Who is Jim Bridenstine, Trump's nominee for the next NASA administrator?

44 תגובות

1. By my father - for miracles
   Sorry for not answering
   My messages disappear above them
   So parted as friends
   And I probably won't come here again.

2. Herbers didn't move

3. Warming is a fact, and man is to blame for warming, and there is no doubt that action must be taken to stop it.
   But in my opinion, the lack of proportion, the exaggerations on the subject, only undermine credibility, and only give ammunition to the Koch brothers, and to Trump.

4. my father
   Father, did you hear about the man who drowned in a pool where the average depth is 2 centimeters? Warming up is Ode - and you agree to that. The person is to blame - and you agree to that too.
   But … it doesn't fit your agenda for some reason – and you say it over and over again….. you say it!!!

5. Yes, it is legitimized by the Koch brothers, the main financiers of the Republican Party candidates and also the owners of the largest oil refineries in Texas.

6. I remembered something else that I posted below -
   The ozone hole .
   In 1987, diameter 22.5 million square meters - a treaty was signed that prohibits the use of Freon...
   Somewhere in 2010 the issue almost completely dropped from the world media claiming that the hole is shrinking.
   In 2014 - it was announced that the hole is shrinking - but the area is 24.1 million square kilometers
   In 2015 it was again announced that the hole is shrinking but it is 28.2 million square kilometers
   The last figure on the website in 2016 is the area of ​​23 - a little more even than the year in which the agreement was signed...
   So this is just an example of disinformation between the truth and what is advertised to the public.

7. Miracles my dear
   As a scientist, do you think that photographs of these puddles prove the connection between melting glaciers and global warming of a hundred or so degrees per year.

   The problem with the fact that the proof of the connection (also in all the scientific articles) is in the duck-level logical reasoning method, or in the logical reasoning method of the merry dove in Wonderland: (If a little girl eats eggs - a sign that a little girl is a kind of snake...)
   It is fine if it is presented as a hypothesis, but it should be mentioned that this is just such a kish and not a proof or a Torah from Sinai and that it is also legitimate to dispute this and look for other reasons.

8. Ehad Zakheim
   We were supposed to be in a cooling period today.
   You point to past climate change like it's nothing - but many species have gone extinct because of that climate change. Something makes you think we're something special?

9. Hi,
   Since time immemorial we have been moving between glacial periods in which the sea level was lower and interglacial periods in which the sea level was higher, for example in Israel at the peak of the last glaciation about eighteen thousand years ago the coastal plain was about five kilometers wide from today...
   post Scriptum.
   As for today, what I can say is that the walnut tree in my kibbutz produces fruit with an average length of 2.5 cm, whereas ten years ago it would have produced fruit with an average length of 4 cm! Things are heating up...

10. my father
    Did you look at the pictures of the glaciers? Do you think it's photoshop?

11. And since the hole in the ozone was mentioned
    I went to NASA's website to see what changed in the guy, and why the topic fell off the agenda
    It is true that in 2010 scientists announced that there was a dizzying success and the hole is shrinking and since then the hole has disappeared from the media, but the data does not really show such a dramatic success, you can say that from the 90's until today it is more or less the same.
    And by the way, the international agreements replaced the Freon gas with gases that do not react with ozone, but are worse greenhouse gases than PADH.
    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html

    It kind of reminds me of Bug 2000

12. I had some time to collect examples of some of the exaggerations and intimidation that are running on the matter:
    1. Daesh and terrorism and the war in Syria broke out because of global warming
    /news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/14/the-cbs-democratic-debate-transcript-with-insight-from-the-fix/?utm_term=.424b03e03969
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/dust-storms-will-be-least-rare-1009154

    2. Bacteria and algae multiply and epidemics broke out because of global warming.
    http://www.mako.co.il/health-magazine/articles/Article-a9c4b8bc83e0e51006.htm
    3. When the ice in Antarctica melts, the sea will flood the coastal cities.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/sea-rising-to-ibn-gabirol-061131
    4. Global warming will cause an ice age and the freezing of the earth. (this was also loaded once)
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/global-warming-will-freeze-earth-110808

