Ed Cesnalis Posted March 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Seems the focus has shifted from Muslim outreach to Global Warming. As chairman of the Senate Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee, Texas Republican Ted Cruz is on a mission — to get NASA back on course regarding it’s original focus, space, and less on what many view as pseudo-science: global warming research. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/13/ted-cruz-unhappy-with-nasas-new-focus-on-global-warming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Remind me of Ted Cruz's science credentials again. Politicians decide the mandate of agencies like NASA. Science credentials are not needed to clearly see that tax dollars funding NASA are better spent on space exploration and aeronautics then either Muslim outreach or global warming shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Enough already of the right-wing bullshit. Go hang out on GBigs Angle blogspot. Charming reply there. Advocating a return to space exploration and aeronautics as NASAs rightful mission isn't really right or left wing, its a removal of the politics and back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I'm not offended at being called out as you say. I do not think it is your place to tell me what not to say and where to go. The fact that NASA has lost its way from space exploration and aeronautics by taking a hard left turn into the ditch is what it is. If the agency had lost its way in either direction I would want its course righted. This site might have PC police but I'm pretty sure you aint it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 SO you need to look at the mission of NASA again. It was started by Eisenhower for a better understanding of the earth through space science. Climate change is within its purview. NASA’s birth was directly related to the launch of the Sputniks and the ensuing race to demonstrate technological superiority in space. Driven by the competition of the Cold War, on July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, providing for research into the problems of flight within Earth’s atmosphere and in space. http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/historyLetter.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 If you're going to make right-wing political post, you're going to get called out for it. Gbigs Angle has a blog you might enjoy. And I think we all know who Gbigs Angle is. I am more than happy to leave politics out of this discussion, but you brought it up. The point of the whole thread is that NASA has lost its way (its mandate) and it became politicized. The new news on this subject is that Cruz is calling for a return to the original mandate. I fully support the return to space exploration and aeronautical research. Voicing my support for this return might be sacrilegious to you and require calling me out repeatedly but it is exactly the long standing subject at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Good thing you are here outing us right wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 If we all flew in diamond 9 we could surely accommodate everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Charlie Tango, I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can. No one is suggesting that you don't get to have an opinion about what NASA does. What I object to, and I will continue to object to, is the gratuitous insertion of your opinions about Muslims or global warming or whatever it is that is NOT Flight Design airplanes. I know you get this. Pretending that, because NASA funding is political (of course it is, NASA is part of the Federal budget), it's OK for you to opine about whatever hot-button political issue is on your mind when you are at your keyboard is nonsense. You have nearly countless venues to express your political views. Why do you have to express them here when the clear and explicit purpose of this site is to serve as a forum for FD airplanes? Finally, I strongly suspect you don't let Breitbart tell you the best way to fly your airplane. Don't expect me to let Breitbart tell me how to think about the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Charlie Tango, I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can. No one is suggesting that you don't get to have an opinion about what NASA does. What I object to, and I will continue to object to, is the gratuitous insertion of your opinions about Muslims or global warming or whatever it is that is NOT Flight Design airplanes. I know you get this. Pretending that, because NASA funding is political (of course it is, NASA is part of the Federal budget), it's OK for you to opine about whatever hot-button political issue is on your mind when you are at your keyboard is nonsense. You have nearly countless venues to express your political views. Why do you have to express them here when the clear and explicit purpose of this site is to serve as a forum for FD airplanes? Finally, I strongly suspect you don't let Breitbart tell you the best way to fly your airplane. Don't expect me to let Breitbart tell me how to think about the environment. This thread is political about the mismanagement of NASA and a redirection of it's mission under the Obama administration. Attacking a commenter for an opinion is outside the thread discussion.... For instance, today the congress is battling over NASA funding: “In the past six years, too much of NASA’s focus has been driven by the political agenda of politicians in Washington rather than the core mission of focusing on space exploration,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who leads the Senate subcommittee on Space. