I have always looked upon NASA, the The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as an apolitical scientific organization that exists to explore the far regions of space and to translate scientific and engineering breakthroughs into products and services which benefit all of mankind. To say that I am a huge fan of NASA is an understatement.
So where is my NASA?
I was somewhat dismayed when I came across a video from broadcaster Alex Jones on the subject of global warming and which featured Christopher Lord Monckton who is an outspoken critic of global climate change and a man who scares the bejesus out of Al Gore.
The video …
James Hansen and the derivation of modern global warming theory …
The face of NASA and the global climate initiative is Dr. James Hansen, a well-credentialed scientist who originally developed computer models to study climate on planets such as Venus.
Greenhouse gases: sulfates and CO2
“The greenhouse effect of the sulfates could be calculated, and by the late 1970s, NASA climate modeler James Hansen stated confidently that the sulfates together with CO2 ‘are responsible for the basic climatic state on Venus.’ Hansen had originally become interested in the greenhouse effect when, in response to [Carl] Sagan's primitive calculations, he tried to derive a better explanation of why the planet's atmosphere was so hot. Now Hansen's findings about sulfate aerosols strengthened his belief that these particles could make a serious difference for the Earth's climate as well. Sulfates were emitted by volcanoes and, increasingly, by human industry, so Venus had things to tell us about climate change at home. (CO2 was by far the largest factor in warming Venus, and the effect of sulfates would be debated for decades. It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight.) <Source>
The concept of a tipping point …
“Calculations by Sagan and his collaborators now suggested that the planet's climate system was balanced so that it could have been flipped from a state with oceans to the present frigid desert, or even back and forth between the two states, by relatively minor changes — changes in its orbit, or in the strength of the Sun's radiation, or in the reflection of sunlight off the polar icecap.” <Source>
Projected onto an Earth scenario …
“The speculations recently published about the Earth’s climate had suggested possibilities as spectacular as anything proposed for Mars. A small change could start a warming in which the Earth's polar ice caps would shrink, lowering the planet's reflectivity and pushing the warming further into a self-sustaining climate shift. Much the same thing could perhaps happen on Mars, releasing the CO2 frozen at its poles, starting a greenhouse effect process that would melt the water ice buried in the soil. In fact some kind of drastic climate shift had happened on Mars, if the evidence of ancient floods was correct. In these arguments, dust stood at the fore, since storms that deposited dust on the polar caps and darkened them seemed the most likely mechanism for pushing the planet into its warm phase.” <Source>
The basic questions about the galactic timescale over which planetary changes take place was pretty much ignored. As was the unique nature of the Earth’s ecosystem as compared with major atmospheric differences and non-existent ecosystems on the other planets. All attention was being placed on the question: could it happen here?
Enter the “administrators” and politicians …
So what you had is a highly speculative theory that what happens on the second planet from the sun, Venus and the fourth planet from the Sun, Mars, could happen here on the third planet from the sun, our own Earth. Something well worth studying. Unfortunately, securing funding in the scientific community is highly competitive as funding is extremely limited. Most scientific endeavors are supported mostly by governments (95%), foundations (3%) and industry (2%). To engage the interests of the funding agencies one must have either a compelling story relating to the benefits of the research or a story relating to the dire consequences of not performing the research. So purely as a funding mechanism, we can see that the theory of global warming developing into a compelling disaster scenario that would attract both funding and self-promoting media attention. Administrators seeking funding latched on to the ability to persuade politicians to part with some of their money and the cycle of self-interest promotion had begun.
In the beginning …
At first the speculation was that the Earth might experience a period of global cooling, perhaps even entering a mini-ice age. Of course, the potential solutions were the reduction of CO2 and the introduction of sulfates into our atmosphere. Much has been made of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling; but a review of the scientific literature of the day (1965 – 1979) produced seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. <Source>
The bottom line was that the science of global climate change was still highly speculative and based on climate models fashioned by James Hansen and others.
NASA and Hansen: GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) …
“The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models.” <Source>
Critical Mass …
More and more, administrators and scientists noticed that they could secure funding more easily if they linked their work to global climate change. Pretty soon, millions upon millions of dollars were being poured into the system. A cornucopia of benefits followed.
But while the models grew more complex, the fundamentals stayed the same. Nobody really knew if the Earth had an optimum temperature and if those processes, observed near the end of a galactic timeframe, would ever come to pass on Earth. The models spit out data and dire scenarios which were gobbled up by the press.
Enter the politicians …
Pretty soon the political thinkers realized that carbon dioxide was inextricably linked with energy production and if one could control the energy production of a nation, they could control both the economy and manage the lives of the nation’s citizens. Unfortunately, many of these so-called political thinkers were far-left Marxists and saw the opportunity to advance their socialist agenda. Having already infiltrated the environmental movement after the collapse of the cold war, they found it was far easier to raise funding using non-profits and exert political control through lawsuits than ever before. The found themselves in possession of a potent weapon, one which outweighed nuclear arms: the means to change the political and economic character of a nation by using that nation’s own laws against itself – and to exert a level of external international control using treaties among nations.