13. to walking death
    The truth is that this topic of global warming is not the topic that interests me the most and I drifted into this debate here because I was sick of the propaganda of the articles from the Angle site.
    The writing here is anonymous and I'm not trying to build an image for myself, so I don't care how you categorize me, so if you don't know who wrote here that the Earth will be as hot as Venus, or how many times I wrote that I do believe in global warming... or where did they write in the articles of the Angle like this or Thus exaggerated or inaccurate and illogical facts that I commented on, I do not intend to give links to help you categorize me.
    I read the beautiful links you provided, and it's really nice that there are some countries that have managed to reduce their FDH a little, it's great because at the same time they are reducing other pollutants that I think are worse.
    But - all these beautiful graphs of very rich countries are from countries that buy their emission savings from poor countries, they themselves continue to emit, and therefore they can present such impressive graphs of a decrease in emissions compared to growth.
    Since the problem is global, of the entire planet and not just of 21 rich countries, it does not help the planet much that some countries seem to have reduced emissions.
    According to the reports and announcements in the press about the results of the international effort, there is no global progress and the Kyoto and Paris agreements are a failure.
    There are estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars that are required to meet the goals and by all accounts there is no chance that they will succeed in this.
    It is true that I also read what the other side, the "deniers" say - and I do not hide it.
    If there were propaganda articles by deniers, I would probably argue with you too, but here there is propaganda in only one direction and even though I believe in global warming, I don't like propaganda.
    Regarding the other infections/risks that threaten our world - I don't have the time or desire to go into it here.

14. Global or local average does not change what I wrote.
    If the average difference is small because there are hot measurements in a certain hot country, then there are probably also cold measurements that balance them out in another cold country, otherwise the average difference would not be small.
    To mention that we are talking about a global phenomenon of warming that people claim to feel that the world is warming.
    for example:
    If there are people who feel hot in one country, there are probably people who also feel colder in another country.
    Because the average difference is very small as we said, so if you take a person from the country who feels colder there in the winter, and you take a person from the country who feels warmer there in the summer, and ask them who feels the difference more, is it hot or is it a lie...
    It is not possible that they will be able to tell you which of them is right because the difference of hundredths or tenths of a degree in the hotter direction is not a difference that can be felt.

15. was released

16. my father
    Let's be precise - there is denial by politicians. Maybe you are not there to sit but you are careful and continue to deny both the theory and the observations.
    The scientists are united in their opinion - there is global warming due to the emission of PAD by man, and there are too many observations that confirm it.

    Father, and regarding the average, your level of knowledge is worrying 🙂 The average is global and not local.

17. I think the topic of global warming is exhausted.
    The debate is not a debate because everyone agrees there is warming and no one says there isn't
    Everyone agrees that there is melting glaciers and everyone agrees that this is a problem...
    I just think that there is too much politicization, and too many attempts at brainwashing, and it is pointless because the issue is big for us.

18. For miracles - 1. When the average difference is small, then there can be two reasons for this: either the difference in the individual measurements is also small, or the dispersion is large, meaning extreme temperatures on both sides, and then it is also colder in the winter.
    2. Again I did not say that there is no melting of glaciers, but there is room for the claim that it is not because, or not only because of global warming but for other reasons. - "There is room for an argument" does not mean that I think this is indeed the reason, but it is not legitimate to rule it outright without investigating.

19. waiting

20. my father
    No one claims, and has not claimed, that anyone feels a small difference in average temperature. you know why? Because no one feels an average temperature!! 🙂

    I can tell you with confidence that in most places in the world there are glaciers then there is a significant, and very sad, decrease in the size of the glaciers. Here is one example: http://newatlas.com/before-after-photos-glaciers-climate-change/49143/#gallery

    I have more examples if this example didn't make you realize that you are wrong...

21. my father

    Now that your comment has been released…

    You must check the sources from which you collect and derive your information. They are very bad and very trendy.

    'Focusing only on the solution of reducing the emissions of GHG'? really? You think? So all these grants that fund research that deals with finding additional solutions to help deal with the problem are what exactly? Oh, you haven't heard of such a thing?

