• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constellation or Climate Research?

Constellation or Climate research?

  • Total voters
    27
Goshin said:
We can't stop it. Exactly. The Earth has warmed a bit. Maybe it will warm some more. Almost certainly, natural processes and cycles will curb this trend over time.... and you know, if it doesn't, there really isn't anything significant we can do about it. We are too puny to have a significant effect on the climate.
Click to expand...

We have pretty advanced technology at our disposal. I've heard of ways to temporarily cool the planet. Something about releasing a chemical high in our atmosphere. I'll see if I can find more information about it. But this is why we need to study climate change more...

Edit: It sounds like it's sulfur they'd consider pumping into the atmosphere to cool down the planet, though this could have negative effects on the ozone layer.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928831-54.html
 
Last edited:
Humans are already trashing the planet. The AGW debate is just a diversion from the factual realities of what we already know. Land, sea, and air are being toxified more and more each year to the detriment of human health.

Knowledge of our own planet should come first, and space after that. Our oceans are just as foreign as the stars at this point. We know so little about them.
 
Kind of like poverty: take care of our own first. In this case the own is the Planet Earth.
 
Jucon said:
We have pretty advanced technology at our disposal. I've heard of ways to temporarily cool the planet. Something about releasing a chemical high in our atmosphere. I'll see if I can find more information about it. But this is why we need to study climate change more...

Edit: It sounds like it's sulfur they'd consider pumping into the atmosphere to cool down the planet, though this could have negative effects on the ozone layer.

Geoengineered cooling of planet would have 'perilous effects' | Green Tech - CNET News
Click to expand...

Sulfur is rather toxic. I seriously don't think pumping large amounts of it into our upper atmo sounds like a good idea.

Honestly, has anyone really thought about what kind of massive systems we're talking about, when we're talking about humans affecting climate change? (in either a positive or negative sense).

The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5 × 1018 or 5,000,000,000,000,000,000) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.
Click to expand...

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best I can figure, that's about five thousand TRILLION tons.

The total mass of humanity:
7 billion humans at 70kg each = 490 billion kg. That's 490 million tons, or 0.000000098 of the mass of the atmosphere.

If we assume that each human comes along with a ton of mass of industrial product (share of housing, transporation, manufacturing, etc...bearing in mind that much of the world doesn't own much, so one ton is probably about avg), that's another 7 billion tons... or 0.0000014, for a whopping total of all humanity and all humanity's works equalling 0.000001498 of the mass of the atmosphere.

Okay this is just an estimate, but I'll bet it is within an order of magnitude of being correct. WE ARE TINY compared to the Earth.

For all of humanity's combined works to equal 1% of the mass of the atmosphere, we'd have to expand our production capacity about 10,000 fold...yes that's ten thousand fold.

We aren't even dust in the wind. :mrgreen:

This is the main reason I am skeptical of AGW.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It really doesn't matter whether global warming is man caused or not.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter!? You can't be serious with this! Good lord...

It is abundantly clear that it is real. What is not clear is that we can actually stop it. Most likely, we can not.
Click to expand...

One degree in a hundred years, and you're crapping your pants. People really HAVE lost their minds.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not necessarily AGW. My analogy only depends on the fact that the train is coming, not that the passengers of the car put it there, nor that they can stop it.

The Earth has warmed over the past hundred years. That is a fact, not an opinion. It hasn't warmed much, but it doesn't take much of a rise in average temperatures to make a difference.

Saying that global warming isn't happening is much like sitting in the car and plugging your ears. If you want to argue that it isn't anthropogenic, go right ahead. I think you're wrong, but it really doesn't matter. The train is coming. Let's get out of the way. We're not going to stop it anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do you automatically assume that the warming is going to result in a catastrophe!? Do you think this is the first time the planet has warmed to such an extent? Well, it's not! The Earth has been warmer in the past, and an increase of a hundredth of a degree every year over the past hundred years is not exactly what I'd call cause for concern.

The most likely explanation is that the warming is just the result of some natural cycle, hence, it's nothing to poop your pants about.
 
There are lots of climate research programs around the world... and NASA's is among the worst.

