Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
The other reasons were economic reasons.Miktay wrote:sMASH wrote:The fuel tax was the straw on 4he camel's back.. There were other things.
Here’s a before and after view of Paris prior to the riots. The after iz not the traditional stereotype of the City of Lights. It starts at 1:15.
Can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs.Miktay wrote:The yellow vest rioters claim to have no leaders. Thiz iza dangerous situation. Leadership can be co-opted by other groups just as the Jacobins did in the French Revolution.
Meanwhile Paris continues in chaos as other seething nationalist factions in the EU observe from the sidelines.
Thiz iza hot ghetto mess.
Miktay wrote:The yellow vest rioters claim to have no leaders. Thiz iza dangerous situation. Leadership can be co-opted by other groups just as the Jacobins did in the French Revolution.
The other reasons were economic reasons.
U dint have to pull out the islamistzation card anytime I pop up, u know.
Yellow vest protests: Macron to hold crisis meeting
French President Emmanuel Macron is set to meet trade unions and employers' organisations, in a bid to defuse weeks of unrest in Paris and other cities.
Monday's meeting comes ahead of a TV address in which he is expected to announce measures in response.
France has seen four weekends of violent protests against fuel tax rises, living costs and other issues.
About 136,000 "yellow-vest" protesters took to the streets on Saturday. More than 1,200 were taken into custody.
The capital Paris was particularly badly hit, with windows smashed, cars burned and shops looted, as 10,000 people took part in demonstrations.
Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire described the situation as a "catastrophe for businesses" and the economy.
Protesters have staged demonstrations and road blocks across the country over the past four weekends.
What is President Macron planning to do?
At 10:00 local time (09:00 GMT) on Monday, he will meet representatives of five major trade unions and three employers' organisations, as well as local officials.
Correspondents say that the yellow vests are an organic grassroots movement with no affiliations to any party, but some trade unions have taken up their cause and encouraged the government to listen to their grievances.
Le Figaro newspaper reports that Prime Minister Édouard Philippe and nine government ministers will also be present at Mr Macron's meeting.
Mr Macron will then address the nation at 20:00 the same day.
Labour Minister Muriel Penicaud said he would announce "immediate and concrete measures" in response to the crisis.
Mr Macron has kept a low profile so far during the protests. Many of the protesters have called for his resignation.
He has been criticised for being out of touch and not listening to the struggles of ordinary people.
Media captionProtesters took to the streets of Paris for a fourth weekend of demonstrations
Last week, following talks with representatives of the yellow-vest movement, the government announced it was abandoning the fuel taxes that have angered the protesters.
But this failed to placate them and on Saturday they turned out in similar numbers to last week's demonstration.
What is the yellow-vest movement?
The protesters adopted the name after a social-media campaign urging people to take to the streets wearing the high-visibility yellow jackets that must be carried in every vehicle in France.
They were initially protesting against a rise in duties on diesel, which is widely used by French motorists and has long been less heavily taxed than other types of fuel.
Diesel prices have risen by about 23% over the past 12 months - and Mr Macron's decision to impose a tax increase of 6.5 cents on diesel and 2.9 cents on petrol from 1 January angered many, particularly in rural areas.
Mr Macron had said higher taxes on fossil fuels were needed to fund renewable energy investments.
But protests have also erupted over other issues, including calls for higher wages, lower taxes, better pensions and easier university entry requirements.
The movement's core aim, to highlight the economic frustration and political distrust of poorer working families, still has widespread support.
An opinion poll on Friday suggested a dip in support for the protests, but it still stood at 66%.
Meanwhile, President Macron's ratings have fallen to 23% amid the crisis, polls suggest.
Canadians clash over Trudeau's carbon emissions tax in months before election
TORONTO — Wading into treacherous political waters, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to dramatically increase taxes on carbon emissions to combat climate change is dividing the country, pitting six of the provinces against Ottawa and setting the stage for a bitter and partisan federal election next year.
