PDA

View Full Version : Are climate alarmists trying to prevent Venus missions from approval?



Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 09:26 AM
It seems to be the case:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-perceive-nasa


"A lot of us are dismayed," says David Grinspoon, astrobiology curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in Colorado, who is a co-investigator on several of the proposals. Some of the reasons for the planet's neglect are obvious: surface temperatures that would melt lead and thick clouds of sulfuric acid make data gathering a challenge for landers and orbiters alike. And—unlike Mars—Venus is neither a plausible haven for life nor a potential destination for astronauts.

But Grinspoon says that something more insidious is at work

So what is that "something more insidious"? Read carefully...


In May, Venus researchers got a double dose of further bad news. In NASA's New Frontiers medium-class mission line, a mission to return asteroid samples prevailed over a proposed Venus lander that would have lasted a precious three hours on the surface. And there were no Venus missions among the three finalists in the Discovery low-cost planetary-mission competition, although one-quarter of the proposals had targeted the planet

Yuck...


Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA, says that he found plenty of qualified reviewers from outside the United States. "There were just better proposals" for other Solar System targets, he says.


And how do you, Mr. Green, going to decide which proposal is better?


Michael New, the NASA program scientist who ran the competition, says that Venus scientists need a clearer consensus on their goals and the measurements that they want to make. Those who want to map the surface, for instance, have not determined how much better than Magellan their radar instruments have to be.

This is not the case if you want to send a Venus Climate Orbiter, for example... A Venus Climate orbiter could surely study the local climate...

And now we have the WOW statement!!!


Grinpoon hopes that by then, the unanswered scientific questions will be impossible to ignore. He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth models.

OK... I'm going to copy/paste it down again:

He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth models.

If this is indeed the big puspose of Venusian exporation, then it's no wonder why a mission to Venus won't be approved... Because measurements will directly contradict Earthly climate models... And not only that, but also because data from Terra contradicts climate models... as Roy Spencer brilliantly explains.

Climate alarmists. Nuff said.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-04, 09:45 AM
I guess using such big a font makes your "arguments" more believable, and repeating it a second time must make it true, you just forgot to add some alarmist colours, then we would really have believed it.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 09:50 AM
I guess using such big a font makes your "arguments" more believable, and repeating it a second time must make it true, you just forgot to add some alarmist colours, then we would really have believed it.

I really don't want people to believe what I say... What I want is realism and let people believe in evidence. Between climate alarmism and climate denialism lies true science. The only problem is that climate alarmists are much, much more and they dominate the scientific community, it seems...

The problem is, climate alarmism is close to religion... Our climate changes! Our Earth is turning into a second Venus! Hallelujah! Roy Spencer is a climate scientist and he publishes articles in a peer reviewed articles, but more importantly HE is a Creationist, then everything he does is bad, hallelujah! Everyone who disagrees with us is a denialist, and alarmism is an incorrect term, hallelujah!

captain swoop
2011-Sep-04, 10:54 AM
Zvezdichko

Apart from just having a rant that takes you close to the edge with regards to politics, what conspiracy are you proposing within the rules of the Forum?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 11:39 AM
Well, I think that it's the fact that the lack of Venus mission is due to climate alarmism.

There are several reasons for that:

First, it's a fact that the temperature in the upper parts of the atmosphere of Venus, where the atmospheric pressure is the same of the Earth, the temperature there isn't very high - between 30 and 80 Celsius degrees. Reference: Here - http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/311/venusian-cloud-colonies ... And we already have the fact that the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide...

We already know that the CO2 alarmists are willfully ignoring this fact and this is the strongest proof against the accuracy of current climate models.

I think that the sentence: "He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth model" refers exactly to this fact.

I think that some of the reviewers ( though I don't have the proof ) MAY also be climate change supporters ... And this can explain WHY there aren't current missions to Venus - because they're not interested in the fact that current climate models may not be accurate and antropogenic global warming can either be a hoax or at least not significant.

I'm not the one who says that there could be an anti-Venus bias... But I am the one who sees an explaination for that possible anti-Venus bias.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 12:00 PM
Between climate alarmism and climate denialism lies true science.

Likewise between evolution and creationism, flat Earth and round Earth. Faked moon landings and real moon landings...