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235719-battle-brewing-over-nasa-funding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I forget, is "The Hill" for VFR pilots or for IFR pilots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I really appreciate the right wing and the left wing -- otherwise my plane tends to spin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I sit in the middle, right between the wings. It keeps things balanced, and the plane flies best that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Now Nasa is revealing that antarctic ice is growing not shrinking and causing reduced sea level rise. Guess the models were wrong again? https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Correct CT. NASA two years ago proved that greenhouse gases were escaping into space at a far higher rate than the green goons have in their broken climate models. Since then, NASA and others in Australia and Britain have proven the Antarctic is growing at a record pace (the Antarctic has 90% of Earth ice) thus obliterating the notion that Earth is warming. In fact European scientists yesterday now concur that a small ice age is looming for the planet between 2030 and 2040. The reaction from the Global Warming jack-boots is to accuse anyone not buying their myths and made-up numbers as being anti-science. The ironic opposite is true. It is the greenies that resist science and insist on destroying world-wide commerce in pursuit of their false assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Grab any straw you can. Straw? Anarctic not acting as expected, ok, only 90% of the world's ice. Arctic not acting as expected, was to be ice free by now. Global temps not acting as expected, 18 years of no warming, (unless you fall for the current round of revisions.) Sea level rise not acting as expected, still just a 2 or 3 mm / year The only evidence of global warming are the models and they have been nothing but wrong. Pretty big straw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 From which climate journal do you get your information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 From which climate journal do you get your information? Antarctica not acting as expected - use your quote from the Oct. 7, 2014 NASA publication 'Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum' For Arctic predictions of being Ice Free by summer of 2015 start with Al Gore, and for 2013 we have 'the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013' – John Kerry, US Secretary of State Here's a nice article in a jpg Lots more on the artic ... The 18 year hiatus / pause and latest adjustments are talked about here: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record. New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/#ixzz3qf5gK8OW The best way to be informed is to read both sides, here is a good aggregator http://climatedebatedaily.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Interesting that you cannot discuss and remain on friendly terms. Your 99% number is interesting too, used to be 97% and then was revealed it was 97% of those that responded meaning even the 97% number was a fabrication. Why is NOAA refusing to release their new data that shows the pause doesn't exist? It shouldn't surprise us that the NOAA refuses to release data on how they reached the conclusion that the earth was, indeed, warming. It is the only study showing an increase in temps over the last 15 years, thus any debunking would be injurious to the climate change cause. Aside from the shocking arrogance in defying a subpoena from Congress, it's pretty obvious that the NOAA doesn't want to release the data because it will either show they cooked the books, or, as they've done in the past, misinterpreted the data. Smith can go to court, but by the time the issue is adjudicated, the next Congress will be sitting http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/noaa_refuses_to_comply_with_house_subpoena_for_documents_on_climate.html#ixzz3qig6OUjE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 you can consult the folks in Shishmaref, AK who have moved their village because of the rising sea. Anyway, we will not convince one another and I would prefer to remain on friendly terms. A friendly counter to Shishmaref, that village was victim to erosion and storm surge, not rising sea levels. Surely the coral atoll nations would be the first to submerge but that hasn't happened either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 How many CT aircraft fly in the Antarctic? Right, none. The same as the number of times NASA and climate models should be discussed on CT flier. Oh well, plenty of other places to actually discuss airplanes with people who want to discuss airplanes and not advocate for their politics. How hard is it to find places to discuss politics on the web? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 I bet our FL CT owners will care when by next year their whole state is under water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 OK, CT I will agree to the 97. The 99+ % was climate scientists (those who actually work in the field) who write for peer reviewed journals, but if you are OK with the 97% so am I. Here's the conclusion of a Wall Street Journal article on this 97% We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' Shishmaref was once protected from storm surge by sea ice. Sea ice may seem like a permanent fixture when settling a village but it is gone at least for now. You can argue a lack of sea ice is due to warming but it isn't sea level rise as you state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Shishmaref was built on permafrost that has begun to melt. Erosion, Surge and melting permafrost are real problems for Shishmaref but they are not sea level rise. The Wall street Journal Opinion page is not all opinion as it points out the source of the 97% number. In this article the sources are Kerry and Obama. There is much published on this bogus number and many who stand on the number no mater how embarrassing. I particularly like the Sierra Club's testimony on it. Low lying land masses will always face issues but once again it takes a decade for the sea level at the current rate to rise 1". Given 10 years to rise an inch at current 2.6mm/year increase do you really think the subject is settled and not even up for discussion? Demanding that the opposition be silenced using Rico laws does not sound like science to me. Doug, next time you are in California stop by and we can tour the receding glaciers in the Sierra Nevada from my CTSW. California's Palisade Glacier shot from my CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.