“Scrap the jobs-killing carbon tax,” has become the rallying cry for Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford and his political allies across the country, who are revving up to defeat Mr. Trudeau’s center-left Liberal Party government in the national vote in October.
The Canadian clash is being watched carefully around the globe in the wake of violent protests that have shaken the government of French President Emmanuel Macron, protests originally sparked by a now-abandoned plan to hike fuel taxes at the pump as a way to fight climate change.
About 40 countries, including China, Japan and 10 European nations, have imposed some kind of levy on carbon emissions, although some, such as Australia, have repealed their carbon taxes in the face of political opposition. The U.S. is one of the few large industrialized countries without a carbon tax.
Mr. Trudeau’s plan to set a national price on carbon emissions of $7.5 a ton rising to $37.50 by 2022 has become a political wedge issue unlike any other in Canada in recent times.
pugboy wrote:them frenchies have good solidarity with their yellow jacket movement support
which shows the people power
that kind of support we would never get here
only a few would protest and everybody else fraid to be seen outside
by and large we are a nation of cowards except for the beetham type tire burning protests
Yellow Vest protesters demand MORE from Macron - even after President caved in with £9billion of tax cuts which have sparked EU warning France now faces a HUGE deficit
Emmanuel Macron promised a £9billion package to Yellow Vests on Monday in an attempt to stop protests
Workers vowed to continue their demonstrations as students joined them for 'black Tuesday' of unrest
EU budget chiefs also warned they will be 'closely monitoring' over concerns it will breach spending rules
Macron has been facing calls for him to quit office after trying to push through a series of unpopular reforms
Yellow Vest protesters demanded even more concessions from Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday even after he caved in to their demands for more pay and lower taxes with a £9billion spending splurge on Monday night.
Thomas Miralles, a Yellow Vest spokesman in the southern Pyrenees-Orientales department, said Macron had failed to listen to protesters and vowed to come to Paris this Saturday for his first demonstration in the capital.
Meanwhile thousands of students angered by Macron's education reforms joined the Yellow Vests on the streets for a 'black Tuesday' of unrest, further complicating matters for the French President.
And even Macron's traditional allies in Europe warned they will be 'closely monitoring' his spending plans to check whether they fall within EU limits.
Rules passed in the wake of the 2008 market crash require all member states to have a deficit of less than 3 per cent of GDP, debt at less than 60 per cent of GDP, and for any member state with debts over 60 per cent to take steps each year to reduce it.
France's current debt is 97 per cent of GDP while economists believe Macron's new spending plans will push the deficit above 3 per cent in 2019. Countries found in breach of the rules risk being hit with hefty fines.
France is not the only country to flout the EU's spending rules after Italy passed a budget earlier this year which will see the budget deficit rise to 3.1 per cent by 2020, with debt already at 131 per cent of GDP.
Protesters gathered around TV sets across France on Monday night to hear Macron promise a seven per cent rise in the minimum wage, an end to tax and surcharges on overtime and pensions, and tax-free bonuses.
But opponents said this uncosted spending bonanza would not prevent thousands of protestors taking part in a fifth weekend of action, planned for Saturday.
Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the far-Left France Unbowed party, said: 'Emmanuel Macron thought he could hand out some cash to calm the citizens' insurrection that has erupted. I believe that Act Five will play out on Saturday.'
National Rally leader Marine Le Pen also predicted more disturbances, saying Mr Macron had 'given up on some of his tax errors', but 'refused to admit that it is the system he champions that is being questioned.'
Beyond the calls for institutional change - which could result in Mr Macron having to resign - the Yellow Vest movement wants even more tax cuts and pay rises.
Hey man, I didn't forget you. Just not getting the chance to watch a 30 min video. Can you post the cliff notes?Miktay wrote:For instance, I believe the following about global warming
1. It exists
2. It is a problem
3. It is (at least to a large extend) mankinds fault
4. It is a problem that mankind has the abiloty to fix
What are your views on those 4 points. Maybe if we see what we agree/disagree on then we can start from there.
