Etomology of Climate Change and Global Warming

I have enough trouble getting beyond the idea of NASA thinking that any of this is their job ... then I read the following:


First, NASA is a government agency, not a science and engineering firm. NASA does not get to declare what it means to be a scientist by writing "To a scientist." Clearly the author of the article is not honest enough to state that this is his or her opinion and instead needs for the world to believe that his or her opinion is actually the state of science.

Secondly, the earth's surface is a wide-ranging spectrum of temperatures and no one knows what the average is, what is needed in order to measure any changes of the average surface temperature.

Thirdly, built into the statement is the implicit assumption that such average temperature is, in fact, rising and that this rise is, in fact, due to human activity. Ergo, to accept the term is to accept these bogus assumptions.



The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law have been around a lot longer than that. Scientists have known very well that no aerosols or atmospheric gases can simply change a temperature without creating/destroying additional energy, to have a cooler atmosphere heat a warmer surface or to have an increase in temperature with a corresponding decrease in radiance.



So Global Warming does not refer to the warming of the globe, just of a small part of it.

So there is a global climate? What's that?

What science defines a "greenhouse gas" and determines how it "affects" thing?

During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.


NASA should just shut up and do their job of putting things into orbit.