    'The fact is that they are unable to achieve any reduction in emissions, nor cooperation'

    http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/roads-decoupling-21-countries-are-reducing-carbon-emissions-while-growing-gdp

    http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

    Facts, yes?

    'Insist not to think about other solutions and other ways'

    According to your fantasy?

    'Or simply for accepting global warming as something that cannot be prevented and must be dealt with'

    Because all attempts at prevention constitute acceptance? are you listening to yourself Because you are inconsistent. On the one hand you treasure that you do not deny that there is warming, on the other hand you say that it is not important to do anything about it, on the third hand you complain that they are not trying to prevent the warming, on the fourth hand you say that it is treated as just something that needs to be dealt with (and there is more but I have time to type all The night)? You're actually arguing here with your own opinions when in reality it's hard to find anything that even justifies you thinking half of them.

    'The propaganda framework and exaggerations present warming as something catastrophic and a global disaster that we cannot deal with'

    Since you think it is not at all catastrophic, please come and describe to me the effects that such warming will have on the lives of humans in the world. I'm waiting.

    'Presenting it as if the Earth would be as hot as Venus'

    Please show me where someone presented it like this

    'We don't take into account that in 100-200 years both science and technology will develop... and maybe we will have other sources of energy anyway'

    Did you think that the one who doesn't take something into account here is the one who ignores the fact that if we don't direct ourselves to reach this situation it won't necessarily happen?

    'Extinct due to other radioactive contamination'

    Yes, great beauty, please tell how radioactive contamination will wipe out humanity.

    'The Miss Pollinators'

    Are you sure about this?

    'genetic engineering'

    It's supposed to wipe out humanity, how exactly?

    'The ozone hole'

    So now a case of success of the world community to deal cooperatively with a serious environmental problem with global consequences is something that is going to wipe us out?

    If anyone has forgotten something here, it's probably you.

    In short, go much, much deeper into the material and data before you make statements and maybe you'll understand why people criticize your stuff all the time.

22. my father

    'I meant that I wrote a continuation of the previous message'

    I realized that. What I said stands firm. WordPress's automatic moderation is not censorship.

    'When I raise points and questions and doubts about what is written in these articles, people here attack me personally, but I never received a factual answer'

    Maybe because you don't read the comments that are written to you or try to understand what they say to you?

    I argued that this is not enough to explain the mass of glaciers in Antarctica where there are temperature differences of tens of degrees. And in the center of the continent the temperature never drops below the freezing point.

    And how surprising that precisely on this Nissim answered you that the melting does not occur in the center of the continent and that the significant interaction from this point of view occurs at the points of contact between the glaciers and the ocean.

    'There is volcanic activity that they didn't know about before under the ice in Antarctica, so I hypothesized that maybe this is the reason for the melting of the glaciers, and not global warming'

    Not sure if you have been answered here, but this is information that is already so old and a stupid claim by deniers that has been disproved so many times that it could be why no one bothered. So if you happened to think that you were original in this speculation and that no one had thought of it before then you were wrong, and making this claim made you sound like a typical denier.
    You can find information that explains this in the link by clicking on my username (and many more questions on the subject).

    'The differences are so small they are not noticeable in the human body'

    1) I don't really know this claim of people, but to my understanding it is not a claim of this year versus last year but of differences between longer periods. Do you understand what you may not understand about this claim people are making right now?
    2) By the way, how are you so sure that people do not feel this difference in temperature?

23. I meant that I wrote a continuation of the previous message and it is not published because there is automatic censorship and the message is waiting for approval...
    When I raise points and questions and doubts about what is written in these articles, people here attack me personally, but I never received a factual answer.
    For example:
    According to the studies presented here, global warming is several hundredths of a degree per year, or tenths of a degree per decade...
    And I argued that this is not enough to explain the mass of glaciers in Antarctica where there are temperature differences of tens of degrees. And in the center of the continent the temperature never drops below the freezing point.
    On the other hand, an article was published in which they found that there was volcanic activity that they did not know about before under the ice in Antarctica, so I hypothesized that this might be the reason for the melting of the glaciers, and not global warming.
    So go ahead and deal with this claim, a scientific matter, without the personal insults and without "pushing".
    Or secondly:
    The second thing I argued - that the differences are so small they are not felt in the human body, and therefore also do not explain the claims that people feel the difference in temperature. - and in my opinion these claims of people who feel differences in temperature are from people who were affected by the brainwashing.