To summarize: I believe that none can state with any degree of certainty that manmade global warming iza problem.
We can look at many facets of the issue but let’s start with the science. Here iz some support for my reasoning.
Spend 30 minutes with a 1973 Nobel physicist on the scientific methodologies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever
Let me know what you think.
Slartibartfast wrote:Hey man, I didn't forget you. Just not getting the chance to watch a 30 min video. Can you post the cliff notes?
Giaever has repeatedly professed skepticism of global warming, calling it a "new religion."[10][11][11][12]
In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."[13]
On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position. The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"[14]
As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees Kelvin: probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I'm going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[15][16]
Giaever repeated his claims in a speech at the same place in 2015: "The American Physical Society, which I was a member, say that "the evidence is incontrovertible", that global warming exists. Now think about that. This is a physical society and they say you cannot discuss global warming, because we believe it´s happening. It´s like the Catholic Church. There are lots of incontrovertible truth in the Catholic Church some sure. And here are incontrovertible truth in a physical society. So the only answer to that is to resign and I resign in 11."[17] He Claims referring to data on global average temperature (GISTEMP) published amongst others by NASA[18] that show global average surface temperature has risen less than 1 K in 140 years,[19] and not risen at all for the years from 2000 - 2014.[20] A main point of Giaever's speech was discussing reliability of the statistical calculation of this temperature with respect to the spatial distribution of measurement locations over the globe, especially what he viewed as poor coverage in the southern hemisphere.[21]
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservative and libertarian think tank, The Heartland Institute.[22]
Miktay wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Hey man, I didn't forget you. Just not getting the chance to watch a 30 min video. Can you post the cliff notes?
From Wikipedia.Giaever has repeatedly professed skepticism of global warming, calling it a "new religion."[10][11][11][12]
In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."[13]
On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position. The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"[14]
As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees Kelvin: probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I'm going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[15][16]
Giaever repeated his claims in a speech at the same place in 2015: "The American Physical Society, which I was a member, say that "the evidence is incontrovertible", that global warming exists. Now think about that. This is a physical society and they say you cannot discuss global warming, because we believe it´s happening. It´s like the Catholic Church. There are lots of incontrovertible truth in the Catholic Church some sure. And here are incontrovertible truth in a physical society. So the only answer to that is to resign and I resign in 11."[17] He Claims referring to data on global average temperature (GISTEMP) published amongst others by NASA[18] that show global average surface temperature has risen less than 1 K in 140 years,[19] and not risen at all for the years from 2000 - 2014.[20] A main point of Giaever's speech was discussing reliability of the statistical calculation of this temperature with respect to the spatial distribution of measurement locations over the globe, especially what he viewed as poor coverage in the southern hemisphere.[21]
Giaever is currently a science advisor with American conservative and libertarian think tank, The Heartland Institute.[22]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever
Is this an accurate representation of your point of view?
Most of it yes. But some no.
Why do you chose to believe this one scientist in particular?
There are many scientists that share thiz view. There's no such thing as a 97% consensus on GW among the general scientific community.
He mistakes "incontrovertible" (unable to be denied or disputed) with unable to be discussed. The majority of his argument was based on that mistake. Even NASA states there is a 5% probability of the cause of Global warming not being man made which means it is still open to discussion. It is the mountain of evidence in support of global warming that makes it "unable to be disputed". Why don't you take a look for yourself at what NASA has to say. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
5% probability iz low. To use the IPCCs jargon 5% implies that there iz a 95% confidence that GW iz not man made.
GW should still be discussed but formulating economic and governmental policies around a 5% probability without a basic understanding the implications iz putting the cart ahead of the donkey.
Also, did you look at the graph he referenced?
Why choose 1880 as a starting point? There was "no change" in temperature between 1880 and 1965. Just like there was "no change" between 2000 and 2014.
