climate change from the Know-Nothing Party:
The week began weird and then got weirder. First, it was reported that a Kentucky state senator said climate change is implausible because Earth and Mars share the exact same temperature. And then a U.S. congressman linked the climate change debate to the ozone hole “hoax” and the fluoridation of water.
So, let’s begin with Kentucky State Senator Brandon Smith (R-D30), the majority whip and owner of a mining company who lashed out at a witness during a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting:
“As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”
Meteorologist Dan Satterfield, blogging over at the American Geophysical Union, was swift and merciless in his response:
“A statement like this from a 5th grader would be alarming, but from someone (State Senator Brandon Smith) who makes laws is downright frightening. What is more frightening is that the science literacy of his constituency is so low, he’ll likely be easily reelected. In case there are any doubts I looked up the weather on Mars today. We can do that thanks to a set of meteorological instruments aboard NASA’s Curiosity Rover.
The fact that he owns a coal mine might have something to do with this. As Sebastian Unger said in the Jungle, “It’s nearly impossible to convince some of anything, if their paycheck depends on it being otherwise”. Your grade school should cancel your diploma Senator. Your voters should fire you.”
And then yesterday, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) was a guest of honor at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, a three-day denial-fest sponsored by dozens of organizations, including the Heartland Institute, an oil and gas industry-funded think tank.
During Congressional hearings, Rohrabacher uses air quotes when he says “global warming” and once demanded that a scientist “capsulize” all the reasons why he believes that climate change is a big deal in 10 seconds.
At the climate change conference, he didn’t disappoint. First, he ranted about the ozone hole and how environmentalism hurts the poorest members of our society:
“What about the ozone hole? I’m sure there are scientists here who know a lot more here than I do. But my reading of that is that the ozone hole is sort of like global warming. It was an exaggerated position on some readings and we ended up with the ozone hole… And, in fact, the ozone hole after a few years just disappeared. Yet, we were all told this was a huge crisis, and what happened after that huge crisis hit? We had to get rid of Freon, we had to get rid of all the stuff in the spray cans. How much did that cost us? When we spend billions of dollars needlessly because someone has frightened us into accepting the position, it damages people in our society. When you have less wealth, the people at the lowest rungs of our economic sphere are the ones who feel it the most. [applause]”
Where to begin? (1) The ozone hole hasn’t disappeared, but is stabilizing and well on on its way to making a full recovery by 2070. (2) The international treaty to act against the ozone hole was a huge success — and epitomizes the type of global agreement that Republicans in Congress refer to as a plot to “redistribute wealth among nations.”
And then, Rohrabacher had this to say:
“I don’t know whether or not fluoridating the water helps people’s teeth become better or not…But I do know that in this country, we should be the ones who should be deciding what we put into our bodies one way or the other, not the federal government or the local government putting fluoride into our water!”
http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-politicians-rant-about-fluoride-1602355173
The fact that such idiocy and lunacy gets one applause and a guest of honor position from the Heartland Institute should tell you everything you need to know about this anti-science propaganda firm.
How about the idiocy of the leader of the free world?
President Obama recently claimed we were experiencing unprecedented extremes in weather patterns.
This is patently false. As the links available at the linked article above show, extremes in weather are not new or unusual!
Do scroll down through the site for countless examples of liberal idiocy.
Tina, President Obama’s claim that we are experiencing unprecedented extremes in weather patterns due to global warming is supported by numerous scientists.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/science-panel-more-extreme-weather_2011-11-18
http://wtvr.com/2013/07/04/new-un-report-details-unprecedented-climate-extremes-over-past-decade/
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/2010–2011-earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816
Your link does nothing to disprove Obama’s claim; if you don’t understand why news reports showing extreme weather events happening in 1934 don’t disprove that we are having even more extreme weather events now, then I can’t help you.
Your comparison is ludicrous. Obama’s statement is backed up by a plethora of scientific evidence. You can’t say the same for Republicans who believe that Mars and Earth are the exact same temperature, or indulge in conspiracy theories about fluoride threatening our precious bodily fluids.