24. my father

    First, moderation is not censorship. It is indeed very flawed with its automation on the site, but there is a very significant difference between the two.

    If you see inaccurate facts, the appropriate response is to show what is inaccurate in them and present the accurate information. The problem is that for some reason you actually apply it to accurate facts and present against them inaccurate information that has no real basis outside of the political propaganda of the party you refuse to argue against despite the fact that there is evidence of distortions aimed at his cover-ups, cheating and lies.

    The simple fact is that you refuse to know the practical data on the ground in depth, and choose instead to imagine that there is some truth in the middle between the propaganda on both sides when one side does not present a shred of truth in its arguments.

    To take it to a place where any indication of fact on the one hand is propaganda designed to brainwash no matter how accurate it is and how accurate it is. The equivalent of what you are doing is to shred that any presentation of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the variety of species on the planet is propaganda by itersented scientists who want to politicize and that the explanation of creationism must be given in front of it and that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle.

    When there is no second place where something is mentioned about climate, you find some crooked way to consider how in fact here may be the problem that has the most significant effect on climate change and the increase in the concentration of PAD in the atmosphere. It is not clear to me how you expect someone to get the impression that you are not actually trying to cover up the fact that the activity Humanity is the significant factor in this change.

    The problem with your claim is that you do not show anywhere that there is politicization and propaganda here, and certainly not any inaccuracy in the facts, and so what comes out here is that the one who is lying is the one who comes and points to accurate facts as inaccurate and distorted.
    So your claim here is actually that lies are better than the truth (probably because it's the lies you believe out of a lack of in-depth knowledge of the data).

    'I just want to protect free thinking from consensus and considerations of ego interests, propaganda, brainwashing and silencing of opinions outside the consensus.'

    You really don't

    'It is not acceptable to give references to talkbacks from other websites'

    since when? No one here will be disturbed. It has already been done before and it didn't seem to bother anyone in the discussion.
    Claiming a simple claim, why can't you back it up? This is the easiest thing in the world for you to show that it is true. Your comments on this site are completely one-sided on this topic but if you have an example from the site here you are welcome to bring it as well.

25. There is also a sequel that is waiting for censorship.

26. And regarding other problems of other pollution that are falling from the headlines because of the focus on global warming:
    I have written my opinion on this topic and I will not repeat it again.
    In addition, there is a problem that they focus only on the political solution established in Kyoto to global warming, which is only the reduction of GHG emissions.
    Focusing only on this solution is a mistake in my opinion because there are other reasons, there are additional greenhouse gases and there are other solutions to lower the concentrations of PAD, for example treatment of vegetation, pollution of algae in the sea, prevention of deforestation and more.
    In addition, it is a fact that they are unable to achieve any reduction in emissions, nor cooperation.
    But they insist on not thinking about other solutions and other ways or simply accepting global warming as something that cannot be prevented and must be dealt with.
    In addition, as part of the propaganda and exaggerations, the warming (which according to the most pessimistic forecasts will reach a maximum of two-three degrees in 200 years) is presented as something catastrophic and a global disaster that we will not be able to deal with, and it is presented as if the Earth will be as hot as Venus... which is completely not the case.
    We don't take into account that in 100 200 years both science will develop and technology will develop... and maybe we will have other sources of energy anyway. If we don't become extinct due to other radioactive contamination or the pollinators or genetic engineering or the hole in the ozone (which they already forgot about)...

    And in general, in light of the arming of North Korea with hydrogen bombs, maybe in the future we will say thanks to global warming that will shorten the radioactive winter a little.