The graph was referenced by Al Gore et al in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".
But look at the graph for yourself. Will you say that it is trendimg upwards, downwards or not trending at all?
As for the question "what does a global rise of 0.8C mean?" Keep in mind that. Exactly. What does that mean?
1. Average temperature will not affect all places the same. For example it may mean no change in some areas or 3 degree rise in others. It just shows proof of an overall trend. It also does not affect all life the same. Take a look at what is happening to the great barrier reef.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/18/wo ... gle.com%2F
CNN certainly has its point of view. But what do other people think? Some managing the conservation of the GBR believe differently.Great Barrier Reef scare: exaggerated threats says head of GBR
The chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt says that activist groups are distorting surveys, maps and data to exaggerate the coral bleaching on the reef. The bleaching affects 22% of the reef and is mostly localized to the far northern section, which has good prospects of recovery.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/great- ... authority/
Here’s another question. Was the health of the reef caused by man made GW or the lower than normal sea levels combined with the 2016 El Niño and unusually high starfish infestations ?
Climate and avg global temperatures are the result of the continuous interactions of many complex systems. Isolating the effects of any one system iz virtually impossible.
2. Look at the rate of that change. 100 years might seem like a long time to you but consider that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or something like that and that the habitable temperature band for human life is very narrow on the grand scale of things. But, don't forget our temperature band of a comfortable existence on earth even much narrower.
I agree. But reliable temperature records maybe difficult to find going back more than a few hundred years. Even with proxies such as tree rings may not be easily interpolated into the average temperature record. So the 100 years time frame used by Al Gore iz maybe because of that.
Miktay wrote:Is this an accurate representation of your point of view?
Most of it yes. But some no.
Why do you chose to believe this one scientist in particular?
There are many scientists that share thiz view. There's no such thing as a 97% consensus on GW among the general scientific community.
He mistakes "incontrovertible" (unable to be denied or disputed) with unable to be discussed. The majority of his argument was based on that mistake. Even NASA states there is a 5% probability of the cause of Global warming not being man made which means it is still open to discussion. It is the mountain of evidence in support of global warming that makes it "unable to be disputed". Why don't you take a look for yourself at what NASA has to say. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
5% probability iz low. To use the IPCCs jargon 5% implies that there iz a 95% confidence that GW iz not man made.
GW should still be discussed but formulating economic and governmental policies around a 5% probability without a basic understanding the implications iz putting the cart ahead of the donkey.
Also, did you look at the graph he referenced?
Why choose 1880 as a starting point? There was "no change" in temperature between 1880 and 1965. Just like there was "no change" between 2000 and 2014.
The graph was referenced by Al Gore et al in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".
But look at the graph for yourself. Will you say that it is trendimg upwards, downwards or not trending at all?
As for the question "what does a global rise of 0.8C mean?" Keep in mind that. Exactly. What does that mean?
1. Average temperature will not affect all places the same. For example it may mean no change in some areas or 3 degree rise in others. It just shows proof of an overall trend. It also does not affect all life the same. Take a look at what is happening to the great barrier reef.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/18/wo ... gle.com%2F
CNN certainly has its point of view. But what do other people think? Some managing the conservation of the GBR believe differently.Great Barrier Reef scare: exaggerated threats says head of GBR
The chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt says that activist groups are distorting surveys, maps and data to exaggerate the coral bleaching on the reef. The bleaching affects 22% of the reef and is mostly localized to the far northern section, which has good prospects of recovery.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/great- ... authority/
Here’s another question. Was the health of the reef caused by man made GW or the lower than normal sea levels combined with the 2016 El Niño and unusually high starfish infestations ?
Climate and avg global temperatures are the result of the continuous interactions of many complex systems. Isolating the effects of any one system iz virtually impossible.
