|IMAGE: US EPA|
American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies EU VISITORS WARNING POSSIBLE COOKIES AHEAD
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has broken ranks with most of the Federal agencies and now runs the risk of being labeled a "Climate Change Denier", an accusation that certain elements in the Democratic party wanted to make a criminal offense not long ago.. In the space game there is little room for error, supposition, or sloppy math. NASA may not be in the climate / weather prediction business like NOAA but does launch weather satellites, and must engage in long term and expensive planning of things like launch and support sites, and space ports. The things that NASA does are expensive, but often viewed as a luxury / status item by many tax payers and their elected representatives. NASA can't afford to waste money. Should the space facility at Cape Canaveral be moved since some in the climate change camp predict that it will be submerged in ten years? Should sea level monitoring satellite systems become a top priority, virtually an emergency funded program as the climate alarmists urge? NASA took a long hard look, while being bombarded with the Obama Administration's hard line on man caused catastrophic climate change, swallowed hard....and broke ranks..
The "debate", if one could actually call this propaganda campaign over Man-made Climate Change, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming, a "debate", has been raging for decades now. The mainstream media has reported for a generation a bogus "consensus" among "97% of climate scientist" that "global warming is real and caused by human activity." For the Obama administration and other globalists this appeal to scientific "consensus" is cited as justification for their call to criminalize "climate -deniers", a term of their own invention for anyone who wants to see real data. For years now data has been stacking up that throws cold water on the supposed scientific "consensus". Unfortunately, if a scientists worked for a university receiving major Federal funding or for a Federal agency any deviation from the the approved position could be a career killing utterance. But NASA has decisions to make that are impacted by climate, and a scientific reputation to protect. So even with the Obama administration and PC police still in office, the agency recently broke ranks:
Below are a few quotes from the ETF NEWS story on the recent NASA announcements titled "
"Unfortunately, government-funded science is not infallible, and does not always follow the same methodology. Different studies can produce wildly different results, and discoveries previously thought to be inarguable are often revealed to be false after new information comes to light."
"When it comes to man-made climate change, we must factor in that the issue has been incredibly politicized. When you mix divisive politics and government funding in with science, you can expect that the findings will not always be accurate."
"With the issue of climate change, the incredible amount of money and power at stake also plays into the equation. From the earliest days of research on the “Greenhouse Effect”, there have been profound implications for the global economy, and particularly for the nations deemed to be the worst polluters. The idea of financially penalizing industrialized nations, through carbon credits and other schemes, has been part of the global warming cause since the beginning."
" The new data that has emerged from NASA satellite measurements, tells us that mainstream science may have gotten this issue totally wrong. What they have reported as human-caused climate change could actually turn out to be just the effects of one of the strongest El Nino systems we’ve seen in decades."
"From 1998 to 2013, global temperatures were relatively stable, with no major increases measured. The models developed by the experts in the field had failed, casting doubt on their methodologies. The response from the mainstream scientific community was to develop new models, and introduce new variables, in order to generate an explanation for the slowdown."
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE @: