Guest Essay by Eric Worrall
Piers Sellers is a NASA climate scientist with Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer. His dying wish is that we should listen to his concerns about CO2 – but with the greatest respect, he is not saying anything new.
Cancer and Climate Change
I’M a climate scientist who has just been told I have Stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
This diagnosis puts me in an interesting position. I’ve spent much of my professional life thinking about the science of climate change, which is best viewed through a multidecadal lens. At some level I was sure that, even at my present age of 60, I would live to see the most critical part of the problem, and its possible solutions, play out in my lifetime. Now that my personal horizon has been steeply foreshortened, I was forced to decide how to spend my remaining time. Was continuing to think about climate change worth the bother?
…
Last year may also be seen in hindsight as the year of the Death of Denial. Globally speaking, most policy makers now trust the scientific evidence and predictions, even as they grapple with ways to respond to the problem. And most Americans — 70 percent, according to a recent Monmouth University poll — believe that the climate is changing. So perhaps now we can move on to the really hard part of this whole business.
…
As for me, I’ve no complaints. I’m very grateful for the experiences I’ve had on this planet. As an astronaut I spacewalked 220 miles above the Earth. Floating alongside the International Space Station, I watched hurricanes cartwheel across oceans, the Amazon snake its way to the sea through a brilliant green carpet of forest, and gigantic nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles along the Equator. From this God’s-eye-view, I saw how fragile and infinitely precious the Earth is. I’m hopeful for its future.
And so, I’m going to work tomorrow.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/cancer-and-climate-change.html
As someone who has also been at death’s door, when my appendix ruptured two years ago, I have the deepest sympathy with Pier’s condition. Its horrible to look at your loved ones, and know that this might be the last time you see them.
However, it is disturbing that Sellers would attempt to use his dire personal health issues as an appeal to emotion, to promote his views about climate change. Science is supposed to be about reason, logic and evidence, not desperate appeals for sympathy. To me, Sellers’ attempt to conflate empathy for his condition, with an appeal for climate action, betrays the weakness of his science, and is symptomatic of the utter fanaticism which I believe lies at the heart of the climate craze.
When I was in hospital, I wasn’t thinking about the subject of my next climate post. I had other things on my mind.
I hope he lives long enough to have it proven to him how foolish he has been and what a waste the post-astronaut stage of his career has been. My guess is the collapse in temps after the current El Niño should be enough to do it.
Optimist!
Clearly a religious view, most americans “believe” bla bla bla..
If they like their belief, they should keep it.
Looking at science, no room for the AGW hypothesis. In reality no warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere has been measured, ever. The real question is, who’s the denier?
Not even capable of being honest, not even at the end of his life. Of course, we can’t exclude the possibility he never actually did understand the science.
“And most Americans … believe that the climate is changing.”
Yes, the climate is changing. It has gradually changed several times in my lifetime.
I have gotten to the point that I expect all climate alarmists to for example, connect sneezing to increased epi pen use because of fossil fuels driving CO2 driving warming driving climate extremes driving allergies driving asthma driving death. So the title of this post made me immediately think that this NASA employee was proposing that fossil fuel use is now touted to be driving cancer rates.
Wait…they have already said that. My bad.
That he has been diagnosed with cancer is terrible. But this article he has supposedly penned is just plain silly and is another example of the main reason no one pays attention to this kind of alarmism. They should stop the snake oil method all together, we ain’t buyin it, and get back to dry old science.
I was having a great day, as usual.
Then I read your comment.
I have (hate) to admit I agree with everything you wrote.
However, there were no sources listed, or footnotes!
The title of the article “Cancer and Climate Change” in the NY Times, was almost certainly chosen by editors, not the author, and misrepresents the article: There is no claimed relationship between cancer and climate change in the article.
So it seems both the author and the newspaper have used the word “cancer” to get attention, twist reader emotions, and promote their secular climate change “religion”.
Both the newspaper editors and the author are smarmy leftists using a personal crisis to promote their “religion” — true leftists never let a crisis go to waste (don’t you agree?).
Sorry. I should have been clearer. The pronoun in “They” have already said that” was referring to numerous claims from climate catastrophy media sources that cancer is connected to, or will eventually be, climate change. I didn’t mean to imply that Piers has claimed it.
