How Credible Is NASA on Climate Change?

The following web page on the NASA website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusstates

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

On this same page, near the bottom, the following statement is found

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

I can list the studies that have repeatedly debunked the 97% figure (aka a lie).  However, it's more telling just to examine this last claim.  Did NASA somehow miss the last several periods of worldwide glaciation (climate change in its most severe form) that occurred before humans occupied the planet? 

For more about the intentional misrepresentation on the climate consensus "google" The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' in order to see the whole Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014 article
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Weather Extremes

The Media has been in overdrive on weather extremes, but what are the facts.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment
May 19,2014 by Anthony Watts  

The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.

Current Claims Regard Climate Change Are Inadequate

“In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.”

― Euripides, The Children of Herakles 

. . The issue with the Global Warming alarmism is not with the fact that the climate is changing.  Few deny the evidence.  The problem is the explanation.
. . Below is a graph showing the temperature anomaly measured in the last century as recorded by NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

. . The temperate change from 1900 to 1940 is approximately equal to that from 1970 to 2010.  The alarmists claim that later is due primarily to human intervention while the former is not.  Likewise, they have no explanation for the 30 year pause from 1940 to 1970 and have no explanation for the apparent pause commencing in 1998.
. . The change in CO2 concentration has been monotonically consistent in this period.  Current claims are in adequate.  Better models are obviously necessary.

Poor Science Make Quacks Difficult to Debunk.

. . This month's eNewsletter from eSkeptic discussed EMDR or "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing."  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-05-21/ .  The main gist of the article was about how easy it is for some treatments to become mainstream even before they are adequately verified through independent and credible researchers.  This is especially true for Alternative Medicine where victims are desperately in search of remedies and are willing to try almost anything.
. . The best safety in such cases is to look for support from fundamental scientific principles.  Extreme caution is advised when claims seem to defy good sense, are revolutionary, or tend to be of an occult or magical nature.  Today, good science is rarely revolutionary.
. .  This article is a good example of how some practitioners stay ahead of competent review by constantly changing the baseline for analysis, make exorbitant wide claims that demand extensive time to confirm, or demand unusual levels of "training." 

Global Climate Change - The Human Element

I repeatedly hear that global climate change is caused by humans.  That statement is an unequivocal lie.  Humans do play a role in climate change, but they are not responsible for it.  The historical proxy record shows that climate has always changed long before humans were on the planet.  It is fair to say -- climate will always change.  Nothing within our current and foreseeable technological abilities can stop climate change.  Our ancestors adapted to the change, just as we must do.

Another Round of Climate Scare

. . They alarmist are at it again warning about catastrophic climate change.  Every time I hear them I head to NASA and check out the temperature anomalies trends. Here is the link.  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ . 
. . There is no argument that the climate has and continues to change.  It has always changed.  There is also no argument that the planet is warming.  We are exiting an unusually cold climate period.  There is also no argument that humans contribute to climate change.  That statement is inane. Humans change the planet.  The issue is the magnitude of the change and whether the alarmists can predict the future.  Thus far the answer is demonstrably NO.
. . The graphs are the NASA website deserve more in depth examination.  Here it is for the last 17 years in tabular form

  YEAR     ANNUAL    ROLLING
 1997   0.46    0.45 
 1998   0.62    0.44 
 1999   0.40    0.48 
 2000   0.40    0.51 
 2001   0.53    0.51 
 2002   0.61    0.53 
 2003   0.60    0.58 
 2004   0.51    0.60 
 2005   0.66    0.60 
 2006   0.59    0.58 
 2007   0.63    0.59 
 2008   0.49    0.59 
 2009   0.59    0.58 
 2010   0.66    0.57 
 2011   0.54    0.59 
 2012   0.57     * 
 2013   0.60     * 

. . Over the last 17 years the temperature anomaly has been flat. The alarmists neither have an explanation nor did they predicted it through models they have been using to forecast disaster.  They refer to it as a "pause."  They could be right, but the issue is -- it came as a complete surprise to them.  
. . With the scientific method if the model fails to predict, the hypothesis is erroneous. The one thing that is certain is -- The debate is NOT over and more research is needed.  Remedial actions need to be measured. 

I'll Pray for You.

. . Ever time I see where someone has purchased a Catholic Mass card or some religious prayer card, it reminds me of the purchase indulgences that offended Martin Luther. Although the purchaser's intentions may be admirable, the gesture seems disingenuous and a waste of resource.  In the case of illness wouldn't be better to do something to help the invalid or to eradicate the reason for his or her illness?  How do you gracefully redirect the positive wishes without offending?
. . For example in a recent Humanist article the question was posed. 

My Father is Sick, and Everyone Wants to Pray for Him. How Should I Respond?

Click here for the suggestion.