The only problem is that climate alarmists are much, much more and they dominate the scientific community,

Alarmism means unjustified alarm, not the level of alarm supported by the vast majority of the relevant experts. What you refer to as "climate alarmists" are simply climate scientists. You are just using loaded language to paint mainstream science as being extreme, and your ATM position as moderate.


The problem is, climate alarmism is close to religion... Our climate changes! Our Earth is turning into a second Venus! Hallelujah!

Straw men. Mainstream climate science doesn't say that our climate never changed before, or that the Earth is turning into Venus.


Roy Spencer is a climate scientist and he publishes articles in a peer reviewed articles,

He publishes them in off topic journals in which the editor may not notice that his argument has already been refuted in the literature. And when the editor finds out that he has been duped by Spencer, he resigns and issues a statement that does not need a giant font (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php).


but more importantly HE is a Creationist,

Yes, Spencer is a creationist and he is pledged to prevent any action being taken to mitigate climate change on behalf of the baby Jesus (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/what_do_the_moranogate_emails.php#comment-2338748). So yes, that does suggest that what he is doing is religion and/or politics, not science.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 12:08 PM
First, it's a fact that the temperature in the upper parts of the atmosphere of Venus, where the atmospheric pressure is the same of the Earth, the temperature there isn't very high - between 30 and 80 Celsius degrees.

You might want to open a textbook and learn about the temperature profiles of planetary atmospheres, and the effect of increasing greenhouse gases on them.


We already know that the CO2 alarmists are willfully ignoring this fact and this is the strongest proof against the accuracy of current climate models.

No we don't. If you can provide some evidence we will. Otherwise explicitly withdraw both those claims.


I think that the sentence: "He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth model" refers exactly to this fact.

Support this claim with evidence or explicitly withdraw it.


I think that some of the reviewers ( though I don't have the proof )

Worthless.

Daggerstab
2011-Sep-04, 12:34 PM
So, the Akatsuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akatsuki_%28spacecraft%29) orbiter was sabotaged by the almighty "alarmists", too?

Garrison
2011-Sep-04, 12:48 PM
Do you have anything to offer that actually supports some form of conspiracy, something that contradicts the rather obvious reasons you yourself posted why it isn't a high priority, i.e.:


Some of the reasons for the planet's neglect are obvious: surface temperatures that would melt lead and thick clouds of sulfuric acid make data gathering a challenge for landers and orbiters alike. And—unlike Mars—Venus is neither a plausible haven for life nor a potential destination for astronauts.

Oh and saying that one quarter of the proposals targeted Venus means the other three quarters didn't, I'm sure you can work out the odds of any Venus mission being picked even if the decision making were entirely random. I concede there may be biases in favour of certain types of probe mission, those that could be precursors for manned missions for example, but I'm equally sure they have nothing to with some sort of climate conspiracy.

If you have evidence, rather than ranting, to contradict that view please present it.

Extracelestial
2011-Sep-04, 12:53 PM
Well, I think that it's the fact that the lack of Venus mission is due to climate alarmism.

There are several reasons for that:

First, it's a fact that the temperature in the upper parts of the atmosphere of Venus, where the atmospheric pressure is the same of the Earth, the temperature there isn't very high - between 30 and 80 Celsius degrees. Reference: Here - http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/311/venusian-cloud-colonies ... And we already have the fact that the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide...

We already know that the CO2 alarmists are willfully ignoring this fact and this is the strongest proof against the accuracy of current climate models.

I think that the sentence: "He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth model" refers exactly to this fact.

I think that some of the reviewers ( though I don't have the proof ) MAY also be climate change supporters ... And this can explain WHY there aren't current missions to Venus - because they're not interested in the fact that current climate models may not be accurate and antropogenic global warming can either be a hoax or at least not significant.

I'm not the one who says that there could be an anti-Venus bias... But I am the one who sees an explaination for that possible anti-Venus bias.

Hi Zvezdichko,

as to your #1:
30°C...80°C may seem moderate, but would render life impossible for much of earth's inhabitants - not only polar bears.

#2 without the greenhouse effect earth would be warmed, due to solar irradiation, to about -15°C. Curiously, this effect was found when studying Venus and why it is so different despite being similar in size and not that close to the sun. How do you explain that a hot Venus was used to warn against similar development on earth but a (again) hot Venus should not be used to refine theoretical models.

#3 The delta in atmospheric composition between the two planets is in the magnitude of 3000, which hardly qualifies for "fine-tuning".