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/climatechange/health_impacts/cancer/index.cfm
There actually IS a connection between astronaut cancer rates and the amount of time spent in space, particularly on space-walks. Big-time. They absorb a tremendous amount of radiation, and all go in knowing and accepting that risk. Probably seems abstract to them at the time . . .
Goldrider,
And none of them withdrew from the program after Grissom and a couple others were incinerated in a launch pad fire. They were all real heroes to my generation.
Now we have ‘Muslim Outreach’. ARRRRGH!
But they did install devices and enact measures to prevent a repeat of that grisly accident.
At the time, there was no way for the astronauts in the capsule to open the hatch, or put out the fire, and no way for anyone outside to get there quickly enough to help. Oxygen fire. Must have been a bad way to go, trapped and burning…yikes!
I have always thought that the astronauts are incredibly brave. That anyone could climb on top of a rocket in the early days, after watching most of the developmental rockets explode soon after launch, takes a seriously large set of brass ones.
Eric’s situation is unfortunately ironic.
Had Eric championed cancer cures instead of climate fears, cancer discoveries could have been made to cure pancreatic cancer. For all anyone knows, funding for 1 lone researcher could have made all the difference.
No doubt, now that the Climate Treaty is completed, Joe Biden will get to take all the money now being spent on climate fears and put it towards cancer cures.
The unfortunate reality of this situation is that the money we waste sponsoring corrupt scientists, lawyers, environmental groups, governments and undermining capitalism, won’t be spent finding a cure for cancer. We will waste trillions without any real way of proving we ever got any benefits. What control will we use to prove the climate would have been any different after we spent all this money on the impossible task of stopping the climate from changing. BTW, how do we know more CO2 won’t result in a better climate? The unproven assumption is that climate will change for the worse. It is unfortunate that this astronaut chose to use his misfortune to promote the societal misfortune of the fraud called AGW. Million and millions of hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, roads, vaccines, bridges, drugs, etc etc etc won’t be built or discovered. This will be the greatest waste of resources in the modern era. Gas prices are now $1.31/gal. Falling gas prices will undermine every penny we’ve spent on alternative energy sources. No one will continue to buy electric cars, and once Obama is gone, coal will be back powering our plants…just like it is in China and India.
Yeah, how ’bout those electric cars?
/sarc (Gas $1.31/gal).
WUWT, please commission a series of articles regarding the “opportunity cost” of climate change. With the money we will waste on controlling the climate, we could possibly have found a cure for cancer. How many schools could have been built with the money lost to Solyndra?
Forgive me for being callous, but not only is he wrong, he is dead wrong.
Best hopes and wishes to Mr. Sellers,
He states:
“… have drawn roughly the same conclusion from computer model predictions.”
And that:
“Where science can help is to keep track of changes in the Earth system — this is a research and monitoring job, led by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and their counterparts elsewhere in the world — and use our increasingly powerful computer models to explore possible futures associated with proposed policies. The models will help us decide which approaches are practicable, trading off near-term impacts to the economy against longer-term impacts to the climate.”
He also states: ”
Last year was the warmest year on record, by far. I think that future generations will look back on 2015 as an important but not decisive year in the struggle to align politics and policy with science. This is an incredibly hard thing to do. On the science side, there has been a steady accumulation of evidence over the last 15 years that climate change is real and that its trajectory could lead us to a very uncomfortable, if not dangerous, place.”
The data from the sets contained below 1995-2015, and more, do not show significant or material changes in the planet, or any trajectory to an “uncomfortable” or “dangerous” place. All available data do not show changes in the planet (the earth’s system) outside of natural variation or outside of any Holocene trends at all, we know that 2015 was not anywhere near the hottest year on record, or especially warm at all, neither was 2014, and that 1998 was 0.26C hotter than 2015 (both El Nino years, (according to RSS TLT data and validated by radiosondes and crosschecked by UAH data V6).
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2015/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1995/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1995/to:2015/plot/esrl-amo/from:1995/to:2015
I hope the data matters more to Mr. Sellers than the models, and I wish him well and I wish him peace.
My grandfather had a hernia operation in his 60s. When they opened him up they found that his appendix was exploded. It happened 50 years earlier during a scarlet fever epidemic. The doctors just thought he had scarlet fever.
Dr. Sellers, Bless you. I will pray for you.
I hope you and your family can use and make the best of your time on earth.
What is frightening to me is that such an intelligent scientific man could be so BLIND as to not look at all the sides of the science !!!!!!! …… It is his unwavering trust in Computer Models that has me baffled.
