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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
One of Buzz’z best moments.
Conspiracy theories do not publish books, but ideologies do.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.
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.
“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.
They should give Aldrin a medal for that right cross, practically lifted the guy off his feet!
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
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.
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^)
“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).
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.
David Ball (00:10:02) :
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.
Stefan (06:23:35) :
Benjamin Franklin.
Stefan (09:15:20) :
more drugs, more ruined, empty personal lives, more failed communal lifestyles…
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.
E.M.Smith (11:59:29) :
Does this mean I can claim to be saving the planet by releasing the fish I catch?
socialcritic (16:20:31) :
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.
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.
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.
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 $$$$.
“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).
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.
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.
Buzz Aldrin is the man!
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/
Here are the images direct from NASA, enjoy your cognitive dissonance.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
“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