Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham has described climate alarmism as fraud, while presenting a preview of his upcoming Heartland presentation scheduled July 7-9 to MRCTV.
“Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it,” Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. “I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion.”
Cunningham blames the media for climate hype.
“The media are largely to blame for public misconceptions – not because they’re intentionally misleading the public, but because they “just don’t want to go into the time and trouble to find out.” “If they do go into it and look at it for themselves, they become a lot more neutral in their presentation,” he says.”
Cunningham ends with a scathing attack on the current state of scientific inquiry.
“I can only tell you that, even back in the days of Apollo, we didn’t have to face this kind of nonsense”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Right Stuff.
**not because they’re intentionally misleading the public, but because they “just don’t want to go into the time and trouble to find out.” **
Probably more accurate to say they don’t take the time and trouble to find out because then they would find it harder to deny to themselves that they were intentionally misleading the public.
Wilful ignorance, in other words.
If only the MSM would cover this speech…
So true! Climate science is not rocket science – it is BS for Geography types – those people with coloring crayons who incapable of logical scientific enquiry and deduction.
While I have little doubt that Col. Cunningham’s opinion is based on well-researched evidence, we need to be careful not to rely on the “argument from authority” trick.
Whether it’s Al Gore or Walt Cunningham, I’m under no obligation to accept anything as fact just based on who the speaker is. Nullius In Verba.
Climate Alarmism = Massive infarct of the peer-review system.
Science = The mental attitude that the professor is wrong (after Feynman)
“Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it,” Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. “I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever.”
And therein lies one of the main problems. Most people, including the MSM folks, simply won’t look far enough into it to discover that the main claims and conclusions of the alarmists are incorrect.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
The old guys get it right — Col. Cunningham is dead on and no one can question his credentials. Thanks Col. for speaking out!
from an old infantry Captain.
The media IS intentionally misleading the public. There can be no other conclusion drawn since the actual evidence is so strongly against the claims of the fraudsters. It is not laziness. It is a concerted effort by the same political leaning as the governmental agencies that put forth the AGW propaganda.
Eustace Cranch,
I would agree with you if Cunningham said “It’s a fraud because I said so.” However, he’s never said that. He lays out his arguments against “climate whatever” as a good scientist should. In contrast, others use a bully pulpit to wave the “climate whatever” flag.
Cunningham earned his credentials by research. He’s always supported his positions with the facts as he sees them. Agree or disagree with his argument, but before pulling the trigger, make sure you’ve paid the price for the ammunition.
If I need to put it more simply – a cheap shot…;.
Do your homework.
Mike
Mods, this may go into moderation – That’s OK, thanks for your hard work.
MJB
Obviously one of those Flat Earth, moon landing hoax types…
Eustace Cranch says- ‘While I have little doubt that Col. Cunningham’s opinion is based on well-researched evidence, we need to be careful not to rely on the “argument from authority” trick.’
No you don’t because the speaker is merely another scientist telling you to take the time and trouble to find out about the alarmist claims and just like he has, you’ll easily conclude it’s nonsense too.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/05/bbc-to-cut-air-time-for-climate-change-skeptics/
“Whether it’s Al Gore or Walt Cunningham, I’m under no obligation to accept anything as fact just based on who the speaker is. Nullius In Verba.”
I’ll call your “argument from authority” and raise you a “strawman argument.” Nobody’s saying that you are obligated.
Obama pays to continue this fraud with taxpayer monies. Kerry, Clinton, the EPA and NASA are his trench warriors.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/06/raising-the-epa-radiation-limit-will-sav
The EPA is raising the radiation threat level by a factor of 350. That may sound unbelievable but it is assuredly a good thing: The previous limits were far lower than science justified and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of economic loss to America and the world.
—
What the heck?
Follow the money..skeptics make $0 while alarmists and so called “green” energy scams are making millions. I looked into this “debate” for myself, it took all of 20minutes to know the truth.
Slowly but surly the Great Scam & Scheme unwinds itself.
“The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements . . . ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html
From a logical standpoint, the ‘argument from authority’ is obviously fallacious, but ‘authority’ is standard operating procedure from the media standpoint. A thousand witnesses could report seeing the exact same thing, but the media will then turn to ‘an official’ to get the ‘real’ story. This happens everyday, and it doesn’t seem to matter how completely stupid the ‘official’ story is. The media, being generally stupid themselves, will accept it over the words of a thousand different eye witnesses every time.
The quintessential example of this is the downing of TWA-800. A thousand witnesses saw a missile rise up and strike the aircraft. The ‘official’ story does not fit any of the facts and is physically impossible, but the media dutifully reported it as an accidental central fuel tank explosion. The official story will trump the facts every time, unless the media doesn’t like the official. Only then will the media begin to question the facts. That is why climategate was far more damaging to the warmest’s cause than any climate records could be, because some in the media started to dislike and distrust some of the warmests.
In the case of global warming and the media, it is much more important for the warmests to be ‘official’ and ‘authoritative’ than to be scientifically accurate. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to have a superlative-laden story. Superlatives are the drug of choice for the media. They cannot get enough of “the worst, hottest, coldest, most damaging, most destructive, most dangerous, biggest catastrophe, greatest threat, largest disaster, worst drought, flood, wind, rain, heat wave, snowstorm, extinction and so on.
While we skeptics may have all the facts on our side, we have very little authority and few superlatives. That is why stories like this one are so important. Here we have an Apollo astronaut using a superlative AGAINST the warmests. This story could get more traction in the MSM than 15 years without any warming, even though an astronaut (who didn’t even land on the moon) does not have as much authority as say the Academy of (obtaining grant money in the guise of) Science.
All of our lovely facts are wonderful for sitting in our little corners and feeling confident that we are right, but if we want to get our story out through the media, we will need to acquire a lot more authority, a lot more superlatives, and/or get the media to personally dislike those pushing the warming agenda. In other words, if we want the media to be on our side, we have to give them all the things our opponents have been giving them since day one!
In the media battle, our biggest weakness is the belief that ‘facts’ are the most important thing to the media. That is just not true. The media gives lip service to the facts and would like us to believe that they care about them, but the evidence is overwhelming that ‘the facts’ are way down on the list of required ingredients for a good news story. The media will not look at the facts and conclude that the warmests are dishonorable charlatans. They must first come to the conclusion that they are dishonorable charlatans and only then will they begin to look at the facts.
Having an APOLLO ASTRONAUT proclaim that Climate Alarmism is the BIGGEST fraud in the field of science is just ‘one small step’ in winning the media battle.
Eustace.. what should we rely on? Climategate, a .8degree c. rise in temps over 100years? Temp records adjustments? M mann’s hockey stick? Al gore and his propaganda machine(ie climate corps whose speakers make money from wind farms?) Climate models that do not have clouds ?
97% consensus baloney? Ipcc political agenda? Rise in co2 follows rise in temps. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Mike Bentley,
Quote “Agree or disagree with his argument, but before pulling the trigger, make sure you’ve paid the price for the ammunition.”
I prefer “Before pulling the trigger, make sure you know which direction the gun is pointed in.” This is the conclusion of an anecdotal story told by a colleague of mine.
We need more well known people to come public with this to counter the 97% nonsense.
Is climate alarmism deceptive? Let’s take a look at the evidence.
Prior to the publication of AR5, the climate models were non-falsifiable; thus, global warming climatology was necessarily unscientific. In claiming global warming climatology to be a scientific enterprise, climatologists were erected a pseudoscience.
The models were non-falsifiable because the climatological community had failed to identify the events underlying the models. A model is falsified if and only if the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events are compared to the observed relative frequencies and there is not a match. In the absence of identification of the underlying events, there was, for global warming climatology, no such thing as a frequency or relative frequency.
With the publication of AR5, this situation has changed. In Chapter 11 of the report of Working Group I, the IPCC identifies the events underlying a specified model and provides a comparison of the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of one of the several possible outcomes. (To the confusion of the reader, the IPCC calls these outcomes “bins”)
The authors of Chapter 11 stop short of telling us whether the specified model is falsified or validated by the evidence and fail to provide us with sufficient data to determine this for themselves. Also, it appears that the focus of the study has been shifted from global temperatures to local temperatures for the purpose of improving the statistical significance of the conclusion. Thus, it seems to me that in the wake of publication of AR5 we continue to lack a scientific basis for control of the global temperature, contrary to the impression that is left by the alarmists.
Please change the phrase “were erected” to the phrase “erected” in my previous post.
The media are largely to blame for public misconceptions – not because they’re intentionally misleading the public……
====
Or put simply….
Polar bears are dying, penguins are dying, New York under water, 10,000,000 to die from heat, world to starve……………..sells
Nothing to see here……….does not sell
Have him use Jame’s graph in his presentation…..
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/how-global-warming-looks-on-your-thermometer/
Yes, it’s long past time for an “Enough of This Climate Nonsense” movement, led by people the media simply cannot ignore. Scientists, movie stars, politicians, whoever—and a major party presidential candidate who will stand up and denounce the outright fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people for the last three decades.
It’s not enough for political figures to quibble about the effect on the economy of the insane ‘climate’ policies of the Administration. They have to denounce the fake ‘science’ behind those policies, and to do that they will need this movement. There has to be a critical mass of folks who are willing, like Walter Cunningham, to speak out, and brave the storm of ‘official’ reaction.
/Mr Lynn