In contrast, the Constellation Program is the best of its kind, if not the only one.

It should do what it does best. And anyways, the decision to move funding to the climate program clearly was more political than scientific.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yeah, similarly, space exploration is code word for: "I drive a hummer because I'm overcompensating, " or in other words: "when we've thoroughly exploited this planet for a short-term buck, we'll have a plan B."
Click to expand...

Space exploration is code for "space exploration". "Climate research" is code for "big fat bunch of politically tainted, big-headed climatologists who think they own science, along with a bunch of politicians who want regulatory power over the world."

How much money and influence are people going to shove over to these jerks!? Climatologists aren't the only damn scientists out there, you know, and a consensus does not a theory prove; and don't get me started on politicians!!!
 
1984 said:
Why do you automatically assume that the warming is going to result in a catastrophe!? Do you think this is the first time the planet has warmed to such an extent? Well, it's not! The Earth has been warmer in the past, and an increase of a hundredth of a degree every year over the past hundred years is not exactly what I'd call cause for concern.

The most likely explanation is that the warming is just the result of some natural cycle, hence, it's nothing to poop your pants about.
Click to expand...

There have been hundreds of trains on the track. This is the first time our car has been stalled at the crossing, however.

Sure, the Earth has warmed and cooled before. There weren't six billion human beings to experience it before.

It will be a lot less of a disaster if we get out of the car, i.e., try to learn what is coming and be ready for it. Of course we won't do that, as it would be the logical thing to do, and human activities are hardly ever based on logic anyway. Witness the silly debate taking place currently, with people trying to deny global warming based on wishful thinking and the rantings of non scientists.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There have been hundreds of trains on the track. This is the first time our car has been stalled at the crossing, however.

Sure, the Earth has warmed and cooled before. There weren't six billion human beings to experience it before.

It will be a lot less of a disaster if we get out of the car, i.e., try to learn what is coming and be ready for it. Of course we won't do that, as it would be the logical thing to do, and human activities are hardly ever based on logic anyway. Witness the silly debate taking place currently, with people trying to deny global warming based on wishful thinking and the rantings of non scientists.
Click to expand...


Witness people who are independent thinkers questioning the motivations, incentives and veracity of those who are attempting to use a dubious "Crisis" as an excuse to inflict major changes on the economy, government and international politics.
 
I actually own the perfect babydoll tee for this. It says "PUT THE EARTH FIRST, We can screw up the other planets later." I wore it the other day and my husband loved it.

Anyway, my personal belief is that we should be putting money into studying the environment and going into space. I think there are practical points to doing both. I would say our environment though is more important than going into space, at the moment anyway.

As for global warming, I don't care if we, as humans are affecting global warming or not, because truthfully it doesn't really matter. Most efforts to reduce the impact humans have on their environment have many positives to them. Reduce, reuse, recycle is good for reducing how much of the Earth's resources we are actually consuming. This should be a matter of efficiency. Reducing how much pollution is going into the atmosphere means cleaner air. Reducing how much pollution goes into the water means cleaner water and a healthier marine life cycle, which means more fish in the sea and healthier marine plant life providing oxygen. Reducing land pollution means more places for us to live and is better for the food we eat and the water that is under the land or has runoff from the land come into it. The only arguments I've ever heard against going green have to deal with "it will affect the economy" (which sounds really greedy to me) or "I"m too lazy to care". Now even if it will happen eventually naturally, I don't see why we can't work to make the environment better for ourselves and our children while we are here.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There have been hundreds of trains on the track. This is the first time our car has been stalled at the crossing, however.

Sure, the Earth has warmed and cooled before. There weren't six billion human beings to experience it before.

It will be a lot less of a disaster if we get out of the car, i.e., try to learn what is coming and be ready for it. Of course we won't do that, as it would be the logical thing to do, and human activities are hardly ever based on logic anyway. Witness the silly debate taking place currently, with people trying to deny global warming based on wishful thinking and the rantings of non scientists.
Click to expand...

Once again, why do you automatically assume that a disaster is looming!? What are you basing this on, exactly?

