Walt Cunningham, on video, follows.
There are few people on Earth as carefully vetted, as rigorously trained and as highly respected as America’s Apollo astronauts. They risked their lives in advance of science on behalf of all mankind.
CFACT organized an all day global warming conference at Warsaw’s Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, together with some fantastic partners from Poland and Germany, which ran parallel to the UN’s COP 19. CFACT provided headsets for simultaneous translation for the more than 250 Poles who attended with our international delegation to the global warming summit.
Colonel Walt Cunningham was lunar module pilot on Apollo VII, the first manned Apollo flight to space. Colonel Cunningham explains why America’s space pioneers are shocked and dismayed by today’s politicization of science to serve the global warming agenda. They call for the elimination of bias from scientific inquiry and a return to the rigorous application of the scientific method.
TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:
November 25, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Simon …….. Troll much?
Every chance that he gets.
Mike Maguire says:
November 25, 2013 at 10:36 am
…My friends not only believe in this nonsense, they WANT it to be “true”…it’s the great tragedy, the “cause”, the thing that if all the mean and greedy people in the world would just go away, then it would all be ok.
>>>>>>>>
Alas Mike, I see the same thing. I had a friend from college that I tried to convince AGW was not happening. When I caught him actually trying to lie to me (our conversation was via email, so I had the proof), I gave up. If an old friend is willing to lie for his cult, then I probably can’t help him.
Dear(est) Simon;
I will take that “sad old man fumbling around” any day to your stable of plain men fumbling around. At least my “old man” has done something significant with his life. This “old man” has been to the moon and back. And knows what science actually is. What have your “men” done? And since they know little of actual science, enough said.
I’m just making the point that it is sad to see a man who once was a hero resorting to arguments that are old and tired.
Pretty much every genuine sceptic accepts the role C02 has played in the observed warming. I think you will find Anthony Watts, Chris Monckton, Judith Curry, Fred Singer (the list goes on), all acknowledge that part of the warming is due to our increasing the level of C02 in the atmosphere. They just don’t accept it is going to be a major problem for our future.
When you see clips like this that essentially deny any influence man has had on the planet you just have to scratch your head and wonder how they got past the man at the door. Genuine sceptics must cringe with embarrassment when they hear statements like “it’s just a trace gas.”
This clip will do nothing to convince any thinking person that Colonel Cunningham has anything to offer the debate on AGW. There are many informed well written articles/talks that appear on this site… but this was not one of them.
Simon says..
” resorting to arguments that are old and tired. ”
Funny, thats the exact expression I thought of when reading your comments. Nothing but personal attacks. Cunningham, by contrast, provided empirical data to support his position.
Simon:
“Pretty much every genuine sceptic accepts the role C02 has played in the observed warming. I think you will find Anthony Watts, Chris Monckton, Judith Curry, Fred Singer (the list goes on), all acknowledge that part of the warming is due to our increasing the level of C02 in the atmosphere.”
I think they have to do this to be allowed to continue their publication (and indeed their life) by the powers that be. If they dared to speak the full truth, namely that nothing that man can possibly achieve will permanently and thoroughly alter this planet, let alone destroy it, we might too soon read little more about them than their obituaries.
Ed_B
Actually, I attacked his talk…. not him personally.
@Simon – “Actually, I attacked his talk…. not him personally.”
And you are a liar: “I just see a sad old man fumbling around reciting hackneyed old sayings.”
The only sad old man reciting hackneyed old sayings is you. You cannot even get your facts straight.
Mr. Cunningham, if you read here, thank you very much for a fine talk. You carry the message well. I can call and write senators and representatives in both my state and Washington but in the end it take persons like you with some weight and history behind your name to really make a difference. Thanks again for stepping forward.
– – – – – – –
As I read the CFACT report and listened to the video of Cunningham, I wondered if, of the rational virtues that a man can practice to have intellectual integrity as a scientist, is there one virtue that all others depend on?
I keep coming back the virtue of intellectual / mental independence as the key virtue. The goal to struggle against bias has independence as a starting virtue.
Viva the independence of the intellect!
John
No criticism of Colonel Cunningham, but the introduction pushed the American hero a bit much for an international audience. The stress should have been on “hero” and “physicist”.
Sadly, it gets so much worse:
“Gov. Terry Branstad said the Environmental Protection Agency has “embarked in a war on corn” with its proposal of lowering the current Renewable Fuel Standard at an event on Friday at the Lincolnway Energy plant in Nevada.
The message of “Don’t Mess with the RFS” was made loud and clear Friday by citizens and politicians from all over Iowa at the rally, which was put together by the state and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.”
We have a Juggernaut of money and self-interest wedded to CAGW one way or another. Another example is the light bulb ban continues apace with 40 and 60 watt incandescent bulbs forbidden in Jan.
It is clever, I guess, to get the corporate self-interest and big-government self-interest and the academic self-interest on the same side. Having done that the science becomes an afterthought. So even if Al Gore isn’t exactly correct, it all worked out in the end…’cleaner’ air, less pollution, and a healthier future. There…don’t you feel better already?
http://www.newtondailynews.com/2013/11/24/state-politicians-epa-has-embarked-on-war-against-corn/auqc0ro/
” Simon says:November 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Genuine sceptics must cringe with embarrassment when they hear statements like “it’s just a trace gas.”
No I don’t cringe at all. It is a factual statement. What do you call something measured in parts per million? Nitrogen = 78%, oxygen = 21% and ALL trace gases combined = 1%
That is just plain wrong. The planet needs CO2, for without it there would be no carbon based life forms on it. Even a low level of CO2 such as 100 ppm would not be enough to sustain animal life on the planet let alone long term plant life survival. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 , most of the warming effect of CO2 has already taken place.
As discussed many times on WUWT, CO2 levels have a logarithmic effect on temperatures. What skeptics assert is that this logarithmic effect means that ADDITIONAL quantities of CO2 above pre-industrial levels will not have bad consequences. My scientific research on the subject informs me that raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 1000 ppm would be of enormous net benefit to the planet.
TRM
Look at it this way. Approx 1% of our atmosphere is greenhouse gases. That 1% raises the average temp of the earth by about 18C. C02 is a dominant GHG. Now increase the level of this gas by about 1/3.
It is not rocket science to appreciate it is going to have an affect. As I said real sceptics actually get this… They just don’t think it will have a catastrophic impact.
garymount
The statement of mine is accurate. It is not “plain wrong” as you say. All of the people I have listed acknowledge the role of C02 in the warming that has happened.
Simon says..
“I just see a sad old man fumbling around reciting hackneyed old sayings.”
Sad, old, man, fumbling, reciting, hackneyed, old, sayings?
Talk about a mean spirited, weasely worded bit of bad mouthing!
Could you pack any more slipperiness into one sentence!
I keep seeing this tactic:
1. Argument by ridicule
2. Argument from authority (If inverted here!)
3. Followed up by the fallacy fallacy.
In this case it is ridicule, then argument from fallacy with a followup post appealing to authority.
“Genuine sceptic” ? Who selects them? Presumably the authorities!
The very heart of the debate resides in the, admittedly complex, relationship between atmospheric components. Given that Co2 is a trace gas, in very truth and compared with that GHG elephant in the room H20, no genuine sceptic should be embarrassed to state that fact, despite modellers labelling one as ‘radiative forcing’ and the other as ‘feedback’.
If the very heart of the matter is “embarrassing” then debate has ended and slander begun.
Scott Wilmot Bennett
I don’t think my comments were mean spirited. I really do think it sad that a man who has led such a cutting edge life should give a speech that is so full of decade old obsolete arguments. They may have state of the art in 2003 but they are not in 2013. We (people on both sides of the debate) are well past denying the affect of C02.
Simon says:
November 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“…Approx 1% of our atmosphere is greenhouse gases. That 1% raises the average temp of the earth by about 18C.”
>>>>>>
WRONG
“C02 is a dominant GHG.”
>>>>>>>>>
WRONG
You are plain wrong a second time. Half of the warming that has taken place happened before humans put much CO2 into the atmosphere, in other words, was natural. In the second half of the last century the same amount of warming took place as the natural warming. It isn’t scientific to just claim that the post WWII warming was man made or partially man made even though there is the same amount of warming that was natural in the first half. The best that we can say right now is that we just plainly do not know.
And, there has been no global warming for the most recent 17 years. Scientifically, one has to conclude that we just don’t know. We will know if we allow the experiment to continue and keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It would be a tragedy if we stopped emitting CO2 and thereby not allowing our future children to discover the truth.
Simon, wake up. Over the last 17 years, more than a third of the total amount of CO2 ever produced by man was emitted. During that time : ZERO – diddly squat – zilch warming. Open your eyes.
garymount
“We will know if we allow the experiment to continue and keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It would be a tragedy if we stopped emitting CO2 and thereby not allowing our future children to discover the truth.”
I can’t believe you just wrote that……
François GM
“Simon, wake up. Over the last 17 years, more than a third of the total amount of CO2 ever produced by man was emitted. During that time : ZERO – diddly squat – zilch warming. Open your eyes.”
Mmm… I’m assuming you are not including the oceans?
@Simon – Prove it.
Shows us the data (not models) that show the oceans warming at an unprecedented rate.
Oprah attended (and still attends?) Rev. Wright’s church, like Obama.
Simon, your claims that the argument is over ring so hollow. Up until the Scripps floats were deployed the “science” on the Atlantic conveyor was “settled”.
Despite their best efforts, there is no atmospheric hot spot, unless you have found it in the last week or two. Surface temps, including the oceans, show no significant heating. The claim is the the extra heat bypassed the atmosphere, bypassed the surface, and ended up a couple of thousand ft deep in the ocean, where by the way, the temperature record is obviously a bit sketchy prior to the Scripps deep water floats.
I am not aware of any energy transfer mechanism that can accomplish this. This just doesn’t pass the “smell test”. Please grace us with how you believe this happens?
Secondarily, every time some severe event happens, your side screams “SEE? SEE? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE OUT OF CONTROL HEATING!!!!” Further analysis almost always shows that the local conditions did not involve increased heat above normal. SS Sandy is a perfect example of this. The cred of your side is gone.
Finally there are so many alternative causalities(Solar brightening, cloud cover, etc…) and your side never even allows them to make a small contribution. It is all CO2 is the only cause so it must be controlled by destroying our economy for the sake of mother earth. This further erodes the cred of your side. At this point, the honest thinking person looks at both sides and sees a bunch of grant dependent old men like Michael Mann et. al. making up over simplified models with random unjustified forcings that, over time. have all been miserable failures, and the very reasoned conclusion is that “climate science” appears to be an oxy-moron with quite a bit of emphasis on moron.
A well reasoned, clear explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Dave H-O
See you had me interested till you went to the economy. And that’s when your claims started to “ring so hollow.”