27. to walking death
    1- When I see attempts at brainwashing and propaganda and inaccurate facts, exaggerations, attempts to silence other opinions... I probably react accordingly.
    I have not written anywhere a denial against global warming itself anywhere! But only about my disapproval of the propaganda, the brainwashing attempts and the politicization of the issue.
    Those who tried to attribute to me a denial of global warming or support for deniers are miracles and other writers.
    There is no place where I wrote a denial of global warming, on the other hand I mentioned that there are also other opinions and I always point out that I do not agree with them but that they are legitimate and deserve to be listened to.
    It's not better and it's not better - because politicization and propaganda and exaggeration and inaccuracy in the facts = a lie. Or a half truth which is worse than a lie.
    And I see no difference between those who are in complete denial or those who try to exaggerate and brainwash to gain sympathy.
    Both sides have economic interests and I have already mentioned it several times.
    I just want to protect free thinking from consensus and considerations of ego interests, propaganda, brainwashing and silencing of opinions outside the consensus.
    In connection with your request to bring samples from other websites.
    It is not acceptable to give references to talkbacks from other sites, and as mentioned I have no interest in trying to build sympathy for myself here or to appear smart or nice or to prove something about me personally. That's why I refer only to my talkbacks on this site.
    I write talkbacks here like I do on any other site that allows it, to express my opinion specifically on what is written in that article, to provoke discussion, to arouse further interest, and so on, I do not enter here to build some "face-image" for myself For this purpose, there is Facebook or WhatsApp for anyone who wants to advertise themselves.
    By the way, I keep the same "nickname" here only because when you change the nickname, which is also linked to the email, the messages go into censorship mode for a long time before they are published.
    Otherwise, maybe I would change it from time to time for two reasons: so that they wouldn't think I was Abi Blizovsky and also so that I wouldn't be chased by all kinds of gatekeepers.

28. my father

    'I have no interest in convincing'

    I already know the "I'm not trying to convince" well. Do you think you made it up? I'm just throwing lies and/or distortions on my keyboard and posting, it has no intention of influencing people in any way. Do you understand that this is just a cover-up claim for the inability to stand behind the claims you make thanks to a lack of knowledge and a lack of backbone? (because we here in my little corner understand it well)

    'I also don't have a firm opinion on global warming'

    And that's why you bother to express it emphatically in almost every article that half or a quarter is related to an opinion that is not firm?

    'I am against politicization and propaganda and against brainwashing and silencing of people outside the consensus'

    And do you think it's better than being against twisted liars and cheaters who act out of political interests that are behind economic interests?

    If it's not clear, that's exactly the people you're defending here. You are not defending here anyone who thinks outside the box or one who legitimately speaks against the consensus but rather crooks who work for political lobbyists whose goal is to make financial profit that allows their senders to politicize the issue.

    How exactly does a person who is so against politicization react like you to this article in which it is about appointing a politician with a certain agenda to a position for which he is not qualified (over people with appropriate skills who know the system) precisely in order to politically influence the direction in which science can advance?

    'When I write a talkback on a website that is full of propaganda for the other side or for an article like this, of course I will criticize the other side'

    Please please give me an example of such a response (from which site you don't want you to respond)

    'But here they always bring one side, so when for my taste there is too much and it smells of brainwashing politics it is jarring for me'

    As long as the website editor is obliged to verify and does not spread false articles, I see no justification for complaints about the content. Lying to the contrary because it 'hurts you' does not make you right.

    'Greenhouse gases emitted by industry and agriculture have a significant part in this warming, I have no doubt about it'

    Strange considering your dozens of comments on the site that come to imply and/or suggest to us that actually the greenhouse gases are not that significant and/or that it is not actually the emissions from industry and agriculture but some other natural factor that is responsible for them. All in the name of thinking outside the box right? Do you know by the way how a person becomes a scientist? By the fact that he learns as he is told and thinks as he is told, does not ask questions that challenge the existing knowledge at any stage, and does what is reserved for him. Right? (If in this case it wasn't clear, then no. On the contrary, thinking outside the box and challenging the existing knowledge and the willingness to test it and find out that it is incorrect are the basis of the work of the scientists you are so interested in painting as thinking inside the box)

    'There are also other environmental infections'

    It is not one at the expense of the other. The maximum must be done to deal with all environmental issues because for all of them we pay (and/or will pay) a price in the quality of our lives and our health. Bringing awareness to one environmental issue is not at the expense of other environmental issues and you are welcome to look at the variety of articles on the site in this area to prove this.