2. Look at the rate of that change. 100 years might seem like a long time to you but consider that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or something like that and that the habitable temperature band for human life is very narrow on the grand scale of things. But, don't forget our temperature band of a comfortable existence on earth even much narrower.
I agree. But reliable temperature records maybe difficult to find going back more than a few hundred years. Even with proxies such as tree rings may not be easily interpolated into the average temperature record. So the 100 years time frame used by Al Gore iz maybe because of that.
hydroep wrote:Apparently the money collected from those "environmental taxes" on fuel are being "used for other things" (consolidated fund business nuh). People must get upset when they believe they're being taken for a ride...
Huh? Just because you don't read it does not mean its not there. You don't even know what are in the articles you referenced. The temperature history for the last hundreds, if not thousands of years is considered when making the comparison.Miktay wrote:Startee...there’s a whole lot of contradiction in the theory of GW. For example it iz illogical to use a 100 year temperature record to divine future temperatures when...az you yourself have pointed out...the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
100 years iz not significant on the epoc scale of the history of Planet Earth. Itz not even a rounding error.
But say u personally believe man made GW iz happening. You are entitled to an opinion. But where iz the body of scientific experiments that supports the theory of Anthropogenic GW?
If you’re going to use science to support a theory you need a basis for that. And the body of experiments that support the theory do not exist.
There’s lots of speculation and opinions behind AGW. Plenty scare stories and ole talk.
But no science.
Slartibartfast wrote:Huh? Just because you don't read it does not mean its not there. You don't even know what are in the articles you referenced. The temperature history for the last hundreds, if not thousands of years is considered when making the comparison.Miktay wrote:Startee...there’s a whole lot of contradiction in the theory of GW. For example it iz illogical to use a 100 year temperature record to divine future temperatures when...az you yourself have pointed out...the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
100 years iz not significant on the epoc scale of the history of Planet Earth. Itz not even a rounding error.
But say u personally believe man made GW iz happening. You are entitled to an opinion. But where iz the body of scientific experiments that supports the theory of Anthropogenic GW?
If you’re going to use science to support a theory you need a basis for that. And the body of experiments that support the theory do not exist.
There’s lots of speculation and opinions behind AGW. Plenty scare stories and ole talk.
But no science.
The reason for the 100 year time scale when studying mans impact on global temperature is because that is literally the entirety of the time that we have been using fossil fuels on a large scale (i.e. taking part in the man made activities that contributed to global warming). Again you demonstrate a very poor grasp of the significance of the information that you present. You seem unable to understand the small snippets of the overall picture that you happened to stumble across.
Like I said, all the information is there but you have to actually read it. It seems you have already made up your mind from a place of ignorance. That is a position that no amount of scientific knowledge or facts can change. I can only lead you to water bub.
Are the yellow vest protesters against global warming or are they protesting the increased taxes? Is the increased taxes the absolute only way to combat global warming?Miktay wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Huh? Just because you don't read it does not mean its not there. You don't even know what are in the articles you referenced. The temperature history for the last hundreds, if not thousands of years is considered when making the comparison.Miktay wrote:Startee...there’s a whole lot of contradiction in the theory of GW. For example it iz illogical to use a 100 year temperature record to divine future temperatures when...az you yourself have pointed out...the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
100 years iz not significant on the epoc scale of the history of Planet Earth. Itz not even a rounding error.
But say u personally believe man made GW iz happening. You are entitled to an opinion. But where iz the body of scientific experiments that supports the theory of Anthropogenic GW?
If you’re going to use science to support a theory you need a basis for that. And the body of experiments that support the theory do not exist.
There’s lots of speculation and opinions behind AGW. Plenty scare stories and ole talk.
But no science.
The reason for the 100 year time scale when studying mans impact on global temperature is because that is literally the entirety of the time that we have been using fossil fuels on a large scale (i.e. taking part in the man made activities that contributed to global warming). Again you demonstrate a very poor grasp of the significance of the information that you present. You seem unable to understand the small snippets of the overall picture that you happened to stumble across.
