NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

Nasa specializes in pure science.

Since when? And even if so, why should it be that way?

Nasa's mission to help save the planet?

It's been deleted from the charter by some 'clerk'
casually and without notice, like we delete spam.

No, I'm quite sure this came down from on high (i.e., the Bush
administration). But in this particular case, I don't disagree with it
-- understanding climate change should be NOAA's job, not NASA's.

We understand climate change just fine, thank you, with and without
NOAA's help, and regardless of their blatant hindrance, but doing
something about it is definitely NASA's job. Both NOAA and NASA have
done this nation a great disservice, however, under this regime.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:

NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others
build.

It does? Who knew?

jonathan wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
I survey postings relating to climate imbalances, such as global
warming, to see if one person has enough intelligence to recognise that
the big institutions are still working with 15th century astronomical
notions for climate norms .Even with 21st century data and observence
from space,NASA and NOAA will still use the explanation given by
Copernicus in chapter 11 of De revolutionibus even though that
explanation is counter-productive where global climate is concerned

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/yea...opernicus.html

Temperature signatures reflecting global climate norms are derived from
changing orbital orientation whereas Copernicus explains only
hemispherical cyclical meteorological patterms.The upshot is that
modern observations based on oscillating global temperature signatures
reflect climate norms from astronomical causes whereas human activity
affecting those temperature signatures would be reflected in a
widening of the temperature bands



What also seems to be missing from discussions on global
warming is that the big risk it poses for the future is
an early ice age. The general impression appears to
be the climate will just get warmer.

When a self organized system is pushed fast and hard enough
from equilibrium, it's behavior can become chaotic.
Which means sudden and wild swings in behavior. Bubbles burst
with little warning. It only takes one swing into an ice age
to pretty much wipe our slate clean.


s

The problem is not global warming,the problem is that the working
principles for climate norms and imbalances exists in a 15th century
framework.


I would urge those who are genuine about investigating human related
temperature signatures,such as the increase in CO2 levels,to consider
the original principles which distinguish hemispherical cyclical
climate patterns from global climate norms.

Global climate norms can be subdivided into hemispherical weather
patterns with parameters such as landmass,ocean currents conditioning
the meteorological cycles however the present practice of extending
meorological climate patterns over many years as denoting global
climate norms proves to be an obstacle.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

The upshot of using the oscillating temperature bands as a consequence
of the Earth's orbital position and allowing hemispherical parameters
to be conditioned by axial rotation is that it is easier to discern the
difference between normal astronomical signatures for global climate
from those which are created by natural events or human activity.

The sheer inability of climate scientists to alter from 15th century
conceptions is almost as breathtaking as gobal warming itself yet this
may change.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others
build.


It does? Who knew?

Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA, Boeing,
the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even lunch the Shuttle- a
contractor company does.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others
build.


It does? Who knew?

Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA, Boeing,
the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even launch the Shuttle- a
contractor company does.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Andy Resnick wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build.


It does? Who knew?

Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA, Boeing,
the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even launch the Shuttle- a
contractor company does.

In other words, you are unable to admit a minor little mistake.

Thanks for helping us resolve your position.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build.



It does? Who knew?


Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA,
Boeing, the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even launch the Shuttle-
a contractor company does.


In other words, you are unable to admit a minor little mistake.

Thanks for helping us resolve your position.

Hmm... it appears I did indeed make a minor error- NASA doesn't launch
too many satellites either:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm


http://www.satellite-links.co.uk/links/satman.html
http://www.space-careers.com/manufacturers.html



--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Andy Resnick wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build.



It does? Who knew?


Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA,
Boeing, the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even launch the
Shuttle- a contractor company does.


In other words, you are unable to admit a minor little mistake.

Thanks for helping us resolve your position.

Hmm... it appears I did indeed make a minor error- NASA doesn't launch
too many satellites either:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm


http://www.satellite-links.co.uk/links/satman.html
http://www.space-careers.com/manufacturers.html

Your reputation as an honest scientist is thus reestablished.

Thank you so much for your continued support of the 'American Dream'.

Isn't usenet science wonderful? Where previously science took decades
and centuries, and scientists were ridiculed, censured and finally
beheaded and burned at the stake, now truth is examined in real time,
and the worse thing that can happen is that you are wrong.

Now if we can only get rid of the grant writing.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:13 -0400, Andy Resnick wrote:


NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build.


It does? Who knew?

Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA, Boeing,
the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even lunch the Shuttle- a contractor
company does.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

That contractor company [is] NASA in disguise.

GLB

Roger Coppock wrote:
UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

There is irony in this and I'm reminded of the program called "Mission
to Planet Earth" from about a decade ago. With all the emphasis on
Voyager and the other successful space probes to the outer Solar System
back in the 70s and 80s, it was decided that exploring the Earth made
sense because, well, we all live here. I distinctly recall many
Republicans huffing about it. Well, MTPE started to find and underpin
evidence of global warming and as soon as the GOP took over Congress
back in 1994 the moniker "Mission to Planet Earth' shifted to simply
Earth Observing System, which is more mundane than the much touted
"MIssion to Planet Earth". Now as time has gone by more distancing from
Earth observation is taking place by this latest NASA mission statement
change.

It appears that the GOP runs the country but that Big Oil runs the GOP.

Eric


Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7