This is just mindless alarmism based upon nothing more than rank speculation and wild assumptions. You have no hard evidence or proof to back up your silly doomsday prophesy, so you just beg the question incessantly and paint a fantastical doomsday scenario; standard protocol for the warming zealots.
 
roguenuke said:
I actually own the perfect babydoll tee for this. It says "PUT THE EARTH FIRST, We can screw up the other planets later." I wore it the other day and my husband loved it.
Click to expand...

Utterly inappropriate, actually. "Climate research" has nothing to do with putting the Earth first; it's just a subterfuge for the warming zealots and their agenda to regulate everything in sight.

Anyway, my personal belief is that we should be putting money into studying the environment and going into space. I think there are practical points to doing both. I would say our environment though is more important than going into space, at the moment anyway.

As for global warming, I don't care if we, as humans are affecting global warming or not, because truthfully it doesn't really matter. Most efforts to reduce the impact humans have on their environment have many positives to them. Reduce, reuse, recycle is good for reducing how much of the Earth's resources we are actually consuming. This should be a matter of efficiency. Reducing how much pollution is going into the atmosphere means cleaner air. Reducing how much pollution goes into the water means cleaner water and a healthier marine life cycle, which means more fish in the sea and healthier marine plant life providing oxygen. Reducing land pollution means more places for us to live and is better for the food we eat and the water that is under the land or has runoff from the land come into it. The only arguments I've ever heard against going green have to deal with "it will affect the economy" (which sounds really greedy to me) or "I"m too lazy to care". Now even if it will happen eventually naturally, I don't see why we can't work to make the environment better for ourselves and our children while we are here.
Click to expand...

NASA's space program has done more to benefit mankind and the environment than "climate research" ever has.
 
1984 said:
Once again, why do you automatically assume that a disaster is looming!? What are you basing this on, exactly?

This is just mindless alarmism based upon nothing more than rank speculation and wild assumptions. You have no hard evidence or proof to back up your silly doomsday prophesy, so you just beg the question incessantly and paint a fantastical doomsday scenario; standard protocol for the warming zealots.
Click to expand...

OK, that is where my analogy breaks down. A train hitting a car is a pretty negative thing, particularly with people inside it.

On the other hand, if the car is a junker and the people do get out, then it isn't so bad.

We don't know whether global climate change will be a disaster. It may be in some places, may actually help others. The problem is, we really don't know.

It would be better if we would find out what is coming and quit arguing over what is already known, but, of course, we won't.

So, it really doesn't matter. Global climate change is real, that much is established. It is likely that human activities are accelerating it, that much is established. It is going to have some negative impacts in come places, that much is also established. Will it be a disaster? What will the effects be? Can we actually mitigate it? None of that is established. Were human beings wiser, we would put our energy into finding those things out, but, being foolish, we won't.

So, what does it matter?
 
1984 said:
Utterly inappropriate, actually. "Climate research" has nothing to do with putting the Earth first; it's just a subterfuge for the warming zealots and their agenda to regulate everything in sight.



NASA's space program has done more to benefit mankind and the environment than "climate research" ever has.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It is important to keep some humor in your life. And why shouldn't we try to clean up this planet before we go looking for others to inhabit and trash? And apparently the "warming zealots" aren't the only ones with an agenda.

Climate research is important, but I don't think that it should be NASA's major concern. Climate research is just as important as constellation research is, but it should be left up to NOAA and other organizations that are already concentrating on such research. I think NASA should be left to take care of research concerning space exploration and research from/in space.

Also, you didn't actually refute any of what I posted in that last paragraph. I'm not sure what regulations are being proposed that would only be to reduce global warming, and not also help the environment in some other way. This is the point of the argument. I don't have a problem with slowly implementing legislation that would significantly harm the economy with very little positive impact to the environment. But if the legislation is not being backed, even when it can have a large amount of positive impact on the environment, just because people are afraid that the businesses affected will move out of the country, then it has more to do with greed. I do think it would be a good idea to give incentives to those who would "go green" rather than move their business to another country who doesn't enforce environmental standards, but that doesn't mean we should not have environmental standards or drop our standards to match other countries just because they might get the business. I also wouldn't have a problem with charging companies who do try to avoid environmental standards by moving out of our country fees/taxes/whatever for doing so.

