Reduce carbon emissions or else, Nasa scientist warns

Isn't it the guy they are talking about on this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964#more-2964 ?

So a NASA scientist is commenting on global warming. That's rather hypocritical of them. It's not as if their space program is carbon neutral! I think this is just more scaremongering with regards to gullible warming. While we may be having a minor impact on the amount of carbon in the massive sky around our planet, the actual makeup of the atmosphere has barely changed in the millions of years we've been here. I take it that the scientist has forgotten about the effect the sun itself and it's own cycles have on our little planet and the fact that we're still LEAVING our last ice age, of course it's going to get warmer!

This fellow seems a bit confused - similar high levels of CO2 happened just before the Ice Age and this implies global heating HOW? It really is all quite pointless, all this Irwin-Allen talk. There are at least three viable candidates on the technological horizon to solve the problem of practical electrical storage, any one of which will make burning fossil fuels for energy as obsolete as 45rpm records.

Perhaps they'd better stop using those big ass CO2 generators (rockets) then. ;)

About 3 years ago a 'green' scientist in Canda by the name of David Suzuki said that unless we change our green-house gas emitions dramatically inside of one year we're all screwed. About a year later it hit the airwaves and he said that we've past the point of no return. Even if we reduced our 'carbon' impact on the earth to 0 the earth will become uninhabitable in the short term. Yet 1 year later he's still preaching that we need to reduce our footprint. This makes me highly suspicious as you'd think that if we're screwed, then who cares about cleaning up your act anymore. It's like a smoker on his death-bed in the hospital deciding to quit smoking. He's FUBAR'd either way.

You've got to love the logic of the global warming crowd. "What they found was that 35 million years ago, at the beginning of the ice age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 450ppm." So let me get this straight. We should return ourselves to co2 levels that trigger the next ice age? (by their logic) Of course this begs the question. What brought us out of the last ice age? Or the two before that? We weren't driving our suv's around back then, so what happened. Looking at history the most prosperous periods in mankind's past are during...wait for it... global warming! I guess its easier to grow a crop in a swamp than on an iceburg eh? This current political movement has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with energy control. Go on, try this trick at home kids, any knife will do. Its magic, I fooled ya and ya don't like it.

so you are all well respected scientists then and the other scientists that out number you lot are all wrong. as we say " its better to be safe than sorry".

Hansen is the guy who created the Hockey Stick model (with Mann, et al). He is the one who find new and exciting ways to create bias in a model to prove what he wanted. Noted for statements like "how do we lose the Medieval Warm Period" when creating the hockey sticks. Tried to completely hide his numbers and model. Finally even the IPCC said the Hockey Stick model was wrong. Had his numbers for "warmest ever" corrected because of bias introduced because of a Y2K calculation (it is still probably wrong because of serious station sampling bias). Still is in denial that he ever has miscalculated.

Our atmosphere is consisted of: 78% Nitrogen 20% Oxygen 1% Argon 0.97% Water vapour 0.03% CO2 Since man made carbon emissions adds just a tiny fraction to that 0.03%, it doesn't take an "expert" to realise that man made global warming is BS. It's already the biggest argument to stop development of poor countries, and it's also the best argument to convince or force the population of rich countries to accept a reduction in their own living standards and intervention over their lives to avoid the apocalypse. People just need to look at the IPCC to realise it's a totally political organization... not to mention the hype by the media... People don't think for themselves anymore, they rely on TV and "experts" which they don't know and whose motivations they don't have the slightest clue.

The shuttle like most Nasa rockets burns liquid Hydrogen & Oxygen, the by product of which is mostly water. The solid fuel rocket burn a mix of Aluminum & Ammonium Perchlorate, the chemistry is a lot more complex, but there is no Carbon in this fuel to form CO2. There is no way NASA is carbon neutral due to it's size, but how they heat & light their buildings and fuel their ground vechicle probably has more impact that the rockets themselves.

This carbon dioxide nonsense is nothing but a scam! The so-called NASA "scientist" needs to pay recent attention to data compiled by his own agency! According to the article in the following link, global cooling in the last 12 months has wiped out a century of global warming. http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Who is Nasa ? Oh ... you mean NASA ! :)

If the president was muzzling him, he was benefited. Now he just sounds like a clueless loudmouth.

