Apollo moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin announces his climate skepticism

How’d ya like the news in the paper, Mr. Potter? You just can’t keep those deniers down.

keep_those_bailey_boys_down

From the UK Telegraph, yet another prominent NASA figure says “no” to AGW.

Buzz, the man in the photo above, quoted in the interview:

“I think the climate has been changing for billions of years,” he said.

“If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.

“I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.”

Yes folks, NASA’s second man on the moon, Colonel and now Dr. Buzz Aldrin is an AGW skeptic. So is fellow astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt, NASA’s only geologist to walk the moon.

The story in the UK Telegraph is here.

Please note the date they have of July 20th, 1960 is hilariously wrong. NASA hadn’t even made a suborbital fight yet. Freedom 7 and Alan Shepard was the first to do that on May 5th, 1961.

July 20th, 1969 is the day I’ll always remember for Buzz’s achievement, even if the Telegraph can’t.

BTW, the top photo and top line is a well known scene from, “It’s a Wonderful Life

h/t to Tom Nelson

UPDATE: Note to Joe Romm; if you happen to run into Buzz at a conference, best that you don’t call him a “denier” to his face.

Here’s video of Buzz landing the punch heard round the world.

Bart Sibrel is the recipient.

Advertisements

150 thoughts on “Apollo moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin announces his climate skepticism

  1. Off topic –
    I contacted a boat load of US Senators today asking them to look at the “cap and trade” and the related issues in depth before deciding anything. I doubt my concerns will have any impact on their votes, but at least I’ve tried.

  2. It would be questionable to project the beliefs of one astronaut onto the group as a whole. I do believe, however, that astronauts – who have to walk the walk – probably have a very keenly tuned BS detectors.
    My guess is that collectively they probably have a more conservative view of the viability and truth behind AGW claims.

  3. Yeah, but he probably saw UFO’s too!
    … hehehe … sorry, just couldn’t resist, comes from an episode of Frazier when Senator John Glenn was guest star.

  4. Clever. He was quoted like this;
    “I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.”
    This is a very safe statement – and therefore meaningless statement. Every climatologist I have ever read up on would probably support this statement as well. Of course we aren’t causing it “all”. What scientist has ever said this with the intent to exclude all natural forcing from the mix? Seems to me that the real disagreement is weather or not CO2 levels makes a significant impact. And I don’t see that he has taken a stand on that issue. It is only implied to those who wish to see it that way.
    He is also quoted like this;
    “If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.”
    This tells me (a) he understands the climate is changing, which is a good thing, and (b) he doesn’t care to do anything about it even if he could do something about it, which I think is bad.
    Speaking of natural forcings, I also saw an interesting youtube this week that describes earth’s rotation patterns around the sun as a significant forcing. It appears they believe this will cause a major cooling 20 or 30 thousand years from now. Very complex stuff;

    Pete

  5. I here his new book “magnificent desolation” is great.
    Personally, I have always liked the guy, at least since he socked that guy who said the moon landing was staged in the kisser! Hehe, that was pretty awesome.

  6. Dr. Aldrin is a tough old buzzard.
    A few years ago, he was pigeonholed on the street by one of those obsessive conspiracy theorists who insist that the Apollo program was faked, who attempted to force a Bible into his hands to have him swear on it that he had actually walked on the Moon.
    Buzz responded by doing something different with his hands. He unleashed a right cross on the guy and knocked him for six. And this when Aldrin was 72! He’s my role model for when I too will be a senior citizen (though I shall be not half as distinguished as is the good doctor).
    I note in passing that none of the conspiracy theorists have explained just how it would have been that laser retroreflectors, pingable by anyone on Earth who cares to assemble the equipment to double-check, ended up at several of the Apollo landing sites.

  7. Yes, but he’s not a climatologist.
    But wait — neither is that failed divinity student and failed politician, Mr. Gore.

  8. Correction. I said “he understands the climate is changing”.
    I should have said “he understands the climate may be changing”.
    Pete

  9. I’m going to take a guess that Richard Alleyne at the UK Telegraph likes to use the top row of numeral keys and not the keypad when entering numbers. The “0” key is awfully close to the “9” key.
    As I mentioned in the Tips & Notes to WUWT a few days back, the original high quality video tapes of the Apollo 11 landing have been found after 40 years. I’m looking forward to seeing those, as it will take me back to when I sat in front of the television (up close, on the floor) on July 20, 1969. Also, who is going to be the brave AGW theory supporter to walk up to Buzz and call him a “skeptic” now, hmm?

  10. Anthony, OT question: What happened to Lucia’s link?
    Hunter, OT answer: look carefully

  11. I hereby elect Buzz Aldrin to “debate” Al Gore on Climate Change.
    I’d pay to see that. 8^)
    Also, it seems that Richard Alleyne misspelled “Aldren” just under the article title. It might have been a deadline he was up against that rushed him.

  12. timetochooseagain (21:05:45) :
    Personally, I have always liked the guy, at least since he socked that guy who said the moon landing was staged in the kisser! Hehe, that was pretty awesome.

    Awesome indeed. We can probably all think of a few people we would like to do this to…

  13. Here’s video of Buzz landing the punch heard round the world.

    Darrell is right, better not call him a “denier” to his face.

  14. Don’t ya love Murphy’s Law. I misspelled Richard Alleyne’s misspelling of Aldrin. The one above should be “Adrin”, which then should be “Aldrin.” Not to be confused with Neil Armstrong’s middle name of “Alden.” I’m going to finish this up before I misspell any more. 8^)
    Congrats Buzz, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins. You guys did us all proud. Well done!

  15. Darell C. Phillips (21:12:33) :
    I’m an AGW believer, but I don’t think Buzz is a sceptic of AGW. I think all he said was he doesn’t believe in doing anything about it.
    cbrianb (21:25:42) :
    Looks like the same guy, and this article sounds exactly like him to me. He really hates the out-of-context reporting that seems to be rampant for both sides of the AGW issue. It does EVERYONE a disservice.
    Pete

  16. I’m going to take a guess that Richard Alleyne at the UK Telegraph likes to use the top row of numeral keys and not the keypad when entering numbers. The “0″ key is awfully close to the “9″ key.That’s what I was going to say. I do the same thing myself from time to time when using a laptop. And since The Telegraph’s been pretty dire recently for typos, poor spelling and grammar or sometimes US spelling and grammar (guess they don’t know how to change language settings to UK English), so I read this as just another mistake that slipped past the sub-editors. Most of them are probably too young to remember it and probably won’t have learned it in school, so 1960 may have looked plausible. Besides, the article quotes Dr Aldrin saying that it was 40 years ago so it seems unlikely that Alleyne really thought it was 1960 when he wrote the last para.

  17. Pete W (21:43:31) :
    Hi Pete,
    Although Buzz did not describe himself as a “skeptic” (the Telegraph reporter did), there are the following additional quotes to consider.
    But while trying to spread the word about the possibilities of space, Dr Aldrin said he was sceptical of climate change theories.
    “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years,” he said.
    “If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.
    “I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.”

    You are entitled to your beliefs, but I am very convinced that Buzz should be in the U.S. Senate chambers when the Cap and Trade bill debate happens, to argue fervently against it. In fact, I’d like as many of our astronauts that feel that way to be there as well. This may well determine whether my Country will survive as it was founded or change into something unrecognizable.

  18. Do you think the the Daily Telegraph managed to get in touch with the right Dr. Aldrin?

  19. Sorry to all who were following, but I finished my story and point in the “Bubkes III” topic. Again sorry it took so long to finish, but it was rather long.

  20. I had the huge pleasure and lifetime honor of meeting Buzz briefly after a Science Fiction convention in LA in 1996.
    I loved his session. It was the year after Toy Story had come out. He came in, sat down, smiled at the audience, and then took a “Buzz Lightyear” toy out of his briefcase and placed it on the table in front of him and tossed a huge grin at the crowd.
    We roared.

  21. And how, brother.
    I believe what Buzz was getting at is not jumping of at every wiggle of global temps and burning through hundreds of billions of tax dollars to turn the dial on the thermostat.
    Whatever for? It’ll just keep on changing anyways, defiant as ever.
    Billion and Trillions. Money Stuff.
    Haven’t these jokers anything better to do?
    How’s about rolling up those sleeves and cleaning up some SuperFund sites?

  22. If we spent half the money they have squandered for AGW on real world problems.. well the world could have been a nicer place. BUT NOOOOOO greed is the tune we are playing right now. Actually I think even the greedy might be getting played right now by the control freaks.

  23. In astronomy they have a term called “Sphere of influence”, that SOI of Buzz is about armslength 🙂
    Bart Sibrel went into the SOI on 9th of september 2002 and got punched on the face, the funny thing is he tried to press charges against Buzz but the district attorney’s office did not file charges. They stated that Buzz was provoked by Sibrel and that he was not injured so there was no reason to file charges.
    And yes he was not injured, the fist of Buzz is A-OK.

  24. Sorry folks,
    IMHO the war is lost.
    A handfol of peaple with good maners and good intention
    not mean a different. Mao, S

  25. I am sure we have all heard warmers say things like.
    Saying global warming is not man made is like saying the moon landings were faked.

  26. Heh, A warmist I’ve been debating said the 0.5C temperature rise on Mars since the ’70’s wasn’t real.
    I asked him if he was a Martian climate change denier, and since the data came from NASA, whether he thought they had faked the moon landings too…

  27. The date in the Telegraph piece has to be a typo. The accompanying image blurb is correctly dated.
    I, too, think that Mr Aldrin’s announcement is rather vague. However, I can forgive him for that. He’s always been a hero of mine since I watched the moon landing whilst crowded around the TV with my parents and siblings. I demanded a telescope for my nirthday. Okay it was a toy one but I eventually bought my first (6 inch) Newtonian from my paper round money with (more than) a little help from Dad. I’ve been a keen amateur astronomer ever since. Just never ask me about the math…

  28. “typo!
    ??? yeah thats helpful – A”
    Typo, as in the 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and the Telegraph’s writer and subeditor missed it. Not as bad as The Grauniad though.
    REPLY: Wasn’t able to tell what portion of article or comments you were referring to, if my error, or someone else – A

  29. I am always shocked when I run into someone who thinks the moon landings were faked. Chris Thorne mentioned the retroreflectors as just one example of evidence to show that it was accomplished. It must have been an amazing experience for those guys that stepped on another planet. They must have had (snip) as big as church bells. To get into a vehicle that you know is about to attempt to take you to the moon!! It was cowardly and weak to confront Buzz Aldrin like that. What would you expect him to do? How would you expect him to react? There are proper channels to express your opinion if that is what you believe. Some would say it wrong to react the way Aldrin did, but I say the guy provoked him and then deservedly received the ol’ Irish Kiss !!! ( What is the phrasing? He was all up in Buzz’s grill? Yeah, I think thats it, ….)

  30. Pete W (21:04:48) :
    Nice spin! Impressive… to take obvious skepticism over alarmism and try to turn it in the favor of alarmism. So close!
    Pete… most people who read this site know that humans must have a slight effect on weather. But since the rate of warming for 30 years has been .15 C degrees according to the UAH figures today… and the Earth was warming about 1 C every century for the last few centuries, well the warming has slowed, hasn’t it? How much of that .15 C warming in30 years are we responsible for? If it’s less than 100%, perhaps we need not hyperventilate quite yet?
    Since the Alarmists long term predictions have been massive failures, I guess I’ll remain a skeptic. I seem to be in splendid company, and it’s getting more prestigious all of the time.

  31. I think any-one that is of Scottish and Swedish ancestry, is 79 years old, has faced and overcome severe personal problems late in life, has put his own life severely on the line in the service of his country hundreds of times, has shot down 2 MIGs, reacts swiftly and appropriately to be called “a coward, a liar, and a thief” to his face by an attention grabbing A hole and has walked on the moon will do me in being able to recognise a bandit from a friendly.

  32. Nice article, and a great birthday present for me personally. I was born 16 days before Buzz set foot on the moon – 4th July 1969, and I’ve always been fascinated by science, space, astronomy, and the weather.
    This blog is utterly brilliant in the way it deconstructs the Alarmists’ “The sky is falling and no one is allowed to say otherwise” message, by using Realism to question their methodology and to point out the global cooling trend of the last decade.
    I’m pretty disgusted by the Alarmists’ use of “denier” for anyone who asks basic questions about their science and methodology – the sheer arrogance of the people at RC astounds and dismays me.
    Keep up the great work here, I’ll be raising a wee tipple of whisky in part for my birthday, in part for all the brave astronauts who’ve risked (and sometimes lost) their lives in the name of science and progress, and in the name of the great and the good people who continue unrelentlessly to question the arrogant proponents of AGW.
    Regards, from a skeptical Scotsman.

  33. I only have one criticism of Buzz Aldrin – he didn’t hit Bart Sibrel in the face hard enough.
    [Or often enough. ~ dbs, mod.]

  34. Richard Heg (23:59:12) : I am sure we have all heard warmers say things like.
    Saying global warming is not man made is like saying the moon landings were faked.

    Buzz may not be committed to climate skepticism like readers here are, but his obvious doubts are an excellent icon for those who call us flat-earthers

  35. I just wonder what wealth of experience, training, and context of the Cold War Era passed through Aldrin’s nervous system in the microseconds leading up to that clocking? It must have been an amazing data rate… Put that man on my spaceship any day.

  36. TonyN comments on here from time to time. In his blog at Harmless Sky he fisks a BBC puff-piece for wind power:
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=200
    The BBC report begins “When it is windy, power will be so cheap that …”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8127177.stm
    Last week, the same BBC journo (Roger Harrabin) covered another energy story:
    “…a £15bn contract for the new cabling needed to bring the [wind] power onshore…”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117704.stm
    Read the whole fisking on TonyN’s blog.

  37. That “no moon landings” story has a very strange origin. Richard Hoagland (don’t take issue with the name, just do the science and examine the evidence) describes, in “Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA” how, right at the start of his career in NASA, when he was young, alert, enthusiastic, and totally believing in NASA, a senior NASA official was together with a strange gentleman putting copies of the first version of this ridiculous story on every press officer’s seat at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. The date was 22 July 1969.
    A very strange action. Can’t be true!!!! Hoagland must be lying!!!!
    Examining the evidence: what is appropriate application of Scientific Method here? – read widely in the whole book to put the episode in context; ask, is the evidence coherent? provable? what others can back it up? does it make sense psychologically? does he have an axe to grind? a product to sell? a belief to uphold? do I need to believe everything Hoagland says (or even believe it’s as important as he does) in order to take his story here seriously? etc etc etc – keep the mind open, not dogmatic in either direction, but looking for faults just as one does with any new science theory.
    When we can appraise seriously strange new theories without naive dismissal or naive acceptance, without blindness to prejudices, we have the opportunity to grow inwardly. IMHO.

  38. VG (00:54:46)
    It’s SC24 by leading polarity (Red) spectrum being white on the Magnetogram.
    It’s heavily rotated, though. The black on the Magnetogram is Violet.
    Even cycle South ReVerses.

  39. Buzz, the man in the photo above said in the interview: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years,”
    I’m pretty certain of it actually 😉

  40. Pete W (21:04:48) :
    “Speaking of natural forcings, I also saw an interesting youtube this week that describes earth’s rotation patterns around the sun as a significant forcing. ”
    Pete W, so glad to see a warmist finally recognise the Milankovitch Cycles, which have been known to most everybody else for decades.
    IN FACT, the fact that arctic ice is trending down and antarctic ice is trending up is indicative of a Milankovitch climate shift, i.e. nothing we can hope to do anything at all about.

  41. Pete W (21:04:48) :
    “This tells me (a) he understands the climate is changing, which is a good thing, and (b) he doesn’t care to do anything about it even if he could do something about it, which I think is bad.”
    Hi Pete,
    The problem with taking a moral view on our (supposed) “bad” influence on the planet is that there is no logical basis for any kind of “ethical” climate behaviour. It’s all circular reasoning.
    The flora and fauna of this world are engaged in their own geo-engineering program by sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the carbon away from useful access below the ground.
    To an independent observer it might even appear the we are re-righting a natural balance by returning the carbon to the atmosphere where it initially came from!
    Of course, by attempting to “restore the balance” by carbon neutral policies or artificial sequestration we are not really attempting to restore an equilibrium state, we are attempting to freeze a cycle that has evolved naturally for nothing other than our own selfish needs. Freezing a cycle, in my opinion, is both potentially dangerous, and certainly unethical in anything other than a human-centric perspective.
    Far better, again in my opinion, to allow things to progress naturally. After all, as long as we don’t kill all the plant life on the planet, the CO2 will eventually be scrubbed away again. Who knows, maybe in a few million years, if we are still around, we will begin burning fossil fuels all over because we realise it wasn’t such a bad idea first time around!!

  42. Good, well deserved, punch. Hopefully that Bart idiot got a bloody nose, black eye or lost tooth from it.
    It amazes me we’ve got so many fresh-mouthed disinformed brats with chips on their shoulders running around. Once they ruin the country, do you think they’ll wake up and realise what dicks they’ve been?

  43. You know, we never had AGW deniers or believers until we went to the moon. Since then, everyone is either an AGW alarmist or an AGW denier. I blame astronauts.

  44. OT, Happy Fourth every one, The Fireworks show just ended on Kadena Airforce base Okinawa Japan and it was spectacular.

  45. Håkan B,
    I had forgotten about Ingemar Johansson! He was a great fighter, thanks for the memory. [Mrs. Smokey is a pure Swede. I can always find her in a crowd by looking for the bright yellow hair.]

  46. News flash. The punch was staged. The sound was added and he missed. You’all believe the punch was real, but it wasn’t. I am sure the bloke that was punched would deny it.
    I enjoy reality therapy.
    REPLY: Well Bart Sibrel is a filmmaker, that he had to edit in sound just goes to show how dishonest he is. – Anthony

  47. Well, of course astronauts don’t want to accept the inconvenient truth that space flight is a huge waste of resources and has a huge environmental footprint….
    The only scientists I’m willing to believe are the ones that are completely free from association with any oil or tech company, are not being paid to produce any results, and have no vested interests in furthering their own careers, or in gaining any fame or attention. As Exxon has shown, scientists can be corrupted, so we must never listen to any scientists that is receiving any funding.

  48. Thanks Darell Phillips, for that fascinating link to Buzz “Hip-hop” Aldrin: click
    What a great guy! Very likable [unless you’re Bart what’s-his-name]. Even my opinion of Snoop Dogg has improved.
    [In James Michener’s great novel Space, Michener explains why astronauts tended to be ±5’8″. Due to the constraints of the cockpit size in fighter jets, fighter pilots weren’t tall, and astronauts were selected primarily from the fighter pilot pool. Mr Bart, being a foot taller than Aldrin, probably figured he could get away with calling him a ‘liar,’ etc. …surprise, Bart!]

  49. It was a full moon. My Mother took me outside and told me to look up and that we’d put men on it. I’ll never forget. Thanks Mom.
    Looked like “fighting words” to me. They should use that film in law school as an example of how to get legally decked. Well done Buzz!

  50. Richard Heg said:
    Saying global warming is not man made is like saying the moon landings were faked.
    Actually, saying climate is not driven by natural forces such as changes in the ocean and sun is like saying the moon landings never happened. The belief in manmade climate change is a lot like the belief in bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster. Lots of passion, and cherry-picked “proof”, but little in the way of scientific evidence.

  51. Buzz Aldrin gave a perfect demonstration how to handle hard headed people who doubt the real facts.
    Just hit them on the head for a brain reset.
    I watched all the life transmissions of the Apollo flights and spend many nights behind the television set.
    Those were the times.

  52. ” Stefan (06:23:35) :
    Well, of course astronauts don’t want to accept the inconvenient truth that space flight is a huge waste of resources and has a huge environmental footprint….
    The only scientists I’m willing to believe are the ones that are completely free from association with any oil or tech company, are not being paid to produce any results, and have no vested interests in furthering their own careers, or in gaining any fame or attention. As Exxon has shown, scientists can be corrupted, so we must never listen to any scientists that is receiving any funding.”
    Good luck with that. That creature doesn’t exist.

  53. I wonder what Woody and Mr Potato Head think of all this global warming stuff.
    Oh wrong Buzz.

  54. To Pete W.
    You stated – “Very complex stuff” in reference to natural forces effecting climate. Since you appear to be a strong believer in AGW I am very surprised you would dare make that comment. Recognizing that weather and climate is complex is really the foundation belief of AGW deniers. Once you start going down that road it becomes very bumpy and unpredictable and might just cause you to fall off the AGW wagon. I though all natural forces were basically irrelevant to climate, and it was just a simple matter of Man causing CO2, which causes global warming. Case closed and no point in investigating further. Do I detect a subtle shift?

  55. It is strikingly ironic that the picture from It’s A Wonderful Life is from a scene right before Potter steals the $8000 deposit and tries to frame the Baileys for embezzlement.

  56. As a Skeptic/Denier AGW, I don’t think we should ever have bad feelings towards the warmistas ie Gavin Schimdt J Hansen, Tamino etc. they actually probably believe they are doing something good.. eventually believe it or not they will concede because they are good people.. There motives anyways are good.

  57. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the global warming folks are putting both hands over their ears and chanting “bahbuhbahbuh” to avoid hearing. I tried to post a comment at “Tamino’s Open Mind” (which isn’t) that simply said:
    —-
    You can convince me. Just answer:
    http://thereisnoevidence.com/

    Of course it didn’t see the light of day.

  58. Lucy Skywalker (02:36:45) :
    That “no moon landings” story has a …

    Lucy, Lucy, Lucy –
    Don’t give the ‘conspiracy theorists’ access to your mind. Their way of thinking, their methods of ‘logic’ will inevitably permeate your very being to the detriment of us all …
    Like all conspiracies, valueable and important factual items MUST be ignored, disregarded, discarded in order for the conspiracy ‘story’ to stand up.
    Take for instance the monitoring of the comms (communications) and telemetry (capsule/spacecraft data including crew life signs) by various university (and no doubt the USSR!) radio astronomy classes/clubs and individuals, as evidenced by this account:
    Tracking Apollo 17 from Florida
    A brief excerpt:

    On December 10, 1972 we picked up our first signals on S-band. The main carrier was 45 dB over noise and the voice subcarrier was 25 dB over noise.
    Apollo 17 passed over the lunar disc between 1722 and 1819 local time (2222-2319 UT), and we measured a total Doppler frequency shift of 43 kHz.
    The next day the lunar module landed on the Moon and at 1518 local time we picked up main carrier and telemetry from the surface of the moon some 80 minutes after touchdown.

    Pretty hard to have ‘staged’ this portion of the moon landing ‘hoaxes’ and pulled off the origination of radio signals (requiring the pointing of a 9 Meter diameter dish antenna at the moon!) from the moon complete with Doppler Shift that would be seen as Apollo 17 revolved around that noon …
    .
    .
    .

  59. _Jim (08:50:40) :
    Lucy Skywalker (02:36:45) :
    ….Pretty hard to have ’staged’ this portion of the moon landing ‘hoaxes’ and pulled off the origination of radio signals (requiring the pointing of a 9 Meter diameter dish antenna at the moon!) from the moon complete with Doppler Shift that would be seen as Apollo 17 revolved around that noon …

    That’s no moon… it’s a spacestation!

  60. VG (07:57:34) :
    As a Skeptic/Denier AGW, I don’t think we should ever have bad feelings towards the warmistas ie Gavin Schimdt J Hansen, Tamino etc. they actually probably believe they are doing something good.. eventually believe it or not they will concede because they are good people.. There motives anyways are good.

    I’m sure they believe they are doing good… there’s been a whole cultural movement since the 60s that wants more cooperation, more egalitarianism, more sensitive caring and community, is anti-technology and wants more soft feeling and care. And that culture has spread into politics, into the United Nations, into scientific institutions, academia, into the media and advertising, into lifestyles, vegetarianism, feminism, and ecology.
    But that movement is not the last word in the progress of wisdom. Researchers are finding that the latest generation is already starting to see the problems caused by the 60s culture, and are reacting against it, just like the 60s culture was reacting against the problems of the existing world, the problems of corporations, chemical pollution, nuclear war, institutionalized racism, and so on.
    The newest generation today is already seeing the problems of extreme environmentalism, of political activists, and how that idealism is simply doing more damage than good. They are seeing that the economy cannot be sacrificed for the sake of ideals, and that the world needs to develop at its own pace.
    When the hippies sitting in fields in the 60s became the institutional leaders, politicians, and heads of academic and scientific organizations in the 90s, that generation and its worldview had already reached its peak, and was already on the way out.
    By all means let us continue to point them back towards the reality of data, reason, and facts, but at least they won’t be around for a lot longer. Environmentalism is dead, someone said, whilst industry will continue to become cleaner and our technology and energy will continue to become more sophisticated.
    Heroes like Buzz are from a generation before the hippies, who believed in hard work and technical realities about what was and wasn’t possible. The latest generation is starting to rediscover these facts of life.

  61. Pete W (21:09:17) :
    Correction. I said “he understands the climate is changing”.
    I should have said “he understands the climate may be changing”.

    I would say you had it correct the first time, as the climate IS ALWAYS changing!

  62. cbrianb (21:25:42) :
    Is this the same Gavin Schmidt at RC?
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4323558.html “5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to Their Hype” July 1
    Didn’t he originally defend some of these studies?

    Yes, and I believe, Yes …
    I think its time for a little research and discovery here. Time to connect the dots on this one if you know what I mean.

  63. Tom (07:40:27) :
    You said:
    “I though all natural forces were basically irrelevant to climate, and it was just a simple matter of Man causing CO2, which causes global warming.”
    The problem is, this is what YOU said. This is not what reputable climatologists say. classic straw-man attack.

  64. Stefan (06:23:35) :
    Well, of course astronauts don’t want to accept the inconvenient truth that space flight is a huge waste of resources and has a huge environmental footprint….
    The only scientists I’m willing to believe are the ones that are completely free from association with any oil or tech company, are not being paid to produce any results, and have no vested interests in furthering their own careers, or in gaining any fame or attention. As Exxon has shown, scientists can be corrupted, so we must never listen to any scientists that is receiving any funding.

    Hahahaha … good luck finding one of those! HAHAHA

  65. James Griffiths (03:29:32) :
    “…selfish needs.”
    Indeed. Call me selfish then, because I am concerned about the ability of my great grandchildren to be able to live a life as rich as the one I have had.
    Pete

  66. VG (07:57:34) :
    As a Skeptic/Denier AGW, I don’t think we should ever have bad feelings towards the warmistas ie Gavin Schimdt J Hansen, Tamino etc. they actually probably believe they are doing something good.. eventually believe it or not they will concede because they are good people.. There motives anyways are good.
    Your comment brought to mind an old quote; ” The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

  67. VG (00:54:46) :
    can some confirm is the polarity 24 or 23? looks like 23 to me…
    http://www.solarcycle24.com/

    I was saying the same thing in another thread. Perhaps I just don’t understand (which is likely) or perhaps I just really need to get those glasses (just as likely).
    Can anyone explain in real simple terms?

  68. Tom (07:40:27) :
    To Pete W.
    ….

    I believe if Pete where to do a little research, on this site, CA, and some of the others like it, he would quickly become an AGW denier. Judging from Pete’s comments, I would say he is not well informed and has done little to no research on his own. As such, I do applaud him for getting involved by posting comments here. And I would encourage everyone here to honestly and pleasantly provide any such resources to Pete that could be helpful and informational to him. Be positively responsive and provide him with the FACTS!

  69. VG (07:57:34) :
    As a Skeptic/Denier AGW, I don’t think we should ever have bad feelings towards the warmistas ie Gavin Schimdt J Hansen, Tamino etc. they actually probably believe they are doing something good.. eventually believe it or not they will concede because they are good people.. There motives anyways are good.
    I agree on the “they believe they are doing something good” part of your comments.
    It would be nice in fact if both sides could agree in an ethical code of conduct. I would start with two items:
    1) Stick to the issues and do not attack the individuals.
    2) Never resort to mentality that “the end justifies the means” Have the confidence and integrity to present all pertinent data, even if it is not entirely consistent with positions previously taken or positions of administrators above you.
    If you believe it is acceptable to manipulate data and distort facts in order to achieve some greater common good, then I strongly urge you to resign from your positions in science and enter the field of politics.
    On the other hand, if you want to further the understanding by mankind of his world and how his actions may or may not affect it, then I strongly encourage you to act with the highest degree of scientific professionalism and integrity. Set aside any value judgments that will acct as filters on your work, present the data and all of the data.
    Perhaps we all would benefit by taking the West Point Pledge:
    “I will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.”

  70. Pls Anthony, could you delete previous dup post – I muffed formatting! (This one is fixed)
    Just *one* more bit directed to the William C. Hoaglands and Bart W. Sibrels of the world who think they have nailed NASA on an outright fraud and fabrication –
    There are/were *hundreds* of engineers, commincations specialists and telephone personnel who were/had to be complicit in pulling this ‘fabrication’ off on the continent of Australia alone were this true.
    Introducing into evidence this document titled:
    “On Eagle’s Wings: The Parkes Observatory’s* Support of the Apollo 11 Mission” (*Australia) LINK
    which details the involvement of technical personnel in the ground tracking stations (think LARGE radio-astronomy telecopes like the 64 meter Parkes Obs antenna) and telephone networks (think wideband microwave links, several centralized switching centers) that handled comms (voice, telemetry and TV images) back to NASA (think early geostationary INTELSAT satellites) in the USA.
    So, my question (in the vein of ‘falsifiability’ of this account) is:
    Just *where* did these signals originate with all their unique characteristics, like:
    a) Doppler shift and
    b) the obvious requirement to be ‘trained on’ (aimed at) the moon (with GREAT precision given the beamwidth of a 64m S-band antenna)
    c) telemetry (astronaut heart rate, etc, Lunar Lander external temperature etc) obviously matching current operational scenario (moon walks, rest periods, etc)
    if not actually from on the moon?
    Consider in all this that orbital physics (literally: the launching of space vehicles, the maintaining of orbits et al) must be accomplished with *any* source (real or ‘faked’) since you can’t simply ‘helicopter up’ into space and hold for a week in a ‘hover’ position.
    .
    .
    .

  71. Pete W (09:32:24) :
    Tom (07:40:27) :
    You said:
    “I though all natural forces were basically irrelevant to climate, and it was just a simple matter of Man causing CO2, which causes global warming.”
    The problem is, this is what YOU said. This is not what reputable climatologists say. classic straw-man attack.

    Indeed, it would be nice if more ‘reputable’ climatologists would speak out more about how important natural forces are. All I ever see is sole-blame being placed on CO2 from the ‘reputable’ climatologists, or at least how they’re represented in the media. If these ‘reputable’ climatologists are not so averse at being represented in said manner, one could take them for tacitly approving of how much blame is laid on CO2.
    ergo… what was “not said” by “reputable climatologists” was said without being said.

  72. Pete W:
    “Call me selfish then, because I am concerned about the ability of my great grandchildren to be able to live a life as rich as the one I have had.”
    Ironically, I think you are most likely to approve of cap & trade policies that may severely limit your great grandchildren’s ability to enjoy that standard in a rediculous attempt to control a climate problem your great grandchildren never actually faced.

  73. Pete W (09:41:17) :
    “James Griffiths (03:29:32) :
    “…selfish needs.”
    Indeed. Call me selfish then, because I am concerned about the ability of my great grandchildren to be able to live a life as rich as the one I have had.
    Pete”
    Pete, you are able to live a life as rich as you do because your great grandparents were very “selfish” people who callously polluted our (our as in us, their future generations) atmosphere for the express aim of increasing their access to cheap energy, which triggered the unprecedented revolution towards the standard of living we enjoy today.
    I would humbly suggest that retarding our potential for rapid development via energy that is the cheapest and most efficient available for our use is far more selfish, and your great grandchildren would be far more grateful if we concentrated on advancing technology as quickly as possible.
    It’s an interesting dilemma.
    What most people seem to think would be good for their descendants is less horrid people and more plentiful and diverse biology. Strangely, that seems exactly what AGW would provide, yet what the believers actually want is to preserve the climate at an eternal 1968, which doesn’t appear to offer anything other than an eternal more of the same.
    It almost makes me wish AGW was actually happening!!

  74. Reminds me of another Swede I once new… Arnie Satterstrom. A friends’ dad who was about 5’6″ (or less) and was a really nice and wonderfully polite guy with an impish nearly perpetual smile. Oh, and he was a Marine in WWII doing island hopping and beach landings in the Pacific … think what it takes to be a tiny Marine.
    Every so often someone would make the mistake of trying something stupid and/or illegal in the gas station he owned; and wake up somewhere else.
    😉
    Don’t mess with short Vikings ! they don’t tolerate BS well!
    James Griffiths (03:29:32) : The flora and fauna of this world are engaged in their own geo-engineering program by sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the carbon away from useful access below the ground.
    Far better, again in my opinion, to allow things to progress naturally. After all, as long as we don’t kill all the plant life on the planet, the CO2 will eventually be scrubbed away again.
    I was pondering this a bit and came to the conclusion that the plants already are scrubbing to the point where they are a major controlling factor in setting our CO2 levels at extremely low levels where plants struggle to survive. From:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
    This is, IMHO, a necessary consequence of the rate of plant growth and the fall off in growth at low levels. Basically, the CO2 / growth curve coupled with the absolute rate of CO2 sequestration per unit area says that any time CO2 rises too much it will be sucked down by plants in short order (unless we do something to stop the plants, like, oh, chopping down all the forests and draining the swamps… or having an ice age).
    The rate at which a large field of plants can suck CO2 out of the air is astounding and probably accounts for why there is less CO2 in the air as it leaves the USA on the East coast than is present when it enters on the West coast. (i.e. the USA is a net CO2 SINK, not source. Our net contribution to global CO2 is negative. Forget who did the study, but the warmers were taken aback by it; having expected an increase from our evil fuel use…)
    Oh, and fish excrete carbonate pellets in the fish poo at a (newly discovered) very high rate. In:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
    I mention this in more depth, my comments in bold:
    UPDATE: per “fish rocks”. Seems that fin fish poo out carbonate rocks. Who knew? Seems we’re still learning things, large things, about the CO2 cycle…
    So, speaking about “what we don’t know about the CO2 in the ocean” there is also this:
    http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/37370
    from January of 2009. A quote or two:

    Fish ‘gut-rocks’ solve ocean puzzle
    For decades marine scientists have been perplexed by the increase in alkalinity with depth in the top 1000 m of the ocean surface when chemistry suggests this should only take place lower down. But now, a team from the UK, US and Canada reckons excretion of a highly soluble form of carbonate from fish intestines could go some way to solving the mystery.
    “Our most conservative estimates suggest three to 15% of the oceans’ carbonates come from fish, but this range could be up to three times higher,” said Rod Wilson of the University of Exeter, UK.
    Notice the large ranges? 3% to 15% but maybe 3 x that…
    Now what was that you were saying about “it had to come from people” based on some hypothetical ocean CO2 accounting? We haven’t a clue…

    “We also know that fish carbonates differ considerably from those produced by plankton,” said Wilson. “Together these findings may help answer a long-standing puzzle facing marine chemists, but they also reveal limitations to our current understanding of the marine carbon cycle.”
    The carbonate the fish excrete is high in magnesium and more soluble than the forms of carbonate produced by plankton. As a result it can dissolve at higher levels of the ocean.
    Together with colleagues from the University of Miami, University of Ottawa in Canada, University of British Columbia, Canada, and the University of East Anglia, UK, Wilson estimated the total biomass of bony fish in the world’s oceans as between 812 million and 2050 million tonnes, leading to a total carbonate production of around 110 million tonnes.
    Again with the 812 to 2050 … kind of a wide range, eh what? Yet we end up with a single nice 110 million tonnes answer… at least it has an ‘around’…
    Now here’s a little thought for you:
    We’ve reach “Peak Fish” some decade or two ago. (As of now some 30% of all fish eaten is aquacultured so nobody cared much about the Peak Fish crisis… The same kind of thing will happen for Peak Oil.) We are harvesting ocean fish at the fastest rate we can ever harvest them from the ocean. Do you think that maybe hauling billions of pounds of fish out of the ocean might reduce the quantity of carbonate pellets the fish in the ocean can excrete?

    So yes, you are right, leaving the biosphere out of the climate models is a giant gaping hole in AGW theory. The ocean deposits of carbonate eventually get subducted and cooked out in magma (thus the CO2 from volcanos). That the volcanic cycle is not understood is another gaping hole. We don’t really know why the volcanic source changes (though it seems to correlate inversely with sunspot cycles) and we don’t know where all the CO2 goes in the biosphere. But the science is settled… When vulcanism stops, plants and fish suck out all the CO2 and the world dies. Pray for continued vulcanism…
    And for anyone wondering, yes, somewhere in a corner of my family tree there are short vikings via the central viking band of England… Mum raised me with the Norse legends and stories of viking ancestors.

  75. Please read. These are the enemy of all freedom loving people.
    http://green-agenda.com/index.html
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Have a happy 4th.

  76. Lucy Skywalker,
    Richard Hoaxland is a con artist. He has lied about Mars, NASA, the Moon. He lies because he is a sociopathetic creep who enjoys lying.
    He has not one shred of proof that the Moon landing were faked, or that NASA is a nazi front organization, or that there are monuments on Mars, or of any other lies he happens to be selling this year.

  77. I’m just a nice little, harmless, gentle old lady. I hate killing flies.
    Watched that video several times.
    I only regret that the camera angle didn’t convey the full impact.

  78. Since I was a Child, I always wanted to go into space.I dreamed of being an Astronaut.
    Buzz Aldrin,Pete Conrad,Gordon Cooper-whom I met- and all the others were my Heroes-still are.I had a bad accident that kept me out of the military-though I tried.
    Some of the medical technology came directly from the Space Program-was used on me.I was sufficiently healed to get my commercial pilot’s license.To say there is no benefit.No reason to “Boldy go.” Is to deny our destiny.The very computers on which we criticize our civilization-came from the Space Program.Our everyday lives have been greatly improved by the research done.
    We can hole up on this rock or we can look out.We flush trillions down the social toilet without any real benefit.I say let’s “Light this candle!” a go forth.Fine if you want to study your navel and worry about the radiation level in your Prius, ok, but I for one would ride the next rocket out of here if I could.I am not the only one..
    “Per Ardua ad Astra”

  79. Ted, re. the green agenda, I’m sure that global warming theory never really made much sense and it has always been about an agenda for some sort of world change. But what is their actual plan? What is the new economic system they want to put into place? Can anyone elucidate on this please?

  80. And a couple more quotes from ” The Green Agenda”.
    It doesn’t matter what is true,
    it only matters what people believe is true.”
    – Paul Watson,
    co-founder of Greenpeace
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    – Sir John Houghton,
    first chairman of IPCC
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    How does one counter this kind of belief?

  81. Stefan (13:09:37) : Their goal is quite simply total control over people’s lives so as to control their use of resources “for our own good”. I don’t think that is quite the same as socialism-although no doubt some of them think it offers an excellent opportunity to redistribute wealth-but more central planning (which is something that it and totalitarian socialism have in common) by a scientific elite. There need not be anything sinister in their motives really. I think that many of them legitimately believe that the world would be better with them in charge of everything. Heck, for those that like such a thing, the suggestion wouldn’t even be offensive-although they act offended outwardly. Personally I think they are dangerously wrong when it comes to these things, but whatever. There economic system would probably have the outward appearance of a market system, but the market’s certainly wouldn’t be free, just as they weren’t it Italy or Germany when they had their own experiences with totalitarianism (I am NOT saying the greens are Nazis-only that they all believe in government control for the sake of some greater cause-whether the environment, nationalism, or extermination of the “unfit”). The “markets” will progress from being taxed, to regulated, to subsidized, and finally nationalized. At that point, when the government is in an industry, the competition doesn’t stand a chance if the government wants to dominate the industry (and in most cases-why not? It’s profitable). Individual’s lives will be managed-I believe Nancy Pelosi said we need our whole lives “inventoried” to track our carbon footprints-and freedom is thus dead. All this is done with the approval of their own consciences, which CS Lewis warned could happen and would be particularly dangerous. Now, I want to be clear-these aren’t necessarily the initial aims of any of the greens (I certainly think that at least some of these things are the end goals of some “greens”) but I do think these will be the end results, even though, especially at the bottom, most “greens” probably don’t want much of this.
    J Edgar Hoover’s “Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It” is kinda paranoid and extreme but it does have one useful bit where it outlines how a hodge podge of people could come to follow or aid the communist cause while totally ignorant of the entire nature of the system. One might similarly argue that all movements tend to have a similar structure:
    1. Card-carrying members
    2. Underground members
    3. Sympathizers
    4. Fellow Travelers
    5. Dupes, or what I believe Marx himself called “useful idiots”-I don’t want to sound mean, but I think most greens fall into this final category…

  82. Stefan, please read the rest of “The Green Agenda”.
    http://green-agenda.com/index.html
    I think that will answer your question.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
    which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    – David Brower,
    founder of Friends of the Earth
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
    saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
    an ecologically sound society under socialism.
    I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    – Judi Bari,
    principal organiser of Earth First!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  83. Anthony-I know my attempt to elucidate for Stefan may have been a little to politically insensitive but I really did try to be as inoffensive as I could be in explaining it. If it still came across as inappropriate, I apologize.
    Of course, maybe I got sent straight to spam, so maybe you could look and let me know? Thanks.

  84. When Buzz was interviewed on BBC TV this week, they certainly didn’t ask him for his views on AGW. However the same feature, dealing with the need to involve private companies in space exploration, did produce a rather interesting comment from the president of Virgin Galactica.
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=201

  85. Smokey (06:42:05) :
    You are welcome. I found that little surprise when doing a web search of Buzz Aldrin. Hip Hop just “isn’t my thing” (generational/cultural separation), but Snoop Dog did score positive points with me with his work with Buzz on that. Everyone, also be sure to visit http://buzzaldrin.com/
    Don’t forget fellow bloggers that the Eagle landed with less than 25 seconds of descent fuel remaining.
    From a NASA web document is this quote:
    Fjeld – “An engine cut-out at any height above 10 feet would have produced a touchdown harder than the landing gear was designed to withstand.”
    I suspect that for anyone to challenge the “reality” of that experience would be just about the worst thing a person could say to another person. I’d bet that “reality was never so real” that day on the Moon, 20 July 1969.

  86. Kath (20:36:19) :
    I watched the moon landing on TV that day. It was a memorable event.

    I pulled into Tucson that day just in time to turn on the tv and see it. International Paper kept replaying a commercial with Ali McGraw walking out of the surf in a paper bikini. Also a memorable event.
    .
    Smokey (06:42:05) :
    . . . astronauts tended to be ±5’8″. . . . Mr Bart, being a foot taller than Aldrin, probably figured he could get away with calling him a ‘liar,’ etc.. . .

    Men don’t come much bigger than giants like Col. Buzz.

  87. One of the big problems with “global warming” is the name that was coined for it. People have a hard time wrapping their minds around global warming when 26 states experienced sub-normal Spring and early Summer temperatures.
    What we need is a PR firm to change the image the media portrays of this phenomena. With a different set of descriptors it may be possible for people to grasp the idea that what matters here is that the extremes — whatever their source, natural, manmade or “all of the above” — are becoming the new norms. That’s what makes this frightening. Much of the African subcontinent has been dwindling away for decades for lack of rain. Excessive drought plagues much of the Western US to the point where water rationing is inevitable, with the golf courses and suburban sprawl winning out to the farmers in the Central Valley of California, a nationwide, if not worldwide “breadbasket” agricultural region. In other cases, the opposite problem prevails: Excessive rains, unseasonable temperatures throwing crop yields off kilter even as vector-borne illnesses manifest in places formerly unplagued by malaria, among other leading killers worldwide. The outcome of this phenomena we’re spending too much time arguing about and not enough time tackling head-on is that food production seems less likely to be a “given” — the yo-yo effect of famine to plenty — whereas water wars seem inevitable in the decades to come when one considers that even the best of systems will be taxed purely by virtue of the world population explosion. Erratic climate change is the last thing we need.
    The nail in the coffin was to characterize this complex process as little more than “global warming”. At this rate, the vast majority of people will never “get it”. When you’re talking to half of the people in the US and Canada who loathe their frigid winters, all that comes to mind is blissful dreams of a California or Florida-like climate year around. What doesn’t come to mind is the idea that hurricanes, tornados and monsoons are becoming more destructive. Already talk that these “100-year floods” are arriving every 10 years or so instead. Global warming is not stacking up to be a winter shut-in’s sunny daydream but climate on the war path. We can spend all our time disagreeing over the particulars, or we can do what little we can about the portion of influence we do control. Whatever else might be to blame — even justifiably so — the only part of this climatic “recipe” we can control is our own behavior. And while I see too many problems with cap & trade to count — and, in fact, fear that it will not achieve its stated goals as much as it will line the pockets of select industry captains — the bottom line is that we must put our collective brainpower and technology together in pursuit of a solution. Arguments, by contrast, are time wasters, and time we do not have on our side if we want to say to our kids and grandchildren that we honestly did our best to curtail whatever percentage humanity has contributed to this chaos.
    To Buzz and all the other climate change doubters: Acknowledging the illogic that 6 billion people amount to zero impact ought to be enough to get folks off the fence. To buy into a politically-motivated notion that defies scientific consensus is statistically, mathematically speaking, nonsense. There are far too many aspiring consumers joining the developing world each and every day — more than half the world’s population in China and India alone — to entertain the notion that we can simply dismiss our own presence in this picture.
    To describe this as “global warming” romanticizes the situation to many a cold-climate resident and media pundit, whereas to call it “climate change” is a dangerously vanilla euphemism. “Climate Chaos” is the only phraseology, IMHO, that makes the point effectively. Therein lies our starting point when it comes to solution building: Semantics that are specific and sufficiently evocative to matter to the average Joe or Jane.

  88. Jessie,
    Don’t quit. I’m doing the same thing. I know what you mean. Democrats are getting more and more arrogant as they grow in power. They serve at their pleasure, not ours.

  89. re: Stefan – “But what is their actual plan?”
    Hi Stefan,
    I’m the author of the Green Agenda website. I’ve been struggling to answer that particular question for several years now. It is clear to many people that AGW, whether true or just part of a natural cycle, is being used to push various other agendas. This became absolutely clear to me while working for various environmental organizations. So I started to intensively research the most alarmist and influential leaders of the AGW movement. I was absolutely amazed to discover that they were all very closely associated with an organization called ‘the Club of Rome.’
    I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But, in the end, I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities – either the CoR wrote all these reports and setup a vast network of supporting organizations just for fun *or* they actually believe what they have written and are working hard to implement their agenda.
    In 1991 the CoR released a lengthy report called The First Global Revolution in which they state:
    “It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – you can go to Google Books and read it for yourself on page 75.
    So, who belongs to this Cub of Rome and its two sub-groups (the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid)? – Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller, Kofi Annan, Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Maurice Strong, Javier Solana, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Tony Blair, George Soros, Bill Gates, Stephen Schneider, Garret Hardin, Deepak Chopra, Desmond Tutu – to name just a few.
    Freaky stuff!! If you go to the Club of Rome website right now the first item in their ‘current news’ section refers to a briefing delivered by the CoR to G8 officials in preparation for the upcoming G8 meeting. The second item is a summary report from the Club of Rome’s ‘strategy planning retreat’ with 150 senior UNESCO officials. The joint CoR/UNESCO communiqué states:
    “We are at the end of an era – a turning point in history. We are approaching the threshold of runaway climate change. We underline the urgency of radical action to reduce emissions, by both immediate action and longer-term measures; to stress to political leaders the non-linear nature of the processes at work which will generate sudden change; and to assert that the overriding priority must be to avert the impending risk of catastrophic climate change.”
    The basic worldview of the CoR is that modern industrial society is destroying the earth and (to use their words) “our only hope is to transform humanity into an interdependent global sustainable community, based on reverence and respect for the Earth.” If you wish to read some of the CoR reports I discuss some of them here – http://www.green-agenda.com/turningpoint.html

  90. socialcritic (16:20:31) :
    “Acknowledging the illogic that 6 billion people amount to zero impact ought to be enough to get folks off the fence. To buy into a politically-motivated notion that defies scientific consensus is statistically, mathematically speaking, nonsense.”
    How many birds are there? How many fish? How many insects? In the interest of space I’ll stop there 😉 Do all of these creatures have zero impact? No, however, the beauty of nature is it’s ability of to host so many competing species without any significant problems. Sometimes one species even helps out another. For example, man’s generation of CO2 into the atmosphere is surely appreciate by many, many plants.
    BTW, as a mathematician I will inform you that your entire post was completely illogical. Logic follows cause/effect and just quoting some meaningless statistics is not some magical proof. That’s why the folks here are so interested in the actual data. Yes, the data that shows catastrophic AGW is not supported by the empirical evidence.
    I know these words are probably wasted, but if you actually took the time to read and understand the data you might come to a completely different position.
    PS. There is NO consensus. There is a raging debate … if you only took the time to look.

  91. Saying that we are responsible for Global Warming is like saying that the cavemen who lived in the ice age are responsible for ending it by building campfires to heat their abode and to cook their meat.
    If you need further proof that manmade global warming is a hoax..just Google
    the word “Volcano”. You will find some awsome video of mother nature at her most extreme. Three of these volcanoes going off at the same time (not necessarily in the same place) puts more crap into our atmosphere in 24hrs than we have since the start of the industrial revolution. “nuff said….

  92. “Your comment brought to mind an old quote; ‘The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.'”
    I agree 100%. Evil people always pretend to themselves and others that they are doing good.
    I’m not a religious man, but the the Ten Commandments clearly say “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” I would respectfully suggest that the likes of Gavin Schmidt are engaging in the modern equivalent of idol worship.
    My opinion only.

  93. I think Ol’ Buzz is actually being very intelligent when he states that climate is always changing. I fear that the current global cooling will either be short lived or of too small a magnitude. By focusing on cooling as refutation of the AGW prediction, we leave ourselves open to failure. If temperatures should rise again, the Warmers will claim victory. What I and many others believe is that the climate will get cooler, and warmer, but that anthropogenic forces are minimal in this changing climate. Neither warming nor cooling proves or disproves their hypothesis, this is the whole problem.

  94. Paying attention to our environment and conserving natural resources is obviously a responsibility we need not take lightly. I think everyone can agree to that.
    The arrogant assumption though that our generation and our recent past generations have done irrepairable harm is not based solely on fact but on alarmist science.
    Many people at the forefront of this alarmist movement have agendas (namely monetary gains to make) and these personal agendas should be weighed and scrutinized before jumping on board with the so-called global warming alarmists.

  95. As an additional comment, if anyone believes in the Apocalyse then why bother with worrying about something out of our control anyways. Of course that is to say that Sir Issac Newton (who was a pretty smart guy by the way) predicted the end of the earth in 2060. So really, does it really matter ?

  96. Ted Annonson (13:35:25) :
    And a couple more quotes from ” The Green Agenda”.
    How does one counter this kind of belief?

    A one week nationwide complete electrical power outage would do wonders to focus our attention on how much we depend on it.
    Maybe the sun will furnish us with a well aimed CME [is that the correct acronym?].
    Not that I really wish the above but it would be so nice to have SOMETHING to shut up these modern(?) day Cassandras and shut down the cap ‘n trade farce.

  97. There it is again. Someone claiming we are in a cooling trend. Please direct me to the source of this belief? I thought that 2008 was the 10th warmest year ever recorded in modern times?
    Pete
    REPLY: Warm by the surface record, which we believe to be corrupted with measurement biases. Look at the satellite record, such as the recently published one here from UAH.
    For the surface record, look at GISS here
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/giss-temp-smoothing-radius-comparison.html
    Then look at UAH here and compare.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
    -Anthony

  98. Thıs always makes me sad – more sad than the AGW nonsense.
    In the late ’60s we could fly to the Moon, fly the Atlantıc ın 3 hours, and buıld a varıety of nuclear power statıons.
    Now we can barely lob ınto low-Earth orbıt, the Atlantıc takes 6 hours and nuclear power has been offıcıally sanctıoned as a sın.
    In 30 years tıme, we wıll be usıng hot aır ballons, saılıng the Atlantıc ın four weeks and burnıng wood.
    Bye bye humanıty….
    (sorry about the ‘ı’s)
    .

  99. Regards the Moon landıng denıers (Hogland et al), I do have some sympathy here, for there are some glarıng ınconsıstancıes ın the photographıc record.
    I lıke the vıdeo ıtem where Hassenblad engıneer who made the Moon cameras says (wıth Swedısh accent) somethıng to the effect of ‘those pıctures dıd not come from my camera’.
    The Moon landıngs dıd happen, of course, but what ıf most of the pıctures taken were absolute duds? (they could not aım or adjust the pıctures easıly.)
    NASA ran (and runs) on publıc opınıon. How could ıt sell thıs vast expendıture to the publıc wıth dud photos? It ıs not beyond the realms of possıbılıty that a few of the famous shots that we are all famılıar wıth were mocked up ın a hangar somewhere ın Nevada. I whıte lıe to sell the project.
    Hence the conspıracy.

  100. >>>they were all very closely associated with an organization
    >>>called ‘the Club of Rome.
    Agreed, plus the Bılderburgers and Fabıans et al.
    There has been a movement towards a One World Government for some tıme now, partly ın response to the last two world wars. Hence we need global problems for a global government to solve. Thus we have global warmıng, global fınance, global fınancıal crash, global pandemıc (where?), global sea level rıse, global terrorısm – and just last week the IMF set up a global bank (by ıssuıng IMF bonds) etc: etc:
    But ıt wıll be ınterestıng to see what thıs global government does when faced wıth no global warmıng. They wıll probably say they have done such a wonderful job ın combatıng AGW, that we must now tackle AGC (Global Coolıng).
    The new IMF world-bank may also be a problem for the USA. If all those petro- and reserve-currency dollars fly back to the USA, the dollar wıll crash (the same problem that Brıtaın had post WWII).
    .

  101. Pete W:
    “Call me selfish then, because I am concerned about the ability of my great grandchildren to be able to live a life as rich as the one I have had.”
    You don’t even know what any conditions will be like for your great grandchildren, if any. Oh the subtlety of the “jam tomorrow” merchants, while filling their own pockets (not with jam, I presume). Yet another old story in new terminology.
    Your statement contains an oxymoron: being concerned about your great grandchildren vs. selfishness.

    We suffer from a lot of silly people, who often think they are very clever, who tell us there is no reality; we make our own reality.
    Dr. Buzz would be the ideal teacher. Smack them on the nose, and while they are mopping up the mess, tell them to create a reality where it never happened.

  102. What on earth (or the moon for that matter) would Dr Aldrin know about it he is not a climate modeller…….the models say that it is warming, …Ipso Facto. Way to go Buzz.

  103. @theshank (20:25:42) :
    “paying attention to our environment and conserving natural resources is obviously a responsibility we need not take lightly. I think everyone can agree to that.”
    Well, I for one do NOT agree. Man does best when the environment is altered to suit our needs – build roads, bridges, dams with hydroelectric plants, ports, cities, railroads, tunnels, airports; and houses, commercial buildings, hospitals, schools, factories, power plants, chemical plants and refineries. Also, cut down forests to create farmland for crops for food to eat. Who wants to live in caves, or in the open air on the ground, or in trees, and as hunter/gatherers?
    Conserving natural resources is NOT how man’s standard of living increased from stone-age standards to modern western civilization standards. Instead, life improves and standard of living improves as natural resources are consumed. No natural resource has ever left the planet – except for isolated pounds of spacecraft. Other than those spacecraft, not one atom of iron, or copper, or any other natural resource has disappeared.
    All of the natural resources, and that is an absolute ALL, is still on the earth, available to anyone with the smarts and ingenuity and cheap energy to form it to his/her needs.
    I write about this entire matter here:
    http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/intro-environmental-science-versus.html

  104. Re: Pete W (09:41:17) :
    “I am concerned about the ability of my great grandchildren to be able to live a life as rich as the one I have had.”
    Your great grandchildrens lives will be determined by them. Parents who think they are in control of their children’s destiny are completely delusional. Psychologically they are BAD parents. Try concentrating on obtaining the best life possible for yourself and you will find the benefits spill over into the next generation.

  105. socialcritic.
    The climate always changes. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that todays climate extremes are any different to those experienced in the past. What is different is that there are many more people seeking to use water (hence droughts) or find land to farm-some of which will be unsuitable or it is likely it will have been cultivated before.
    If you would like to cite any climate changes definitely caused by our co2 activity or other than on a very localised scale I will be glad to read your material.
    Tonyb

  106. Conspiracy theories do not publish books, but ideologies do. Consider Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Overload the system and when it crashes claim it was a “bad” system. Then pick up the pieces and construct your “ideal” vision in its place. It’s happening right now. AGW, the U.S. health care “crisis”, Wall street, housing, et al. It’s so simple, it’s brilliant. ACORN/COI knows this. It’s time the rest of us did too.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
    There is nothing wrong with CO2 and there is nothing wrong with Laissez-faire Capitalism. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  107. socialcritic:
    Too bad for you and your kind that “climate chaos” is not, actually, happening.
    It’s nice to believe in something, and it really sucks when you realize that what you believed in was purely fabricated. When I was younger it was all about “Apartheid”, allegedly the worst, most horrifying human rights issue of all time. Sure.
    I don’t notice anyone giving concerts or screaming for “awareness” of the fallout from dismantling Apartheid. Does anyone even know how horrifying the situation in S.A. has become? Does anyone even care? It was NEVER about actually fixing the world, it was about failing and waning musicians increasing their “relevance” and making one more last grasp at the easy money (usually so it could go up their collective noses… and I speak from first hand experience).
    No, your “climate chaos” is not happening. Sorry for that. It would be nice for you and your generation if it was, because then you could continue believing that reusing shopping bags and rinsing milk cartons to recycle them (wasting a bunch more water) was “saving the planet”. But it’s not. Eventually people will realize this, and either put it behind them (like mullets, Pet Shop Boys and leg warmers) or look like total idiots.

  108. “Darell C. Phillips (13:24:45) :
    Conspiracy theories do not publish books, but ideologies do. Consider Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Overload the system and when it crashes claim it was a “bad” system. Then pick up the pieces and construct your “ideal” vision in its place. It’s happening right now. AGW, the U.S. health care “crisis”, Wall street, housing, et al. It’s so simple, it’s brilliant. ACORN/COI knows this. It’s time the rest of us did too.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
    There is nothing wrong with CO2 and there is nothing wrong with Laissez-faire Capitalism. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
    Nothing wrong with Laissez-faire Capitalism, are you sure about that? I mean, it was the cause of the great stock market crash in 1929 and the resultant depression that followed after all.

  109. They should give Aldrin a medal for that right cross, practically lifted the guy off his feet!

  110. G. Karst (08:38:13) :
    You said:
    “Parents who think they are in control of their children’s destiny are completely delusional. Psychologically they are BAD parents.”
    Another straw-man attack. Who has said they believe they can 100% control what is going on? Most of the rational people I talk with speak of making a difference. Its very easy to “win” an argument when you make up a fictitious claim by your opponent.
    Pete

  111. j.pickens (19:48:29) :
    That is correct. Movement of temperature is not proof of the posited idea that CO2 is the root driver of climate. In fact, the burden to prove that it is is on them. Temperature is not static, so it is up to them to provide a real, definitive proof to the hundreds of ‘faster than expected’ events that are occurring ‘faster than expected’ while the UAH anomaly remains at 0.001C, faster than they expected I am sure.

  112. Patrick Davis (18:19:05) :
    As with AGW and whether we went to the moon (hey guys, how did those laser retroreflectors get there?), it seems no subject can be settled without someone having a different view on the matter.
    Even when concerning the history of the crash of 1929 and after, as cited here: http://iws.ccccd.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html ,
    different scholars have different views of the depression and the New Deal, based on ideology-
    Conservative historians place a high value on the ideal of laissez-faire. Thus, the Depression was simply a painful but necessary market correction which would have corrected itself if left alone. To conservatives, small government means maximum freedom; and, the New Deal means the beginnings of an irresponsible and/or over-regulatory welfare state.
    For liberal historians the Depression represents the failure of laissez-faire, but not capitalism itself. Liberals value capitalism and democracy, asserting that democratic governments must be responsive to the social needs of the people. For many liberals the New Deal represents another American Revolution leading to the empowerment of previously powerless and oppressed groups and laying the foundation for a humane welfare state.
    To leftists the Depression represents the failure of market capitalism to protect the interests of the majority. The New Deal was simply laissez-faire capitalism’s replacement with corporate statism (a more systematic partnership between corporations and the government). Rather than empowering the masses, for leftist scholars the New Deal represents capitalism’s resilience and continued power.

    voilà! vive la différence!
    And as long as I am copy-pasting french words here, I’d like to say to Buzz touché. 8^)

  113. “Darell C. Phillips (22:45:57) :
    voilà! vive la différence!
    And as long as I am copy-pasting french words here, I’d like to say to Buzz touché. 8^)”
    Sorry, OT but I want o reply.
    The market wasn’t correcting itself, that was the problem and the President at the time was “reluctant” to address the issue (Before too much damage was done – He lost the next election).
    You cannot borrow money to “speculate” to make money when there isn’t any money in reserve. Hence Hoover came to power promising to “fix it” (The finacial system) setting up regulators (Fannie Mae etc SP?). Regan “deregulated”, along with Clinton, because the regulations were viewed as “dated”. We had a financial “bubble” where people were borrowing more than their assests were worth, it bursts, people panic (Heard mentality) and you have a crash. Even Winston Churchill lost a fortune in the 1930’s. Then some “popular polilitician” promises to “fix it”. Sounding familiar so far?
    We have the Dutch to thank for “stocks” as it was The East India Company (The first company to be formed) that relased “share certificates”, which was the source of the term “I want a piece of the action”. Then comes along a Scotsman, who uses these stocks to setup the worlds first “stock market”, realising the potential power of, what is in effect, a ponzi scheme, sells more and more stocks. More and more companies list, more and more stocks are sold mostly because “investors” didn’t understand the system, because the people who do are “inside” the system know the system because they set it up (Insider trading). People can’t believe it, their are “rich” (On paper at least). Then it crashes. He escapes to France, sets up another “stock market” under the reign of Loius the 14th (Does Louisiana ring any bells for you?) and we all know what happned after that don’t we?
    It seems we have short memories (Along with society overall being dummed down) and are unwilling to learn from our past and we are set to continue down the devastating path of cap and trade or ETS systems (Ponzi schemes).

  114. My mistake. I always thought laissez-faire was the French title of John Lennon’s “Let It Be.” 8^)
    There is no perfect system as long as mankind is a part of it. I’m just tired of seeing our Constitution trampled, Patrick. I do indeed see a repeat pattern of history as you mentioned. To get this back on topic, Buzz said (according to the Telegraph)“If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.”
    If I read that correctly, Buzz does not think it is wise for us to throw money (that we do not have) at a problem (that may not exist). I hope we have agreement there.

  115. David Ball (00:10:02) :

    To get into a vehicle that you know is about to attempt to take you to the moon!!

    Keep in mind, the vehicle you ride to the moon is made of millions of carefully integrated mechanical, electrical, and chemical parts; each manufactured by the low bidder.

  116. Stefan (06:23:35) :

    As Exxon has shown, scientists can be corrupted, so we must never listen to any scientists that is receiving any funding.

    Benjamin Franklin.

  117. Stefan (09:15:20) :

    I’m sure they believe they are doing good… there’s been a whole cultural movement since the 60s that wants more cooperation, more egalitarianism, more sensitive caring and community, is anti-technology and wants more soft feeling and care.

    more drugs, more ruined, empty personal lives, more failed communal lifestyles…

    But that movement is not the last word in the progress of wisdom. Researchers are finding that the latest generation is already starting to see the problems caused by the 60s culture, and are reacting against it, just like the 60s culture was reacting against the problems of the existing world, the problems of corporations, chemical pollution, nuclear war, institutionalized racism, and so on.

    I believe extreme environmentalism (putting nature ahead of human needs) reached its peak in 2008. AGW is environmentalism’s Vietnam.
    When the hippies sitting in fields in the 60s became the institutional leaders, politicians, and heads of academic and scientific organizations in the 90s, that generation and its worldview had already reached its peak, and was already on the way out.

  118. E.M.Smith (11:59:29) :

    Oh, and fish excrete carbonate pellets in the fish poo at a (newly discovered) very high rate. In:

    Does this mean I can claim to be saving the planet by releasing the fish I catch?

  119. socialcritic (16:20:31) :

    Excessive drought plagues much of the Western US to the point where water rationing is inevitable, with the golf courses and suburban sprawl winning out to the farmers in the Central Valley of California, a nationwide, if not worldwide “breadbasket” agricultural region.

    socialcritic,
    Your posting is loaded with factual errors. I will address only one of them, the quote about ‘Excessive drought plagues much of the Western US’.
    Here is Denver, we depend on spring runoff for our water supply. A few years ago, we did, in fact, have a serious drought. This was caused by a few years of below normal precipitation in conjunction with a large population influx.
    During this drought, we even had a spate of forest fires, including the Hayman fire, started by a forest service employee, who claimed to be burning a letter from an ex-lover or husband or whatever. Some irony in that.
    Anyway, the Denver Water Board started asking people to please cut back on the watering. Not just for those dry years, but to make long term commitments in cutting back by xeriscaping, smaller lawns, etc.
    It worked. Water demand dropped rapidly.
    It worked so well, Denver Water Board had to increase our water rates to stay solvent.
    Now, this year, we are way ahead of normal in precipitation. So much so, the Denver Water Board is complaining about not selling enough water. The Colorado River is running at twice the normal rate for this time of year.
    See http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?09085100
    Yet, our local climatologists keep claiming we are in a drought.
    Why?
    If there is no problem with the local climate, there is no need for a local climatologist.
    Now there are still people out here who want to build another dam, this time up on the Poudre River. These are the same bunch that wanted more water for development. There are also some farmers who want to keep their operations going, who weren’t clever enough to obtain the senior water rights others already had.
    I think, and this is just my opinion, we have enough people in Colorado. If more want to come, they’ll have to get along on less water. It might mean some people will have to change lifestyles and careers. Perhaps the market is telling dry land farmers they will have to go somewhere else to grow food.
    Free markets, free choices. How can it get any better?
    If there’s not enough water going downstream to Arizona and California, I guess they’ll have to get it somewhere else, or do without swimming pools and golf courses or growing food. Their choice.
    The West has always been on the dry side. Always will. When you have too many people, there is going to be a ‘drought’, even though there was never a drought before.
    The ‘drought’ is caused by too many people living a life style that cannot be supported in a dry part of the world; not by global warming as your post suggests.

  120. CodeTech (13:55:02) : Does anyone even know how horrifying the situation in S.A. has become?
    GA (16:55:34) : The basic worldview of the CoR is that modern industrial society is destroying the earth and (to use their words) “our only hope is to transform humanity into an interdependent global sustainable community, based on reverence and respect for the Earth.”
    Thanks GA, I’ll start to read more about this stuff. I’d come across The State of the World Forum which is a more recent thing, and involves similar names coming from various places from politics to spirituality. You can see on the State of the World’s website that they are calling on Obama to use AGW as the issue for America to unite the world.
    Jim Garrison is the Chairman of the forum, and I heard an interview he did with a famous american philosopher, Ken Wilber. Now Wilber has produced perhaps the most comprehensive map of the world’s philosophies, psychologies, cultures, and worldviews. It necessarily includes maps of ecology as well as maps of spiritual traditions. You sorta have to read this stuff, as the breadth and depth of the subject matter, whilst still saying something useful and insightful, is hard to believe. Anyway, the point of this is that Wilber is well versed in how to talk to those who have a worldview that we need to unite globally, and perhaps even spiritually. His magnus opus “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality”, begins with a framework that points out the ways in which holistic systems theorists in ecology, are not nearly as holistic as they at first appear.
    Anyway, so Ken and Jim are having a chat, and Jim is all like, we have all these problems in the world and we need someone to lead forward and really make history and lead us to major changes. Ken doesn’t disagree with this, but quite diplomatically, he reminds Jim that whilst it is true that individuals can and do make history, progress, if it is genuinely new progress, is unforeseeable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. I mean, if the innovation was easily foreseen, it wouldn’t be new, it would just be more of the same. So whilst it is true that the world has in the past gone through some major and dramatic shifts and developments, these happen chaotically and can just as easily lead to breakdown as they do breakthrough.
    CodeTech, S.A. is a prime example, where they destroyed a system that had some really fundamentally evil components, but nobody knew how to put the system back together again. I entirely agree. One of the many models from psychology that Wilber has referred to, is a model called Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Chris Cowan. You can go back to the beginning of the Iraq war, and find interviews with Don Beck where he talks about the plan to bring democracy to Iraq. From the point of view of Beck and Cowan’s model, Iraq was very obviously a mostly feudal society, which made it unsuitable for democracy. The reason is, for elections to work, everyone has to accept the winner, but in a feudal society, a tribe only accepts its own tribe as a winner. Blood ties are humanity’s oldest form of social organisation, and many parts of the world still work like that. It was entirely predictable that Iraq wasn’t going to turn into a well run democracy, if like Beck you’d spent years studying how individuals and cultures develop their complex values and social systems.
    Long before Iraq, Don Beck did a lot of work in S.A., trying to smooth out the transition to post-apartheid, and his analysis of the situation was that the whites were basically operating with one social structure, and the blacks were operating at another, and there wasn’t a system in between linking the two systems and providing a way for those in one culture to move into the other culture. Bridges were needed to be built for a couple of generations, but instead the system was torn down and not even law and order survived. (Bear in mind this is my take on their work).
    I’m sure many can agree that the world faces problems. But my feeling about complex systems is, DON’T MESS WITH THEM.
    Incidentally, in my own mind, looking at Beck and Cowan’s model, there is indeed a structure of culture that they identified that is indeed truly global and united, however, that structure is not one that anything more than 0.5% of the people can activate in their own personal psychology. I mean, their research shows that there just aren’t enough people in the world able to live that way. In other words, a united humanity is still way off in our future, and not something we can impose anytime soon. See S.A. and Iraq for what happens when we try to impose something for which the system isn’t ready.

  121. Jack Simmons (03:00:41) :
    E.M.Smith (11:59:29) :
    Oh, and fish excrete carbonate pellets in the fish poo at a (newly discovered) very high rate. In:
    Does this mean I can claim to be saving the planet by releasing the fish I catch?

    Well i guess you are on to something since industrial fishing really took off after WWII and the levels at wich we are dredging the sea empty are at this moment the highest ever.

  122. Jack Simmons (03:44:36) :
    There are also some farmers who want to keep their operations going, who weren’t clever enough to obtain the senior water rights others already had.

    Now this is either a bit disingenious or naive, Jack. My mother-in-law irrigates her land from the Republican river with the most senior (1889) water rights in the State of Nebraska. On the Colorado side, (the water is obtained just below Wray, Co.) the State of Colorado purchased about 2000 acre/rights for $20,000,000 ($10,000/acre) to fulfill their part of the Tri-state compact (Kansas sued CO and NEB for taking too much water). Don’t tell me it would have been clever to purchase some. She will sell her’s when the price is right. However, NEB doesn’t have the population or money to pay the big $$$$.

  123. “Darell C. Phillips (01:14:35) :”
    I agree with you however, as the finacial crash of 1929 (And to use a line from the “Austin Powers” movies by Michael Cane…”I hate anyone intollerant of other people’s cultures, and the Dutch!” I bundle the Scots and French in there too, and I have Scottish ancestry) fully illustrates *most* people, or rather sheeple, *are* stupid. And politicians fully make that work for them.
    I see New Zealand (As NZ was the first country to “allow” women the vote) to be the “shining light” in the AGW “debate” (That Al Gore won’t have) and lead the world down the path of sensibility since they have abandoned an ETS (Not a surprise given the nature of the industry there). But then I think, they’ve had 10 years of pinko, lefty liberal BS policies and an education system so dummed down even the PM of “Great Britain” would be proud (The “Great” Scottish g*t he is).

  124. cbrianb (21:25:42) :
    That’s an interesting article. My conclusion (and I read for a living) is that Gavin is looking for an escape route.
    Let’s hope he can keep it scientific and it doesn’t spill over to his private life. That’s a very rough road he’s on.

  125. Tim Clark (08:13:33) :
    Then your mother-in-law is the clever one I referred to. She has the senior water rights. I was referring to those individuals in Colorado who wish to gather the water of the Poudre because they do not have water rights senior enough to guarantee the success of their crops. In a wet year, such as this year, there’s probably enough water around to bring in everyone’s crop. Not so in a dry year.
    Congratulations to your mother-in-law. I wouldn’t sell the water rights either until I had the right price.
    I was familiar with the Republican River deal and was impressed with how the state had to buy the water rights to satisfy the claims. That is as it should be. If a developer wants to put more homes up somewhere here in Colorado, that person should go to the marketplace and purchase the rights.
    If the developer doesn’t have the money, or the water rights are too expensive for the project, I guess the project doesn’t go.
    Some projects have gotten started without long term sources of reliable water. Parker, Colorado is dependent on aquifers that will eventually go dry. I don’t know what they’re going to do. I do know someone there was raising objections to Shell Oil’s purchase of some water rights up on the Yampa.
    But that is the free market in operation. If someone else is willing to pay more for something than you are, you’re not going to get it.
    As they say in the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.

  126. Of course many, including my self believe that the Moon landings were a hoax.
    Now some of the ‘moon’ rocks have been proven to be fake:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/adrianmichaels/100007897/was-hollands-moon-rock-the-only-thing-that-was-faked/
    This coming just a couple months after NASA ‘lost’ the moon landing tapes.
    As far as the previously mentioned reflectors, note that the Russians also placed reflectors on the Moon, however they never claimed that they sent men to the Moon.

    REPLY
    : Hah the Telegraph blogger didn’t even cite a source. Apparently you missed this…
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31966131/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    For stubborn folks who still believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, NASA has new images — definitive proof — that clearly show the Apollo 11 lander that carried the first astronauts to the lunar surface 40 years ago.
    The images were taken by NASA’s first lunar scout in more than a decade, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. They show the Eagle lunar lander at Tranquility Base, where Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on July 20, 1969. They were snapped between July 11 and 15 of this month and released by NASA on Friday.

    Here are the images direct from NASA, enjoy your cognitive dissonance.
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

  127. “For stubborn folks who still believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, NASA has new images — definitive proof — that clearly show the Apollo 11 lander that carried the first astronauts to the lunar surface 40 years ago.”
    Photoshop
    Obviously done to distract people from the fake moon rock and the missing tapes.
    REPLY: I won’t try to argue with you since you are hopelessly entrenched in your position. But at the same time, since I think your position is based one of rationalized propaganda, and your mission is to spread it, I’m going to close this thread.
    Bottom line: We went to the moon, men walked on the moon, and left instruments there including corner reflectors which with a narrow beam laser can easily be discerned from the Russian ones. Choose to believe it or not, but I won’t have you spreading disinformation here. – Anthony

Comments are closed.