#4 maybe the other mission were more interesting specifically when considering latest research that shows how pre-biotic molecules are produced in a "non biotic" manner in space.

So far I don't see a conspiracy.

Ex

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 01:13 PM
Likewise between evolution and creationism, flat Earth and round Earth. Faked moon landings and real moon landings...

Comparing apples and oranges. I don't know about a person in NASA who believes in a faked moon landing, and I don't know an evolutionary biologist who believes in creationism.

Roy Spencer, however, is a climatologist and a former NASA scientist. And he's not the only one. Here, in my country, I know about Boris Komitov who has also published a book in which he refutes global warming alarmists: http://e-knigi.net/2010-10-03-12-56-13?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=141&


Alarmism means unjustified alarm, not the level of alarm supported by the vast majority of the relevant experts. What you refer to as "climate alarmists" are simply climate scientists. You are just using loaded language to paint mainstream science as being extreme, and your ATM position as moderate.

First part is correct, second part is wrong. Yes, alarmism means unjustified alarm, but I don't think that "climate alarmists" are simply climate scientists. Because, as already pointed above, there are some skeptical scientists towards the accuracy of current climate models and/or antropogenic global warming.

Second, there is clearly a double standard. Many people think that using the term "global warming alarmist" is unjustified, but there's nothing wrong to call the skeptics "denialists". Utter hypocrisy. But it's justified, hallelujah!


Straw men. Mainstream climate science doesn't say that our climate never changed before, or that the Earth is turning into Venus.

Yet at the same time you are making predictions about how the temperatures are going to rise between 2010 and 2100 and you still have to check the accuracy of current models..


He publishes them in off topic journals in which the editor may not notice that his argument has already been refuted in the literature. And when the editor finds out that he has been duped by Spencer, he resigns and issues a statement that does not need a giant font.


Of course, because of the huge pressure from climate alarmists and so called mainstream scientists... I would have done the same regardless of what's written in the article.


Yes, Spencer is a creationist and he is pledged to prevent any action being taken to mitigate climate change on behalf of the baby Jesus. So yes, that does suggest that what he is doing is religion and/or politics, not science.


Sorry, this doesn't mean that the published article doesn't follow the scientific method. Many people are doing what could be considered politics or religion... Belief in an extra-terrestrial intelligence is faith by itself, because we don't know if there's something up there. There's no smoking gun proof. Could we say that what the SETI people are doing isn't science?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 01:19 PM
You might want to open a textbook and learn about the temperature profiles of planetary atmospheres, and the effect of increasing greenhouse gases on them.


Perhaps... Yet I trust mr. Grinspoon who sees that our climate models break down on Venus... Even if I'm wrong about this, it's still red light




No we don't. If you can provide some evidence we will. Otherwise explicitly withdraw both those claims.

OK, so you're not ignoring the fact that the atmosphere of Venus could be suitable for life? Good for you, then... I could withdraw the arguments, but still the question remains - climate models on Earth break down on Venus and it possibly means that these models are not accurate.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 01:22 PM
He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth models.

It's interesting to compare this claim to Dr Grinspoon's own words (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/ghosts_of_climates_past/):


How do we know that our climate models will really work? This isn’t the kind of science where you can do controlled experiments, varying one parameter at a time, and we cannot simply wait to see if our projections turn out to be accurate. When we include other planets, our data set expands and gives us more certainty in our conclusions. Using the same equations with which we model possible future Earths, we have been able to successfully duplicate the present-day climates of Venus, Mars, and Titan. We really can look into our future.

Poking around the solar system, we see the power of climate feedbacks. They can both maintain and destroy climate stability. As we struggle to better understand the balance of these processes on Earth, and how our own actions are perturbing them, we must look to our once habitable neighbors for clues. At the present time, they are the only way we can understand our fate.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 01:32 PM
It's interesting to compare this claim to Dr Grinspoon's own words

This is indeed something interesting :) Possibly contradiction, but your article is older... He may have found out something new.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 01:35 PM
I don't know an evolutionary biologist who believes in creationism.

You may not be aware, but creationists regularly tout lists of scientists who support their views, just as global warming deniers do. Both types of list are easy to find if you're interested.


I know about Boris Komitov who has also published a book

I know about Ken Ham who has also published a book. That doesn't make his nonsense correct.


but there's nothing wrong to call the skeptics "denialists". Utter hypocrisy. But it's justified, hallelujah!