    'Most importantly, with these other environmental infections that threaten us here in Israel, we have much more practical ability to influence and change...'

    It is indeed a problem of the whole world that the State of Israel has a very small effect on its overall balance, which can probably only be solved by everyone cooperating. This does not contradict the fact that even small corners have a responsibility to do their part for the sake of the solution. (And there is a wide variety of ways in which you can contribute to the field even in our small and neglected corner)

29. Nev - and most importantly, with these other environmental infections that threaten us here in Israel, we have much more practical ability to influence and change. While the war on global warming is for us a war on wind farms.
    The whole world, with all the international agreements, is unable to move anything on the subject, and in my opinion, it has no chance of succeeding either.
    Only the rather minimalist reductions decided upon in the Kyoto agreements etc. are supposed to cost several hundreds of billions of dollars and there is no way they will meet it. - And it is a fact that even during the Obama era they did not meet it, even more so now with the blond cowboy.
    So what will all the brainwashing and digging about the issue do, especially in our small country with the petrochemical industries and other polluters in the Haifa Bay, with chemicals for Israel, the leaking waste site in Ramat Hovav, and the chimneys of Hadera...?

30. Lavi Blizovsky and walking death
    Full disclosure - I have no interest in persuading against the issue and I also do not have a firm opinion on the matter of global warming.
    I am against politicization and propaganda and against brainwashing and silencing of people outside of consensus (I am in general in favor of free thinking outside the box and against consensus)
    Of course, when I write a talkback on a website that is full of propaganda for the other side or for an article like that, of course I will criticize the other side.
    But here they always bring one side, so when for my taste there is too much and it smells of brainwashing politics it is jarring for me.
    I keep mentioning, and again:
    I do not deny that there is global warming and it is a global problem that needs to be addressed, greenhouse gases emitted from industry and agriculture have a significant part in this warming, I have no doubt about it. But there are also other environmental pollutions, which are caused by industry and agriculture, and there are many more problems that need to be addressed, which in my opinion are more serious and precede global warming.

31. Father, we see that what you say is propaganda. Every time the marketers of the anti-scientific ideas dress up on something that seems to them like an answer and it is replicated all over the web. That doesn't make her right.

32. my father

    Your brave and determined opposition to politicization is admirable. But why is it always directed towards that one side and completely ignores the politicization from the other side?

33. Herzl
    I do not deny global warming, and I never said that there is no global warming, or that there is no problem or that there is no melting of ice at the poles and that it is not a problem...
    And my intention was to make a sarcastic comment that was written somewhat humorously as a response to Nostradamus.
    And I wrote three times because each time it got stuck in the automatic censorship and I tried to change a word here and there so that it would pass.
    And I didn't refer to the case of the error in the measurements you mentioned, but to the article about measurements they made in the oceans that found the difference to be 0.017 instead of 0.015 and made an exaggerated headline on the Angle website as if the mere fact that there is another 0.002 degrees is what will bring about the end of the world.
    (I do not deny the problem of global warming, but I oppose politicization, excessive propaganda and attempts at brainwashing on both sides)

34. for miracles
    You take too much to heart.
    I admit that in this case I intentionally took a problematic figure, maybe negligible but problematic and unexplained, (and there are many of these), and brought it up to sting unfairly...
    After all, this is a common practice in the circles of political correctness - for example, when they attack the American President, or the Israeli Prime Minister or our Minister of Justice, because of some meaningless sentence that they said or did not say and should have said in the opinion of the above.

35. Nostradamus,
    This is a false and demagogic left-wing propaganda site, disguised as a science news site... you, of all people, should have expected this... 🙂 And for the news - the editor (Avi B. - a likable man by all accounts) is a former employee of the newspaper called "Haaretz".