Personally, I would like to see all countries start agreeing on environmental standards. We all have to share this planet and its resources. And if one country royally messes it up, then we all have to deal with it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, that is where my analogy breaks down. A train hitting a car is a pretty negative thing, particularly with people inside it.

On the other hand, if the car is a junker and the people do get out, then it isn't so bad.

We don't know whether global climate change will be a disaster. It may be in some places, may actually help others. The problem is, we really don't know.

It would be better if we would find out what is coming and quit arguing over what is already known, but, of course, we won't.
Click to expand...

What is there to figure out? Also, "anything could happen" is not a rational basis for policy.

I mean, a meteorite COULD come blazing through your roof and into your skull, we just don't know!!! Methinks your roof needs some lead plating in order to preempt such an eventuality. Just give me $10,000 and I'll make sure this disaster never befalls you!

So, it really doesn't matter. Global climate change is real, that much is established.
Click to expand...

Define "global climate change" and explain why we should care.

It is likely that human activities are accelerating it, that much is established.
Click to expand...

Your language suggests that you are a scientific layperson. Something that is "established" as being "likely" means absolutely nothing. Moreover, no such thing has been established; I defy you to prove otherwise.

It is going to have some negative impacts in come places, that much is also established.
Click to expand...

Yea, like those melting glaciers in the Himalayas!? That was also "established".

Will it be a disaster? What will the effects be? Can we actually mitigate it? None of that is established. Were human beings wiser, we would put our energy into finding those things out, but, being foolish, we won't.

So, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

You sound like the McDonald's kid..."It could happen!"
 
roguenuke said:
I disagree. It is important to keep some humor in your life. And why shouldn't we try to clean up this planet before we go looking for others to inhabit and trash? And apparently the "warming zealots" aren't the only ones with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest we shouldn't clean up the planet, or that I was okay with trashing it and leaving it for dead!?

Climate research is important, but I don't think that it should be NASA's major concern. Climate research is just as important as constellation research is, but it should be left up to NOAA and other organizations that are already concentrating on such research. I think NASA should be left to take care of research concerning space exploration and research from/in space.
Click to expand...

Explain to me what you hope to accomplish with "climate research" aside from pushing the regulatory agenda of a bunch of government goons and self-interested climatologists.

Also, you didn't actually refute any of what I posted in that last paragraph.
Click to expand...

What is there to refute?

I'm not sure what regulations are being proposed that would only be to reduce global warming, and not also help the environment in some other way. This is the point of the argument. I don't have a problem with slowly implementing legislation that would significantly harm the economy with very little positive impact to the environment. But if the legislation is not being backed, even when it can have a large amount of positive impact on the environment, just because people are afraid that the businesses affected will move out of the country, then it has more to do with greed. I do think it would be a good idea to give incentives to those who would "go green" rather than move their business to another country who doesn't enforce environmental standards, but that doesn't mean we should not have environmental standards or drop our standards to match other countries just because they might get the business. I also wouldn't have a problem with charging companies who do try to avoid environmental standards by moving out of our country fees/taxes/whatever for doing so.

Personally, I would like to see all countries start agreeing on environmental standards. We all have to share this planet and its resources. And if one country royally messes it up, then we all have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

The argument is about regulating human CO2 emissions. All the other stuff is not at issue, at least, as far as I'm aware.

There is no proof that human CO2 emissions are causing the Earth to warm, or that CO2 even acts the way the IPCC thinks it does, therefore, there is no reason at all to hand over regulatory authority to the Federal government or the United Nations, nor is there any reason to continue funding these charlatans who are obsessed with maintaining their reputations and furthering their eco-Nazi crusade.
 
They discovered that the moon has a lot more water than we thought. Which can be used to make concrete.
 
1984 said:
Where did I suggest we shouldn't clean up the planet, or that I was okay with trashing it and leaving it for dead!?



Explain to me what you hope to accomplish with "climate research" aside from pushing the regulatory agenda of a bunch of government goons and self-interested climatologists.