How dose he square the satellite temperature data with what Nasa has done to alter the records ??? etc etc , there is so much to say about so much corruption in the system …… !!!
My underlying thoughts are how SAD that an obviously good man cannot see the wood for the trees.
Politics should not be a factor in ones Climate thinking …… look back into the logic of the earths past history and not be brainwashed about Co2 and the picture becomes clear.
( I also have life ending cancer but am able to see the Climate for what it is …… ever changing, I have walked on a FROZEN river Thames, seen the sun and moon rise from an Ocean of a Baja Beach …… I know where my mind rests )
Whilst I am not a zealot about energy conservation – I do hold to some basic principles regarding responsible energy use.
Firstly – if I am traveling somewhere then I ask myself – “is this journey really necessary”.
Secondly – I have purchased a vehicle that uses the lowest amount of energy per unit of distance travelled.
Piers Sellers is one of the rare individuals who has made an unnecessary journey to a place where nothing was achieved, whilst consuming at one point in the journey an amount of power probably equivalent to approximately the total maximum output of a medium size nuclear power station.
Piers Sellers is a veteran of three space missions. The man should be deeply ashamed.
Rarely in the field of human energy wastage, has so much energy been wasted for the sake of so few legitimate scientific goals.
Even Al Gore’s private jet, at take off, doesn’t consume as much fuel, as a couple of shuttle boosters!!!
And, let’s be clear about this – Al Gore is a heavy man.
Correction – I checked my informed guess on wikipedia:
Apparently the space shuttle power consumption exceeded the output of the world’s largest nuclear power plant. So silly me. I will have to try harder in future to furnish my jokes with more reliable stats.
8.21 GW – tech: capacity of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the world’s largest nuclear power plant.
11.7 GW – tech: power produced by the Space Shuttle in liftoff configuration (9.875 GW from the SRBs; 1.9875 GW from the SSMEs.)
Look at this chart, nothing seems be be unexpected when put into context. We are late in the Holocene. Most glaciers have melted due to natural events, the flow of cold water into the oceans has basically stopped. The oceans have started to warm. The water was abnormally cold due to the little ice age, which ended around the time the CO2 chart starts. As the H2O warms, its net absorption decreases, and outgasses on a relative basis. I would have expected this chart with or without man. Does anyone know how many PPM CO2 increase does a 1°C cause? Is there a tight correlation in hte past with increase ocean temp and increase in CO2? what is the slope and R^2?
http://www.teachoceanscience.net/images/SST-over-time-plot.jpg
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/co2_1850.gif
CO2 is life
How about some uncertainty zones on those pencil thin lines? Let’s see how easy it is to pick those crisp definite lines out of the total cloud of data. Refer to IPCC AR5 Table 6.1.
We are going to experience a Heinrich event due to current abrupt change to solar cycle so there is no worry about global warming. The number one planetary problem is going to be abrupt cooling due to the solar change and the start up of the solar cycle after the interruption.
The geomagnetic field intensity of the earth has dropped 10% (this observational fact provides support for the existence of the mechanism, there must be a physical explanation for all observations including a 10% drop in the field strength of the planet’s magnetic field, the sun is significantly different than the standard model, there are hundreds of astronomical observational anomalies and paradoxes to support that assertion) in the last 20 years which is 10 times faster than any change in the liquid core is physically capable of causing, if there was a mechanism that could suddenly in the 1990s cause massive changes of liquid movement in the earth’s core. In response to the unexplained sudden change in the geomagnetic field that started in the mid 1990’s, the Europeans launched a set of three specialized satellites that provide whole earth laboratory accuracy measurement of the earth’s geomagnetic field.
http://news.yahoo.com/european-satellites-launched-eye-earths-magnetic-field-202607407–sector.html
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…than-expected/
The discussion concerning ‘climate change’ is going to change when there is in your face global cooling.
As millions and millions of lives per year can be saved and/or torture by modern medicine/ loss of quality of life due to the symptoms of chronic illness avoided, let’s discuss the research support facts as how to prevent roughly 90% of all US diseases including cancer.
What we eat in the US is the explanation as to why the US spends twice as much on health ‘care’ per person than any other developed country in the world.
http://dels.nationalacademies.org/resources/static-assets/banr/AnimalProductionMaterials/LessMeat.pdf
There is a direct correlation of meat and dairy consumption and the incidence of cancer, diabetes, arteriosclerosis, blood diseases, liver disease, kidney diseases, brain disease, arthritis, other immune diseases, and so on.