I don't call skeptics deniers. I am a skeptic. That doesn't mean I have to believe any old nonsense like the daft conspiracy theories you're promoting. It means the opposite.


Yet at the same time you are making predictions about how the temperatures are going to rise between 2010 and 2100

Cite any such prediction I have made or withdraw the claim.


Of course, because of the huge pressure from climate alarmists and so called mainstream scientists... I would have done the same regardless of what's written in the article.

No, it is for the reasons he stated, as cited above (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120475-Are-climate-alarmists-trying-to-prevent-Venus-missions-from-approval?p=1931109#post1931109). If you have any evidence that he was lying, provide it. Otherwise withdraw the claim.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 01:37 PM
He may have found out something new.

You're doing exactly what the creationists do -- latching on to any tiny detail that isn't 100% understood and using it to imply that everything that is understood must be wrong.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 01:39 PM
So, the Akatsuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akatsuki_%28spacecraft%29) orbiter was sabotaged by the almighty "alarmists", too?

Akatsuki's case is different and Japan has always had trouble with such types of deep space maneuvers.

I have no doubt that Akatsuki's failure is natural... I wonder however if OCO and Glory failures are connected somehow...

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 01:44 PM
I wonder however if OCO and Glory failures are connected somehow...

Add those to the growing list -- provide evidence or withdraw the claims.

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 01:49 PM
He may have found out something new.

And BTW, earlier you claimed (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120475-Are-climate-alarmists-trying-to-prevent-Venus-missions-from-approval?p=1931102#post1931102) that you knew exactly to what he was referring. A claim that you were asked to withdraw (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120475-Are-climate-alarmists-trying-to-prevent-Venus-missions-from-approval?p=1931113#post1931113) if you couldn't support it, as it is clear you cannot.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-04, 01:49 PM
Perhaps... Yet I trust mr. Grinspoon who sees that our climate models break down on Venus... Even if I'm wrong about this, it's still red light


I would very much be surprised if the models would not break down, thinking about the utter and complete difference between Venus and Earth, in both atmospheric composition and in planetary rotation rate.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 02:04 PM
You're doing exactly what the creationists do -- latching on to any tiny detail that isn't 100% understood and using it to imply that everything that is understood must be wrong.

Why you're using the creationist argument? Well, probably because I'm a biologist and I already know that creationism is false. Correct, creationists are offering lists of scientists who believe in creationism, but most of them, as I know, are engineers. It's not surprising that engineers are seeing design everywhere they look so the organisms should be designed. But they are not familiar with the theory of evolution and they are wrong.

The world is full of people who are specialists in their field of work, but they are wrong about theories in other fields they're not familiar with. So I guess you think that just because of this, I may be wrong about climate change as it's out of my field of work, and you use the fact...


You're doing exactly what the creationists do -- latching on to any tiny detail that isn't 100% understood and using it to imply that everything that is understood must be wrong.

What? I don't think that I stated that our climate is static and it doesn't change... I doubt however that the current predictions are accurate and I'm not sure if we understand how climate really changes. Because climate models are, hm... models... While the theory of evolution is a proven fact

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 02:12 PM
30°C...80°C may seem moderate, but would render life impossible for much of earth's inhabitants - not only polar bears.
Ex

Yes, but we're talking about 30-80°C, same atmospheric pressure as on Earth, but about 97% CO2... The strange thing is that even according to current predictions CO2 won't even reach 10% so I don't think we can speak about drastic changes. Marginal changes, yes... But drastic changes? Hm, no... Earth is not turning to second Venus, but this is something you don't claim it seems, so ok...

Solfe
2011-Sep-04, 02:26 PM
Can you cite a piece of "climate alarmist"? I am not a scientist at all and my definition may be different from yours. I am reading science pieces for meant mass consumption - Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. and I generally do not encounter any academic works at all.

If you are referring mass media, yes I see climate alarmist authors very frequently. It is almost to the point were I won't bother reading articles on climate. Usually the blame for this is the author of the piece, not the science being done. Were I a scientist, I would be keeping a blacklist of reporters and publisher who I would simply not speak to.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 02:32 PM
Can you cite a piece of "climate alarmist"? I am not a scientist at all and my definition may be different from yours. I am reading science pieces for meant mass consumption - Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. and I generally do not encounter any academic works at all.

