Heating Up on Mars, Too

Hmmm, almost makes you wonder if the rise of temperature on the Earth and Mars are related, doesn't it?

Posted by FH at November 11, 2004 12:16 PM

Actually, It was Brown & Root, now absorbed into Halliburton, that made the first (acknowledged) landing on Mars in 1976 ... in watching the scenes at NASA in Texas, there were repeated shots of a rock, which seemed to have some inscription ... looked like a B and a 3 -- The problem at that time of optical scanners unable to distinguish between the two? The big theory was it was graffiti, telling us that was the third time Brown and Root had been there. And heating it up, no doubt.

Posted by Riverrun at November 11, 2004 5:20 PM

Calling glacier melt from a 3 Martian year regional trend(about 2 1/2 Earth years) "Global warming" is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover on Mars are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth... The sun is getting warmer, right? Does it every so often with some regularity even.

Paraphrased from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Which ones are really the idiots? The ones that think it's all an elaborate hoax that benefits, umm.... who?

Posted by Meg at February 17, 2007 1:02 PM

Oh what excellant sources which eventually lead to dead ends...

First, do we send weather balloons into the sky daily on mars? or send a remote control car there every 6 years?

"These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."

people in the denial camp are very entertaining,

first, they give you the ability to feel good about yourself because their utterly ignorant and willing to believe anything without reading into it.

Second, they believe it's a conspiracy to... do... umm benefit wind turbine companies that don't exist yet? while ignoring the efforts Exxon has put into propaganda and disinformation for years


ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

[..]ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But no, we can ignore the UN, we can ignore nations, we can ignore Nasa scientists being silenced by the bush administration, why? because I don't want to dislike Bush's policies.

Posted by westerncitizen at May 27, 2007 8:55 PM