The bottom line is meat and dairy consumption causes the diseases and plant consumption protects against the diseases.
For example those eating a traditional Japanese diet have 48 times less incidence of prostate cancer, almost no atherosclerosis, and six times less breast cancer than those eating the US standard diet (SAD).
Interesting the specialists in the last decade or so have discovered why that assertion is true (have worked out most of the mechanisms). As there is no profit in telling people they are getting sick due to diet (too much meat (factor of 10), too much dairy (almost zero is optimum), too many eggs (almost zero is optimum), too much processed grains (almost zero is optimum), too much refined sugar (almost zero is optimum), too much alcohol and too little vegetables particularly leafy green vegetables, too little fruit, particularly berries, many of the 1000s of cancer stopping chemicals are in the skin of the plants)..
Roughly 90% of the diseases which we are treated for in the US (arthritis, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, blood diseases, brain diseases, cancers including for example, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, dementia, Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes and so on) could be prevented if we changed our diet to a near vegan diet.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/
http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/07/08/a-low-methionine-diet-may-help-starve-cancer-cells/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-tumors-use-meat-to-grow-xeno-autoantibodies/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-answer-to-the-pritikin-puzzle/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cancer-proofing-mutation/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-inflammatory-meat-molecule-neu5gc/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/nonhuman-molecules-lining-our-arteries/
This is the most recent research (from a book written by the doctor/researcher that has written the below book and made the above videos, all book sale profits go to charity) concerning pancreatic cancer which shows one of the consequences of factory farming, which is due to species to species virus transfer. There are other studies that show how cancer and organ damaging molecules are concentrated in animals which we eat. There are both natural damaging molecules in meat/diary and foreign molecules that cause the damage to our organs and cause cancer.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
We evolved as carnivores, sorry to rain on your parade. That’s how we got through the glaciations, differentiating ourselves from the apes by our larger brain size as we went. Veganism is a newfangled fad diet devoid of essential fatty acids and other nutrients essential for life–which makes it look just about as fruitbatty a religion as CAGW, and has about as much fact behind it.
Your moral high ground is a sandy anthill.
In reply to Goldrider’s rhetoric and scientifically baseless statements.
Gee must be someone from the meat industry.
Do you have any scientific papers to backup your hot air?
There are 1000s and 1000s of peer reviewed studies, including more than a hundred based on the data from the China Study that support the assertion that roughly 90% of all US diseases: Heart disease, circulatory diseases which are the consequences of blockage of the arteries including dementia and hypertension, kidney disease, liver disease, arthritis, type 2 diabetes and all of the most common cancers are due to the US ‘diet’.
I can will support that assertion with an explanation of the mechanisms with links to supporting peer reviewed studies. The ‘war’ on cancer, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, could be won tomorrow if the US population understood what an ideal diet was and how different our diet is from the ideal.
Currently 1 in 10 people in the US have type 2 diabetes. Based on projections that percentage will increase to roughly 50% by the end of this century.
The ‘cure’ for the US dietary diseases is a change to a near vegan diet and stop eating the junk food group, including sugary, fizzy drinks.
The US consumer is top of the food chain. We are the ‘winners’ in terms of amount of meat consumed. As we feed our farm animals ground up non eatable pieces of dead farm animals our meat is highly contaminated with organic chemical pollutants.
This is interesting. Multiple studies have found a strong correlation between the consumption of organic pollutants and the occurrence type 2 diabetes which is epidemic in the US.
The analysis has found that there is a direct correlation between the amount organic chemical pollutants in the study subjects and the occurrence of diabetes. This explains why obesity can occur without diabetes. The causal factor is the amount of organic pollutants that accumulate in people depending on their diet. If the obese person consumed large amounts of foods that are contaminate with organic pollutants then they get metabolic syndrome and become diabetic, if the food they consumed does not contain organic pollutants, they become obese but do not get metabolic syndrome.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/56/11/813.full
William Astley
Most of us here on this site have had our fill of useless “peer reviewed studies”. Personally my weight has dropped and my overall heath has improved since I switched to a low carb diet. I also know many other people that have made the same change with a similar result. It might not be a “peer reviewed study” but it is a real world experiment. Our teeth tell the real story. What use is an incisor to a vegan.