If you are referring mass media, yes I see climate alarmist authors very frequently.

You have a point here... Yes, climate alarmism extends outside of the field of science and goes to the field of popular science and politics...

Solfe
2011-Sep-04, 02:55 PM
You have a point here... Yes, climate alarmism extends outside of the field of science and goes to the field of popular science and politics...

Well, yes; it can be political but I don't care to steer the conversation there.

I think that we are seeing a whole class of authors that are basically not following academic guidelines for their profession (journalism) and this in turn is impacting their sources who are following very strict guidelines (scientists). At the moment, I believe the distance between source and reporter are large enough that it can be ignored, but someday that may not be the case.

Personally, I would love to see a college say "Hey, we have a collection of ethical standards that we expect you to follow. You need to follow them through out your life if you wish to list us as your educator. Graduation does not mean you are released from our standards."

It isn't so much to ask, many people do function professionally while upholding the standards of the institution they attended. IE: Doctors, nurses, engineers, <insert your favorite here>, etc. Scientists are a bit different as they tend to gravitate to a educational institutions while performing in their field. Neither group really sees the option of "just skipping the rigors of academics standards". Why do journalist get a free pass?

(edit - my argument may have been proven wrong in this thread here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120440-A-bit-of-climate-news?p=1931160#post1931160))

dmr81
2011-Sep-04, 03:00 PM
What? I don't think that I stated that our climate is static and it doesn't change

I don't think I stated that you stated that.


... I doubt however that the current predictions are accurate

Your doubts about that are irrelevant. Your ignorance of climate science is well established by your posts on this thread.


and I'm not sure if we understand how climate really changes.

I'm sure that you don't.

When are you going to start withdrawing the false claims you've made here? Or is this thread just going to be your personal Gish Gallop through all the usual anti-science talking points (http://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php) used by global warming deniers?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 03:04 PM
Maybe when I'm convinced that there is indeed significant climate change that may turn out to be a problem for humanity.

Garrison
2011-Sep-04, 03:22 PM
Forgive me if I've missed it in all these posts Zvezdichko but are you planning to offer any evidence there is some sort of conspiracy to block Venus missions or are you just going to keep repeating your doubts about climate science?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-04, 03:37 PM
I wonder how there can be so many defenders of climate alarmism when constant bragging about climate changes on the media is one of the greatest obstacles to spaceflight... This is one of the reasons why people say: ""We have so many problems on Earth, why should we care about space". Climate alarmism is tied to greenism... They are harming space exploration.

Tensor
2011-Sep-04, 04:02 PM
I wonder how there can be so many defenders of climate alarmism when constant bragging about climate changes on the media is one of the greatest obstacles to spaceflight...

Perhaps because we've actually read the pertinent papers and have made our own conclusions? Your continued use of alarmist paints you as someone who goes in for hyperbole, not facts. Especially as you have yet to give us links to the papers you think show that AGW either does not exist or refutes the papers that do show it exists. How would you feel if someone came to you ranting about those evolutionary atheists who obviously don't understand how the world came about, without providing any kind of actual support? That is what you are doing here.


This is one of the reasons why people say: ""We have so many problems on Earth, why should we care about space". Climate alarmism is tied to greenism...

If we get cleaner air and water out of the trying to reduce warming, that's a bad thing, why?


They are harming space exploration.

And your support for this statement?

Daggerstab
2011-Sep-04, 04:05 PM
I wonder how there can be so many defenders of climate alarmism when constant bragging about climate changes on the media is one of the greatest obstacles to spaceflight... This is one of the reasons why people say: ""We have so many problems on Earth, why should we care about space". Climate alarmism is tied to greenism... They are harming space exploration.

So the fact that some people are using the "Earth first" argument means that AGW is a hoax? Seriously, this is the root of your motivation?

Do you complain about "financial alarmists", too? Because the current financial situation in the world, real and perceived, is a much greater "obstacle to spaceflight" than any "climate alarmism".

captain swoop
2011-Sep-04, 04:14 PM
This is not the place to argue Global Warming.
Zvezdichko You were asked to state your conspiracy within the rules of this Forum. What we have had from you is a political Rant on Global Warming.
Thread Locked.

Infraction awarded to Zvezdichko. You have been here long enough to know this is not how it's done and is not permitted under the rules of the board.