Nearer to Ice Age = 1) Higher OVERCLOCKING!!! Air Colling/Water cooling is suffice, no need LIQUID NITROGEN 2) Cleaner Environment->Good Health Nearer to GlobaWarming= 1)Global Flooding 2)HigherPollution->poorer Health 3)More Catastrophy Hope this make sense :)

I once commented to one of my staff (a former rocket scientist) how he reconciled his environmental position and the vast emmissions of rockets. He informed me that rockets burn hydrogen and oxygen to produce water. No CO2. Not sure why eveyone who warns us about global warming is branded a scaremonger. If someone was warning me - get off the road, you're about to be run over by a bus, I wouldn't be abusing them for helping me. Or quibbling about how long it was going to take for the bus to hit me, or how fast the bus was going and how much it would injure me.

It is clear that you know nothing about Geology, good sirs. The ongoing experiments have produced data which STRONGLY correlates with repeated ice ages, not just one ice age, not two, many. The fact is that since the industrial revolution the levels of greenhouse gases have been quickly rising and at this point they are beyond what any scientist has ever produced through ice core data. In addition, morons, ice ages have a repetitive pattern, a very repetitive pattern. At the present time the data obtained from ice cores taken from around the globe show that the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are higher than they have ever been for millions of years. Again, these levels correlate with rising temperatures and if you are familiar with the typical graph with which geologists are looking at to make these claims about the greenhouse effect and global warming, if you are familiar, you'll know that once the threshold is broken the temperature of the earth drops rapidly, and an ice age occurs within roughly 100 years. It is clearly a natural stopgap measure which prevents the earth from overheating. I expect no less from readers of the inquirer, than to brainless bash any foreign idea. Lastly, there are more than a few scientists, geologists, who are of the opinion that it is too late to do anything about this problem, and, that even if we stopped producing CO2 today we'd still not be able to reverse the accelerated global warming which IS taking place. So, if you live on the coast folks, you might want to ensure that your children move inland a few miles. You're all morons.

Oh dear god!!! The only reasons these people are continuously going on about global warming is because they get more moeny out of us for slapping on "green taxes". Lets look at the evidence shall we. First and foremost, we are leaving an iceage....YES leaving, WE are coming OUT of an ice age. I hear you say, but it was so long ago! NO it wasn't it was less than the blink of an eye in geolgical terms. Next: the Milankovic cycle. This cycle basic traces the earth's orbit around the sun. Generally the Earth rotates around the sun in a circular orbit. but every now and then it goes round in an eliptical orbit. When the orbit changes to an elipse, the earth travels further from the sun. When this happens we generally have an iceage or a cooling down period. At the moment according to the Milankovic cycle we are returning to a circular orbit from an eliptical. Which means we are due for a warm up. Let me explain to you about oxygen atoms. There are two types. Oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 atoms. Oxygen 18 atoms are heavier than oxygen 16 atoms. Oxygen 18 as part of a water molecule requires more energy to evaporate than a water molecule containing oxygen 16. Warter that freezes contains gas bubbles. Each one of these gaas bubbles is like a snapshot of the atmosphere at the time the bubble was trapped. So...we can look at ice cores and see the percetage of oxygen 16 to 18 atoms and from that ratio get a pretty accurate measument of how warm the earth's climate was in the past. The warmer the planet the more oxygen 18 atoms (because there is more energy to evaporate the water containing oxygen 18). The Oxygen 16 and 18 atoms support the Milancovic cycle. There are whole webpages containing this information I suggest people read them before jumping on the gullible warming bandwagon. We are currently warming up YES this is true but we are leaving an iceage and are about due for some warmer temperatures. Last thing: I am not against minimising our impact on the environment. I am all for water conservation, prevserving the rain forrests and all of that but I believe that all the money begin collected from green taxes would be far better spent on planting trees and preserving the earth's natural habits for future generations. Rant over. Chris