What is there to refute?



The argument is about regulating human CO2 emissions. All the other stuff is not at issue, at least, as far as I'm aware.

There is no proof that human CO2 emissions are causing the Earth to warm, or that CO2 even acts the way the IPCC thinks it does, therefore, there is no reason at all to hand over regulatory authority to the Federal government or the United Nations, nor is there any reason to continue funding these charlatans who are obsessed with maintaining their reputations and furthering their eco-Nazi crusade.
Click to expand...

Climate research is not just about CO2 emissions. Climate research is a far more encompassing science. I will get into this more later, I have to attend to a screaming baby.

In fact, the OP actually did a bad comparison here. Constellation research is a more specific research than climate research, which is really a rather general research. Although it seems that most people are actually answering more from a view of the poll question comparing space research (a general research) to AGW research (a specific research). A better comparison poll would be comparing constellation research to AGW research itself or comparing space research in general to climate research in general. My original answer was based more on comparing the two general researches to each other.
 
1984 said:
What is there to figure out? Also, "anything could happen" is not a rational basis for policy.

I mean, a meteorite COULD come blazing through your roof and into your skull, we just don't know!!! Methinks your roof needs some lead plating in order to preempt such an eventuality. Just give me $10,000 and I'll make sure this disaster never befalls you!



Define "global climate change" and explain why we should care.



Your language suggests that you are a scientific layperson. Something that is "established" as being "likely" means absolutely nothing. Moreover, no such thing has been established; I defy you to prove otherwise.



Yea, like those melting glaciers in the Himalayas!? That was also "established".



You sound like the McDonald's kid..."It could happen!"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why I try to post on these global warming threads. Nothing that comes back as a response seems to resemble in the slightest what I've actually posted.

Carry on, then. Pretend that there is no climate change. Pretend that I've posted that climate change is an impending disaster, that we must take action now. Pretend that Limbaugh and Hannity are more credible than NASA and NOAA. pretend what you like. Please don't respond to my posts until you actually read them first.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure why I try to post on these global warming threads. Nothing that comes back as a response seems to resemble in the slightest what I've actually posted.

Carry on, then. Pretend that there is no climate change. Pretend that I've posted that climate change is an impending disaster, that we must take action now. Pretend that Limbaugh and Hannity are more credible than NASA and NOAA. pretend what you like. Please don't respond to my posts until you actually read them first.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, we're all going to die.

The sky is falling.

We're all going to drown.

We'll all end up stewing in our own juices.

We'll all die of thirst.

There won't be any food.

The ground under our feet will melt.

Feel better now?
 
Crunch said:
Oh my God, we're all going to die.

The sky is falling.

We're all going to drown.

We'll all end up stewing in our own juices.

We'll all die of thirst.

There won't be any food.

The ground under our feet will melt.

Feel better now?
Click to expand...

Those are all great examples of things I never did say.

But, carry on. Straw men are really fun to knock down.
 
1984 said:
Assuming anthropogenic global warming is a real problem,
Click to expand...

That's the problem, too much assuming about theoretical problems. For a change, let's try a reality check.

The only things we can be sure of is what we detect with our eyes and how we interpret it with our own real experience. With that in mind, how would I, as a data processor with unlimited funds to work with, acquire all the data needed to establish a world wide average centigrade temperature?

1. Standardize all temperature data devices with a tenth of a degree accuracy in cities all over the world, including both poles..

2. Select a city where all the temperature data can be established at exactly the same time, same second, every day, keeping in mind that the 24 time differences will sometimes be day, night, and times between. .

3. Stage 1. Average out all the Temperature data.

4. Stage 2. Average out the temperature differences between all the cities, east, west, north, and south, near and far, and both poles.

5. Stage 3, calculate plus or minus one tenth of a degree tolerances on each data collector.

6. Conclusion... the accumulation of all the tenth of a degree tolerances could be average out, but that wouldn't result in a real average temperature, only an approximate one, and if human error is added, the result would be even more theoretical. So in the end all you'd have is a theoretical average temperature, not enough credible evidence to force us to change our life style.

ricksfolly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom