Is it too bold to fisk NASA?


Fisking NASA’s take on Climate Change in the year 2017 A.D.:

If you want to see what NASA has to offer: I see a good effort at collecting data. The first thing they show is a graph about carbon dioxide. Apparently that perfect little combination of carbon and oxygen is on the rise. In this fisking, I took the general topics and sometimes a summary of each one.

Global Temperature Rise—2 degrees in 200 years (1 degree in 100 years)

This happens to be the extent of our weather measurement history—200 years. We can only make educated guesses about the rest of history. Even the Bible and the Quran, historical documents, are bereft of much of anything about the weather—although there is an extremely interesting one in the book of Isaiah.

Warming oceans—at the surface and specific locations.

But we don’t measure the temperature everywhere. Not the entire ocean. So our data is limited. Do we make prophetic statements from limited data, or do we just make guesses? Guesses are more likely when we have so little info. The ocean is still relatively new to us scientific humans. We could study the ocean more extensively.

Shrinking arctic ice sheets

Warming. Provable. I’m not arguing against the fact that ice sheets have diminished, only that the topic is included under the heading of Climate Change instead of Global Warming. Misplacing a topic makes it seem irrelevant. I expect higher relevance from my favorite aerospace collective.

Glacial retreat

Warming. Did you know we still have glaciers in the northern hemisphere? I didn’t until I found out from the writer of the book, The Secret Lives of Glaciers, by Dr. M. Jackson. You see, there used to be a glacier where I live. Now it’s gone. I don’t see it as a great loss, like she does. Dr. Jackson has a love of glaciers that my pragmatic mind can’t quite grasp.

Decreased snow cover—chosen locations, Northern Hemisphere

Warming. So why are we not just calling it Global Warming? Why would we use an inaccurate title like Climate Change? Hmmm. The immediate problem with treating Climate Change as if it were some kind of Unified Field Theory is that you lose credibility quickly. Credibility is diminished when the locations are selected, rather than diverse.

One of my heroes, Kurt Godel, said, “No net can catch all fish,” and yet if you dare look on the fluctuating “facts” of Wikipedia you’ll see that “climate change” now includes: Sun Spots—El Nino—Decadal Oscillations—Martian Drought—and the fluctuations of gravity in the spaces between Jupiter’s moons. Kurt Godel would have a ball with that nonsense. My conclusion there is: avoid Wikipedia, stick with NASA. Even though NASA indulges in the same generalized cause/effect notion, they at least try to back up their info with facts.

Sea level rise—8 inches in 10 years

That’s good. If ice sheets diminished and we didn’t have more sea water, we’d definitely have a conundrum on our hands. If we need more water for humans to use, well, there it is. Of course, humans will have to start learning how to run a desalinization plant. Oh, the heartache! Oh, the headache! Just kidding. It’s not all that difficult. A teenage boy could run one.

Declining arctic sea ice

This is proven. How you choose to rate the significance of this information is up to you.

Extreme events—U.S. high temperature events—increased rainfall.

This is what’s called provincial information. When they talk this way, it seems like the only country in the whole world affected by Global Warming is the United States of America. That’s like those movies where aliens come to Earth; New York is always where they attack first. Provincial, and clichéd. Of course NASA belong to the U.S., but including this non-global information reduces the credibility of a theory of global proportions.

Ocean acidification—carbolic acid

That’s good. It’s one natural way to decrease carbon dioxide gas in the troposphere (aka breathe-o-sphere). A better method, of course, is planting and caring for a tree. Trees need to breathe too. By the way, if carbon dioxide is a heavy gas, why is it considered a greenhouse gas? Because we’re seeing more of it, but we have fewer trees. Go plant a tree already. What are you waiting for?

Published by Kurt Gailey

This is where I'm supposed to brag about how I've written seven novels, twelve screenplays, thousands of short stories, four self-help books, and one children's early-reader, but I'd rather stay humble. You can find out about things I've written or follow my barchive (web archive, aka 'blog) at or follow me on twitter @kurt_gailey. I love sports and music and books, so if you're an athlete or in a band or you're a writer, give me a follow and I'll most likely follow you back. I've even been known to promote other people's projects.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: