How’d ya like the news in the paper, Mr. Potter? You just can’t keep those deniers 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.
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.
I would say you had it correct the first time, as the climate IS ALWAYS changing!
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.
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.
Hahahaha … good luck finding one of those! HAHAHA
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
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.”
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?
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!
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.”
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.
.
.
.
Perhaps we all would benefit by taking the West Point Pledge:
“I will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.”
Buzz graduate at West Point.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
There is an article on Buzz in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/my-long-lonely-walk-20090704-d8fw.html
The interview is from a 1st person perspective but there’s No mention of his scepticism, but that’s the herald for you.
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?
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?
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…
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~