Like I said, all the information is there but you have to actually read it. It seems you have already made up your mind from a place of ignorance. That is a position that no amount of scientific knowledge or facts can change. I can only lead you to water bub.
Again. Can you point out the experiments that validate the theory of AGW?
If you are using the scientific process then a body of work should be available for citation...if the information iz "all there".
Scientific proofs and validated predictions may help to dispel "ignorance". Because you not only have my "ignorance" to contend with but many other people's "ignorance"
See the yellow vest movement for example.
Again, just the vague manner in which this question is phrased shows how little you understand science in general, far less the actual issue at hand. Ok how about this. You tell me what you will need to be convinced. It scientific experiments this is called "Expected Results". You normally state your expected results before you carry out the experiment so that you can compare the expected results to the actual results. If your expected results and actual results match then the actual results offer proof of whatever your hypothesis was. You do not need to believe your hypothesis to test it.Miktay wrote:Again. Can you point out the experiments that validate the theory of AGW?
Are the yellow vest protesters against global warming or are they protesting the increased taxes? Is the increased taxes the absolute only way to combat global warming?
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
So here is what I need from you if you are serious. Give me a hypothesis that if proven true will act as definite proof for you that global warming is real. I'll give an example to make it easier.
Theory:
Global temperature is affected by the greenhouse effect of certain gases. Burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide which is considered on of these gases.
Hypothesis:
A rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coincides with a rise in the burning of fossil fuels.
A rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coincides with a proportional rise in global temperature.
Give me something a bit more specific like that to work with. But you need to understand enough about the issue to know what you are looking for first of all. So again, start with reading https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Miktay wrote:Startee: I am going to take your points one by one. But due to the limitations of the communication media I will have to break them into separate pieces to keep things clear.
Lets start with the yellow vests protest.Are the yellow vest protesters against global warming or are they protesting the increased taxes? Is the increased taxes the absolute only way to combat global warming?
They riots were triggered because of a carbon tax on fuel but resentment of the French people has been simmering for years. The carbon tax was the straw that broke the camel's back.
The French gubbament tax proposal would ostensibly to shift consumption away from fossil fuel towards cleaner burning technology. A large majority of French cars run on diesel.
But clean alternatives come at a cost. The French protesters did not want to pay the cost.
And in some cases clean alternatives are not practical...
Miktay wrote:NASA
NASA has thiz on itz websiteNinety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
So they start off with the usual propaganda about a 97% consensus. As you pointed out earlier because something iz popular with a certain group of individuals does not make it true.
NASAs pro-AGM view iz not without controversy. Former NASA employees disagree with NASAs parroting of the Big Climate lobby. 49 of them wrote a letter in protest to the head NASA administrator.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-sc ... nge-2012-4The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Miktay wrote:HypothesisSo here is what I need from you if you are serious. Give me a hypothesis that if proven true will act as definite proof for you that global warming is real. I'll give an example to make it easier.
Theory:
Global temperature is affected by the greenhouse effect of certain gases. Burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide which is considered on of these gases.
Hypothesis:
A rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coincides with a rise in the burning of fossil fuels.
A rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coincides with a proportional rise in global temperature.
Give me something a bit more specific like that to work with. But you need to understand enough about the issue to know what you are looking for first of all. So again, start with reading https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The theory of AGW iz not that simplistic.
You have to show that:
1. The earth iz warming.
2. The warming iz a permanent trend.
3. The warming causes catastrophic changes primarily rising sea level and extreme weather.
4. The primary activity that causes warming iz man made CO2.
5. The warming can be stopped by limiting the production of man made C02
6. Human beings can accomplish 5
7. The cost to achieve 5 iz not prohibitive.
We can use the scientific process to validate or invalidate most of these.
But we can start with 4. as a hypothesis if u wish.
But at some point the remaining points will have to be addressed.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: VexXx Dogg and 94 guests