I’d say “nice try,” but it really wasn’t.
I find it sad that there are people who find the “evidence” in Tina’s link in Comment #19 convincing. All the author does is quote a bunch of news articles from one year featuring extreme weather events…and offers nothing to compare them to. Not a single news article about extreme weather events today, or in the last ten years, or even in the last seventy. And he offers this as proof that the claim that we are seeing unprecedented extreme weather is “empirically false.”
And you bought it.
Just like you bought this astronaut’s incorrigibly stupid comparison between CO2 levels on a space shuttle or submarine (which are monitored to prevent suffocation) and CO2 levels on earth (which affect the climate of the entire planet).
And I’m sure you’re not the only one.
You are a textbook example of the lack of critical thinking ability in our society.
I know I say this a lot … but I only just read this post … cause I don’t like to get into the psuedo-scientific gobbledy … but …
What the H !!!??? … does the CO2 level in a spaceship have to do with ANYTHING … let alone climate change.
The republic … the species … cannot survive so many wildly dim members.
Geeeeeeeez.
(I’m breathing deeply, here.)
From where, I want to know, did you, or the dim-wit of an astronaut, get the idea that ANYBODY has proposed CO2 levels in the atmosphere will ever exceed oxygen levels? Where? Or are you just being deliberately false and misleading?
The situation is (and this is almost certainly why you’re having trouble with it) more complicated than that. The rising CO2 levels will trap heat in the atmosphere, giving rise to all manner of environmental changes that could very well irradicate a large quantity, even all, of humankind.
This is serious.
So, please don’t post anymore nonsensical, and false, representations of the situation.
Libby: “Or are you just being deliberately false and misleading?”
I used to think so…but as the old adage goes, never attribute to malice what can more easily be explained by stupidity. I gave the benefit of the doubt for too long–my common refrain was, “I know you can’t be that stupid, so who are you trying to fool by pretending to be?” The last few months have proven to me that this is no mere pretense. There are simply people who don’t know how to think critically or logically, and who don’t care to learn. They are dictated by their prejudices to such an extent that no amount of evidence or reasoning will ever persuade them out of them. Even the most minor concession–“you’re right, this particular argument against climate change doesn’t make sense, here are other more logical reasons to believe the science isn’t settled”–doesn’t occur to these people, because they view this as a war between good and evil, and absolutely no ground can ever be ceded to the other side, lest the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
They have no incentive to change, because their support for one another keeps them psychologically comfortable. We call them out all the time, but our opinions are irrelevant to them. Anyone who calls them out on their BS is easily categorized as a member of the Liberal Conspiracy to Destroy America, or at best, a RINO. When we point out their stupidity, we’re engaging in “Saul Alinsky” tactics to discredit them; it never occurs that, no, they’re really just being stupid.
Only people who think like them matter, and they’re not exactly clamoring to demand accuracy and fairness from each other. They just want to hear what they want to hear. Who cares if it doesn’t make any kind of sense? Scrutiny is hard work, and it’s much easier to just accept anything that confirms one’s preconceived notions.
“So, please don’t post anymore nonsensical, and false, representations of the situation.”
Tyrant. :p
Also: this might sound incredibly nitpicky, but I just noticed the funniest thing.
Tina has, throughout this entire thread, consistently spelled “CO2” (As in letter “C”, letter “O,” and number “2”) as “C02” (as in letter “C” number “0 [zero],” and number “2”).
This would be fine if it only happened once or twice, but I checked. And every time she’s used this term in this thread (including the title), she’s used a zero instead of the letter “O,” with one exception.
Which begs the question: what does Tina think the zero stands for?
And why on earth does she have the nerve to dismiss nearly the entire body of peer-reviewed climate literature, essentially calling the vast majority of climatalogists morons and cheats for their conclusions about the severe effects of CO2 on our environment…when she literally can’t even spell CO2?
Yeah, yeah. “Arrogant bully,” “hall monitor,” “English major” etc. etc. I may as well make a drinking game out of it.