Shocking NASA study proves global warming spike in 2010

As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

On Aug 12, 3:11*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

Although NASA is probably the one organization with the clout to deal
with this hugely complicated matter,their advocacy for the modelling
agendas ,the main cause of the climate problem,would put them in
conflict with the overall scientific trend of the last 300 years.In
context of work I had been doing for many years,the exposure of e-
mails indicating that the climate modelers had already reached a
desired conclusion and were using observations to suit that conclusion
was no surprise,neither is it a surprise gauging the reaction after
the manipulations were uncovered as people try to find their feet in
terms of the relationship between political stances and climate
politics.

In short,science as an advocacy for social engineering and especially
from a renowned organization like NASA is pretty sordid but the damage
can be undone yet must be accomplished root and branch rather than
looking for superficial scapegoats and what have you.Many of the
people approach climate with the best intentions and were corralled by
people who have entirely different purposes for the natural pollution
concerns but engineered it in such a way that pollution reduced to
carbon dioxide levels and human control over global temperature,
something that is ridiculous,even in principle.

On Aug 12, 4:11*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

http://costofwar.com/

On Aug 11, 7:11*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

Easily avoiding 9/11 would have saved us and the world how many
trillions?

You do realize that the cold war was mutually perpetrated, as in
totally bogus and that it too cost us trillions to orchestrate and
sustain. I hope you're a happy camper.

~ BG

On Aug 12, 1:10*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:11*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"

wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

Although NASA is probably the one organization with the clout to deal
with this hugely complicated matter, their advocacy for the modelling
agendas, the main cause of the climate problem, would put them in
conflict with the overall scientific trend of the last 300 years.In
context of work I had been doing for many years,the exposure of e-
mails indicating that the climate modelers had already reached a
desired conclusion and were using observations to suit that conclusion
was no surprise, neither is it a surprise gauging the reaction after
the manipulations were uncovered as people try to find their feet in
terms of the relationship between political stances and climate
politics.

In short, science as an advocacy for social engineering and especially
from a renowned organization like NASA is pretty sordid but the damage
can be undone yet must be accomplished root and branch rather than
looking for superficial scapegoats and what have you.Many of the
people approach climate with the best intentions and were corralled by
people who have entirely different purposes for the natural pollution
concerns but engineered it in such a way that pollution reduced to
carbon dioxide levels and human control over global temperature,
something that is ridiculous, even in principle.

Correct, as in don't ever blame any individuals, those social/
political special-interest groups or faith-based policy of systematic
obfuscation and need-to-know. Instead merely push onward as though
public resources are unlimited as well as immortal, because that
sorted past of debauchery and errors upon errors is meaningless, and
otherwise environmental issues as well as human needs are somehow
unimportant or can be put off indefinitely.

Are we absolutely sure about this?

BTW; we humans only amount to 1 ppm of the global biodiversity mass,
and yet we out-consume and out-pollute by all conceivable measure of
everything else combined, causing global dimming and increasing the
toxic plus acidic nature of most everything around us. Other than
that, we don't hardly affect the biodiversity or environment of Earth
one bit.

~ BG

On Aug 12, 10:50*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Aug 12, 4:11*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"

wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

http://costofwar.com/

Yes, although the real all-inclusive cost of war is actually at least
ten fold more spendy and more consuming plus toxic and polluting than
what we're being told to believe. The next ten generations may never
clear the books of the debt that our current and previous generations
created.

Diverting such wealth, resources and talents into making war instead
of advancing our intelligence, infrastructure and everything in
between can't be ignored or belittled by such disinformation and
eyecandy infomercials.

Obviously you don't place any significant value on human life, on
collateral damage or the trashing of our global environment. Your
only solution is to continually go along with the mainstream flow,
pretending that that past has nothing to do with today or the future.

~ BG

On Aug 11, 9:11*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote:
*As usual, NASA should be looking out, not down, but with the Shuttle
program gone (thanks, Obama, you goofball) and the ISS falling apart,
they have to go looking for work to justify their existence.

hey Rich "all conservatives are morons" Anderson, I know Canadians are
better educated than most, but you might read the

The National Aeronautical and Space Administration Act of 1958 (Pub.
L. No. 85-568) which specifically authorizes NASA to "look down" as
well as out

On Aug 12, 2:10*am, oriel36 wrote:
their advocacy for the modelling
agendas ,the main cause of the climate problem,

Since humans are arrogant to think they have a thermostat for global
climate from a minor atmospheric constituent, how on Earth can NASA's
acceptance of the theories of Newton cause global warming?

John Savard

On Aug 12, 7:47*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 12, 2:10*am, oriel36 wrote:

their advocacy for the modelling
agendas ,the main cause of the climate problem,

Since humans are arrogant to think they have a thermostat for global
climate from a minor atmospheric constituent, how on Earth can NASA's
acceptance of the theories of Newton cause global warming?

John Savard

It takes 2e20 N/sec to hold onto our moon/Selene. Tell us where
that's not causing heat.

~ BG

On Aug 12, 11:44*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

It takes 2e20 N/sec to hold onto our moon/Selene. *Tell us where
that's not causing heat.

I have no doubt that tidal forces, since they cause motions which
encounter friction, do warm the Earth, even as you are claiming.

However, there have always been tides. Why was there equilibrium in
ancient times, and warming now? What has *changed* is how much oil and
coal we burn; the tides have not changed.

John Savard