    And in general, it is not clear to me why you and the commenter "Abby" continue to talk to them.
    Do you think they don't know the facts? They need to recognize the facts in order to know how to distort them and re-present them as something they call 'the real truth'…
    It's a waste of time trying to fix them. Leave them to their wretched souls, to continue wallowing in their 'facts'.

36. my father
    You are just pathetic!! You take a figure that means nothing and sanctify it. And you ignore all the damage we're already seeing.
    Just a wretched man…

37. Lorem: You don't understand? They put it in to reduce NASA's budget as much as possible. The money is needed to build the wall, to lower taxes for billionaires, etc. The (declared) savings will be in banning the construction of meteorological satellites, banning the research of ice at the poles and a blanket ban on researching the global warming/cooling of the earth. The missions that will remain are missions that are already nearing launch and trips to the moon to show that the US is still more advanced than China whose unmanned lunar rover failed after a few days on the surface.
    Similarly, Trump appointed an education secretary whose stated ideology is to cut budgets for public schools and transfer the money to religious Christian schools.

    Avi: If you write nonsense 3 times it does not make it true. There was a glitch in the calibration of temperature measurements from a satellite, which showed that the warming had stopped. The fault has been fixed and the warming is indeed progressing at an accelerated pace. Science is constantly advancing with measurement accuracies that are constantly improving. This is an important part of the scientific process. It is impossible to reject any scientific theory because the measurements have not yet reached infinite precision.
    For example: one hundred and fifty years ago the speed of light was known with an accuracy of a few percent. Today the speed is known with the precision of milliard parts. But then as now, the accepted theory as correct is that the speed of light is finite and its size is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second. Maxwell's equations, about 150 years ago, predicted finite velocity and were accepted as correct pretty much immediately.

38. Sounds very nice, but I'm more interested in knowing how much money NASA will receive together with him, as a dowry.

    Renaissance costs money and needs powerful patrons.

39. Tired of censorship.

40. Noster Demos
    I don't understand why you are dead angry
    The whole article gives facts that should please the right-wing and eat the heart of the left-wing.
    Apart from the fact that in 2013 he expressed some doubt about global warming, he sounds perfectly fine.
    (But when he expressed his reservations, it was in 2013 even before they knew that global warming is not 0.015 degrees but 0.017 degrees, today it is certain that in light of the discovery that amazes and frightens the entire enlightened, democratic and politicized world that the warming is greater by 0.002 degrees, this will surely remove sleep from his eyes and change the his opinion)

41. Nostradamus
    I don't understand why you are dead angry
    The whole article gives facts that should please the right-wing and eat the heart of the left-wing.
    Apart from the fact that in 2013 he expressed some doubt about global warming, he sounds perfectly fine.
    (But when he expressed his reservations, it was in 2013 even before they knew that global warming is not 0.015 degrees but 0.017 degrees, today it is certain that in light of the discovery that amazes and frightens the entire enlightened, democratic and politicized world that the warming is greater by 0.002 degrees, this will surely remove sleep from his eyes and change the his opinion)

42. Nostradamus
    I don't understand why you are upset
    All in all, the article presents facts that should please the right-wing and eat the hearts of the left-wing.
    Apart from the fact that in 2013 he expressed a certain doubt in the sanctity of global warming, he sounds perfectly fine.
    (But when he expressed his reservation it was in 2013 even before they knew that global warming is not 0.015 degrees but 0.017 degrees, today it is certain that in light of the discovery that amazes and frightens the entire enlightened, democratic and politically correct world that the warming is greater by 0.002 degrees it will surely take sleep from his eyes and change the his opinion)

43. Noserdamus: I understood that you are an extreme right-winger who does not accept science. It is not clear to me why you are reading and reacting knowingly. Maybe like the religious extremists in the USA who pay 30 dollars a month to hear Rose Stern curse and talk about sex on the radio (in the car of course, not at home)?

44. Is this a science news site or a false and demagogic left-wing propaganda site?

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.