The United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) was the primary mover for such political agendas. The IPCC, from which the mantra of global climate change emanates, is more political than scientific. And dissent is discouraged at all costs. It is through the efforts of a relatively small number of people that we find ourselves facing a crisis of historic proportions – and not one related to the actual science of global warming, but one of a toxic political agenda supported by radical left-wing activists to essentially believe that man is the worst thing to happen to our planet and that our population must be significantly reduced at all costs.
The corruption of science …
From the so-called whistleblower memos, we find that a very small number of climate scientists and others have subverted the scientific process to pursue a political agenda. It appears that they have openly conspired to manage the “peer review” process and to manipulate unfavorable data. The science has not changed much, but it appears that certain scientists have corrupted the scientific process.
Hansen and NASA …
Jim Hansen has become a “star.” A climatological zealot. One associated with Al Gore and his specious projects to capitalize on global warming. One might even consider that Hansen has become an “eco-nut,” and environmental Nazi who wants to impose his will on the world – backed up by nothing more concrete than his belief in his theories and the output of his models.
“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children.”
“A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.”
“Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account.” <Source>
It’s now up to NASA to restore the public’s confidence in this wonderful agency …
While NASA is a public agency under the control of the Obama Administration – an administration which openly promotes a radical left-wind agenda and whose scientific leadership contains Marxists and others who have openly promoted wealth redistribution and population control (including the forced sterilization of segments of the population) – it is up to the reputable scientists of NASA to release all of the models and datasets underpinning Hansen’s work. No claims of national security can be made on climate issues and the work was funded by public money.
As for the corrupt and complacent politicians who have not questioned the science that is purportedly under a radical political agenda, I suggest we throw the bastards out of office, starting in 2010 and continuing to 2014 when the last of the Senator’s terms expire.
We need to get back to common-sense, politics which uphold and protect our Constitution and, above all, politicians who are honest brokers that put the American citizen above the special interests seeking to subvert the system.
What say you. Please feel free to comment using the e-mail link under my name or the comments section below.
-- steve
Operation Paperclip.
Moon landing an obvious, transparent hoax. Just look at Neil Armstrong on YouTube - a human being under quite a lot of blackmail pressure to keep his mouth shut.
Very concerned that both space shuttle disasters were distractive false flag events or worse, satanic blood sacrifices.
Military uses of space are proceeding apace, but I'm not seeing anything benefiting the rest of us coming from NASA. Did the Space Shuttle actually give us any science breakthroughs like they always promised? All that zero-G research they made us ooh and aah about ? Or were they just out there engineering space viruses to unleash with their chemtrails? Heck, can they release chemtrails from outer space?
So now you have revealed NASA's genesis of the global warming myth. I just found out that Paperclip wasn't just about a few people - Kissinger brought THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of Nazis over...
It sucks to have to acknowledge that something you believe in because it has a cool mission is totally corrupt... it just sucks, in countless ways.
==========================================
You are back out in la-la land. The NASA space missions were not a hoax and this can be easily proven by those who attended the various launches and tracked our progress in space. Have you ever seen some of the massive infrastructure needed to launch and control a space vehicle? Trying to keep a secret in this group would be an impossibility.
As for Nazis, I assume you mean the scientists, engineers and academics that the U.S. and Russia scooped up after the war. Nothing strange or evil about that. Most of these people were forced to join the Nazi party, with some of their families being held as hostages. The great majority of these people were non-ideological and could care less about politics. Scientists were all about science in those days -- beating their colleagues to the next discovery.
About the NASA payback in benefits: just where do you think carbon fiber and laminates originated? From materials engineering, growing food and providing clean water; NASA-engineered contributions have made a great difference.
As for the weaponization of space, do you realize what you are saying. Any weapon released from space, such as you suggest, would have a world-wide effect on all planetary inhabitants -- and result in MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction of life as we know it. Yes, NASA developments are used for military purposes -- but that's what keeps our nation strong and able to resist transgressions of others.
The space vehicle failures you cite were true tragedies -- and anyone who believes that they were engineered or allowed to happen is not only a loon, but a total asshat. One of my friends investigated the launch failure and his honesty and integrity was beyond reproach.
NASA's modeling group under James Hansen is a separate and very small part of NASA, not to be confused with the people who do great things with a relatively meager budget.
In my humble opinion, even James Hansen gets somewhat of a pass -- here is a capable computational scientist who got caught up in the global warming hubbub and apparently fell prey to the human nature of wanting fame, fortune and the benefits it brings. I believe that he believes, or has convinced himself to believe, that his work is truly transformational and a necessity to planetary survival. Whether or not it is (pun intended) is up to his more honest scientific peers to determine. I still believe his methodology is flawed due to the relatively few inputs into his dynamic models and that the data is questionable. The observational data appears to be dirty (missing items, obvious errors, poor station placement) and we may be seeing the results of a cumulative systemic error. I want the scientific research to continue, but the politicization of the issue to end.
I have no idea if you are simply baiting me with this nonsense, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and providing an honest reply. Thanks for commenting. -- steve
Posted by: Jef Wallace | December 09, 2009 at 10:25 AM