The reason greed/fear thrives under any condition you can think of is because people do not know why they exist. Whatever the label may be, be it politics, commerce, science, religion, economics, socialogy, and more, there is no stopping the slide into all-out destruction. All human-based activities can be categorised into the 3 human mental states of subjectivity, objectivity and projectivity and these 3 realms are mere ping-pong existences for almost all humans. They flip from one state to the other without realising why, consciously or mostly unconsciously. A desire comes from subjectivity, our conditionings, and it passes onto objectivity-projectivity, our activity/over-activity, and depending on the individual, he can either make it happen, try again, give up or in most cases, inertia will see to it that it’s just another fantasy. All human mental efforts, without exception, are non-evolutionary activities. They either create egotism or conditionings. Without exception. The only solution for a human to make any difference to, firstly, his own status and thereafter, the status of other/s, is to realise why he exists otherwise, he’ll become unbalanced. From the “lauchpad”. He’ll first becomes egotistical before swinging onto being conditional [or vice-versa]. Once a person realises his true infrastructure, an impossibility until recently [and this has nothing to do with religion or science], only then can he decides to be evolutionary or devolutionary. Doing nothing is devolutionary. You are either for or against. Witness therefore, “bystanders” being categorised as “against” by cruelty when it starts “mechanising”, as in a war, say. When you can see more of the complete picture, you will be able to realise instantly, where the “mechanics” are coming from. No matter how lovey-dovey, “oh so /reasonalbe/good/true-ist”, they project solutions of sorts [“saviours”]. Nothing real can be solved when people are not for themselves first. All real solutions has to start with the individual first but when individuals are either empowered [those who can “look out” for their vested interests first], or when they lack power as in “bystanders”/”tree-stumps”, you will never reach the real target other than plenty of, “We are there at last”s. Disagree because of “blahs” or perhaps, “how do we start then, stumpy?” Know any one who doesn’t poison himself with material, emotional or intellectual nonsense. Really? Instead of courageously and dutifully facing themselves first, people always take the easy route [pronoucned as “root” not “rhaut”. Hokay?] by wanting to solve others’ problems first. Still in denial or is fingering–out the “devil” more enjoyable. How about “Zimbabwe” or “Chinese” or … that evil presidente.. The road seems distant or paved with unknowns but it has to be taken … or not. [You can take a phone with you as confidence, of course, but you’ll soon realise the nonsense of it all and cremate it. Imagine the Joy of being really free !!! That’s why so-called religions are boring, strict-control-freaks-waiting-for-the-choir-practice or “Blow-em-uppers-waiting-for-virgins” nonsense. They lack Truth {but plenty of self-interpreted truths} which is also Joy. There are, of course, many “relgious” people who are decent but when you are cowering under Devolution, the only “joys” are euphorias or ecstasies which unbalance the individual. Balance is the greatest known secret of all the universes. There is nothing that you can witness that does not have “balance” written into it. Especially Nature. Even that great-lump of instability, a human, has to accept balance every night]..

sounds like Hansen has drunk the Al Gore Kool Aid-- NASA has become just another branch of the global-warming alarmists-- which is NOT the consensus opinion of ALL Americans, scientists included-- when a government official such as he makes such statements, there should be allowance for another official to offer another opinion--

Note that one little problem with Hansen's call for a 350 ppm limit is that we're already around 385.... There are two leading theories behind climate change, both almost certainly apply, but it's unclear which is dominant. CO2 (and other Greenhouse gases) has become a rally point, but has a major problem - the wavelengths it blocks are almost completely blocked so more CO2 may not do much. Solar activity (and recently its effects on cosmic rays) has a long record of correlation with climate, but there's a lot of research that can and should be done. People who insist that the science is settled so there's no point in doing the research don't really understand science. We may have just entered several decades of reduced solar activity and this provides a great opportunity to restore a sensible scientific dialog. It'll be interesting.... See Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html for a better introduction.

Are we missing the point here? In reading these posts, it sounds like some of the commenter's above are saying spewing c02 (as well as other pollutants) into our environment is a good thing. Huh? Like it or not, this is a problem we all face. It may not be as bad as the scientist are saying but can it be a *bad* thing if we all drive less, consume less, and breath cleaner air?

Typical American Agency making us to be the bad guys, when they should look at themselves!

Chemistry huh? What do think those things are bolted to either side of the Shuttle's "green" liquid fuel tank? Air spoilers? In any event, it was a joke.

What a plonker. Yep, global warming will cause an ice age. Everybody knows that when you heat water up it freezes. Honest. Just look at these carefully compiled statistics! Let's get real. Does global warming exist? Yes. Could it be a serious problem? Yes. Is it a serious problem now? Well, a problem, yes, but not serious. Reducing CO2 emissions is a good idea, but what this so-called "respected scientist" is claiming is just alarmism. We have goals to aim for, let's try to achieve those first and then reassess our progress, to see whether we need to continue reducing the emissions.

some of you need to get a life, you sound just like that bloke that came back from germany waving a bit of white paper " the nazi will not start a war" what a prat he was. its better to be safe than sorry, it wont hurt you, its just normal for people to what to protect all around them. still maybe your just not normal and you need help.

"There are at least three viable candidates on the technological horizon to solve the problem of practical electrical storage, any one of which will make burning fossil fuels for energy as obsolete as 45rpm records." Hey, I have a few 45's still!!! They have some good singles that are hard to find otherwise, p2p or retail, and they're cheap (and the RIAA doesnt get any $$). Maybe Im just getting old (Im 22) and soon I'll be yelling at the kids to get of the lawn...