NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

According to your position statement, there are no climate issues.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

NOAA, NASA and the DOD are unfortunately dysfunctional under our current
anti-science regime. This isn't going to change until we have a regime
change.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In sci.physics Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

According to your position statement, there are no climate issues.

While not a True Believer in The Gospel of Anthropologic Global Warming,
blessed be it's name, there are still lots of climate issues, you
holier than thou asshole.

Like it would be nice to be able to accurately predict weather for more
than a few days in advance, especially extreme weather like hurricanes.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

NOAA, NASA and the DOD are unfortunately dysfunctional under our current
anti-science regime. This isn't going to change until we have a regime
change.

You don't like the current "regime", oh boo-hoo.

Grow up.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In sci.physics Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.
KW
NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

According to your position statement, there are no climate issues.

While not a True Believer in The Gospel of Anthropologic Global Warming,
blessed be it's name, there are still lots of climate issues, you
holier than thou asshole.

That's smarter than thou, asshole.

Like it would be nice to be able to accurately predict weather for more
than a few days in advance, especially extreme weather like hurricanes.

Five days isn't enough for you? You really are a slow mover.

Put up the shutters, clear the decks, strip it down, zip it up, pull the
boats, done. Man the radio and dink around with antennas for a few days.

This year I'm way ahead of the game, everything is still cabled down
from Hurricane Francis. If we're lucky, this will be our 'off' year.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

NOAA, NASA and the DOD are unfortunately dysfunctional under our current
anti-science regime. This isn't going to change until we have a regime
change.

You don't like the current "regime", oh boo-hoo.

Cry all you want, this regime is history, and come next year, there are
going to be criminal charges that they aren't going to be able to avoid.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Rock Brentwood wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off*
the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying
*on* it!

Three down, only 6.5 billion more to go!


Sheep always have the least brains and sense between sheep, wolves, and
sheepdogs. Always believing they are running the place, or going to run the
place, via The Sheep Herd Theory of All Life. You sheep have few brains,
damn little sense, and no clue. No clue whatsoever.

GLB

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
snip

How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA
or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that
the administration believes should be (de-)funded.


Hmmm ... let me think, I know ...

they're ROCKET SCIENTISTS!

Now, what other brilliant observations do you have for us asshole.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Don't confuse the engineers with the people that write the checks.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

On a sunny day (Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:09:26 -0400) it happened Andy Resnick
wrote in :

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
snip

How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA
or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that
the administration believes should be (de-)funded.


Hmmm ... let me think, I know ...

they're ROCKET SCIENTISTS!

Now, what other brilliant observations do you have for us asshole.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Don't confuse the engineers with the people that write the checks.

yea, NASA fired most engineers (the real guys, apollo etc) after the
moonlandings.
Or they retired.
US disgraced Von Braun, he was THE one who already had a mars plan (cheaper
then shuttle actually ;-) )
The new kids hardly know how to land with an airbag, and get an orgasm if they
can drive a toy car on mars.
Russia is doing the heavy work for NASA.

WHAT ENGINEERS?



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

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

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

So blinkered by the carbon cycle without taking into account how to
graft the data into a global perspective is absolutely shocking is the
main area of concern in climate studies.Investigators have neither the
intellectual or intuitive intelligence to revise the original
conception for climate norms and how to extract the correct
astronomical mechanism based on the Earth's motions from the deficient
Copernican explanation based on hemispherical axial tilt.

In short,the big institutions,while trying to speak with authority,are
now the biggest obstacle to climate understanding.



Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

According to your position statement, there are no climate issues.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

NOAA, NASA and the DOD are unfortunately dysfunctional under our current
anti-science regime. This isn't going to change until we have a regime
change.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
beav wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 06 13:02:40 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article m,
"greysky" wrote:
Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely
rejected:

"You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..."

Or this one:

"NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our
Stuff to wherever the money comes from."




"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...en=7a71420a910
3f
ea3&hp=&ex=1153627200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage& adxnnlx=1153543120-I5g0T4aFi
ti
KrXZazUNXdw

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


Unfortunately, NASA has become "UPS in Space."


HAHAHA!!

UPS? I don't hink so. UPS delivers. I'd have said "US Postal
Service in space" They'll get it there eventually.


Both are great compared to FedEx.

My experience: I order an item from Verizon. FedEx delivers to my house, but
I'm not there during the day, so they leave a hang tag on my back door,
saying we missed you. I call, they say sign it and put it back out on door.
OK, I sign it and hang it out. The next day, no FedEx. I call, they say item
put on wrong truck, it'll come tomorrow. I put the hang tag out the next
day, on back door where they had put it day before. I come home to find a new
hang tag on my FRONT door this time, saying we missed you. Next day, I put
this signed tag back on my front door and the previous one on my back door.
Finally, after 5:00, FedEx delivers it.

On Mon, 24 Jul 06 13:02:40 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article m,
"greysky" wrote:
Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely
rejected:

"You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..."

Or this one:

"NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our
Stuff to wherever the money comes from."




"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...=7a71420a9103f
ea3&hp=&ex=1153627200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&a dxnnlx=1153543120-I5g0T4aFiti
KrXZazUNXdw

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


Unfortunately, NASA has become "UPS in Space."


HAHAHA!!

UPS? I don't hink so. UPS delivers. I'd have said "US Postal
Service in space" They'll get it there eventually.

"Models of the carbon cycle can be incorporated into global climate models,
so that the interactive response of the oceans and biosphere on future CO2
levels can be modelled. There are considerable uncertainties in this, both
in the physical and biogeochemical submodels (especially the latter). Such
models typically show that there is a positive feedback between temperature
and CO2. For example, Zeng et al. (GRL, 2004 [2]) find that in their model,
including a coupled carbon cycle increases atmospheric CO2 by about 90 ppmv
at 2100 (over that predicted in models with non-interactive carbon cycles),
leading to an extra 0.6°C of warming (which, in turn, may lead to even
greater atmospheric CO2)."

Most important setnence - -

There are considerable uncertainties in this, both in the physical and
biogeochemical submodels (especially the latter). - - -

You must ignore this warning that their model could be partially, or
completely worthless. Like many mindless beings, they tend to listen to
only what they want to hear, as opposed to looking at what is actually there
and assessing it in a rational manner. For scientific matters, it does take
a basic background in the sciences, though , to understand the problem in
the first place. Without this background, opinions are as worthless as,
well some of my favorite sayings might bring complaints. . .



Like I said, you don't have a clue. I would expalain it to you but I find
my time completely wasted discussing anything with mindless beings. It is
bad enough with those that are experts on the subject, since they already
have their mind made up, without any consideration to several reams of data
and potential contributing elements (i.e. the earth is in its periodic tilt
which brings it closer to the sun. Would it get warmer or colder, if the
planet is closer to the sun?).

see the earth stumbling around like a drunken bum - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_wobble



"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
SBC Yahoo wrote:

Go hug a tree, get warm and fuzzy, then explain why the earth is only 1
deg c warmer, if greenhouse gasses have been elevating for 50 years?

Actually, it's more like 150 years, but I'll let that slide.

Don't have a clue, I know, but you think you have all the answers. All
morons do.

Not into the science thing are you. Well, let's start with carbon flux :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Check back later once you grok it.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org