One thing I have noticed is that after changing to a mostly meat diet my digestive system produces a lot less gas. This probably means that I am producing less methane and that should be good for the environment. 🙂 Really this just shows that my digestive system has an easier time dealing with meat as opposed to complex sugars. Humans developed as hunter/gatherers and various forms of meat and fish provided the majority of our diet for nearly 200,000 years.
Our dentition is omnivorous. We are not strict carnivores.
Its very hard to be Vegan, ie not eat anything of animal origin, as we need essential amino and fatty acids found plentifully in meat eggs and fish.
weird to be debating diets at WUWT – but i can’t help noticing how vegetarianism resembles AGW Global Warming’s “settle science” status – and it’s adherents resemble Alarmists/Evangelists
Just imagine if this were a Climate Skeptic pleading his case on his death bed, the alarmists would be screaming ” hurry up and die you pig ” !! I have seen this on many blogs ! Sad….
Not to nit pick, but in your post or in the referenced article I find no “dying wish”. All I find are simple facts of where we are now in addressing CC and that he is happy to be part of it.
The NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events. GCR particles propagation from local interstellar space to Earth is modeled using an extensionhe Badhwar and O’Neill model, where the solar modulation has been parameterized using high-latitude real-time neutron monitor measurements at Oulu, Tomnicky, and Moscow. During radiation storms, the SEP spectrum is derived using ion flux measurements taken from the NOAA/GOES and NASA/ACE satellites. Transport of the cosmic ray particles – GCR and SEP – through the magnetosphere is estimated using the CISM-Dartmouth particle trajectory geomagnetic cutoff rigidity code,driven by real-time solar wind parameters and interplanetary magnetic field data measured by the NASA/ACE satellite. Cosmic ray transport through the neutral atmosphere is based on analytical solutions of coupled Boltzmann transport equations obtained from NASA Langley Research Center’s HZETRN transport code. Global distributions of atmospheric density are derived from the NCEP Global Forecasting System (GFS) meteorological data.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/index.html
It’s not unusual for a dying person to turn to religion.
The Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult is a secular “religion”, in my opinion.
This article in the NY Times just goes to show that an educated person — intelligent enough to be an astronaut — can still be an imbecile when it comes to climate science.
The man could have looked out his window for 60 years and observed that the climate had barely changed in those 60 years … but he doesn’t need to observe the past climate — he can see the the future climate … and he “knows” a climate catastrophe is coming that will end life on Earth as we know it.
That’s a climate change religion, not climate science.
It’s sad, and also smarmy, that he’s used his cancer to get attention to promote his “religion”.
If he wanted to use his cancer to promote cancer research, that would have been wonderful.
This is yet another example of a leftist not allowing a crisis to go to waste — they always use a national or local crisis, such as a mass shooting, to promote their leftist views .
In this case, a personal crisis is being used to promote a leftist belief.
Sickening, isn’t it !
Dear Mr Sellers
It is sad to here that you, like so many other undeserving people have been diagnosed with a terminal condition. My own partner had a major tumour removed last year. Very few people are untouched by such misfortune.
I know that you must now find yourself in a difficult situation. Having formerly assumed that you would live long enough to witness the vindication of your confidence in alarmist prognostications, in the form of the visitation of angry and destructive “global warming” catastrophe upon the people of the planet.
And I know that you also hoped that you and other alarmists in a similar situation would live to see themselves raised up as the “last hope” technological masters and saviours of mankind.
But, alas, nature has not been kind – and basically shit all of any note has actually happened.
And long after all the alarmists are dead – they will quite possibly be ridiculed as the errant fools of their age. Especially because they worked so hard towards resisting the discussion of all alternative hypotheses.
But do not worry, because this has occurred on many occasions in the past and it will continue to occur into the future. The list of similar delusions has grown so long that this episode will at some point become only another footnote in the description of man’s propensity to generate apocalyptic panic.
The desire to build up apocalyptic myths and then to elevate oneself to the status of potential saviour is clearly a powerful force in men’s hearts.
Until this day, all those who predicted apocalypse have been disappointed.
News of the end of the world is generally exaggerated or at least premature.
Predicted apocalypse, is an extraordinary claim.
And we should require extraordinary evidence (of very high confidence) to support it.
At some point the scientific community may back away from this monomaniacal obsession sufficiently such that they are able to contemplate a range of alternative hypotheses for the vast number of observations so far manipulated.
This will only occur in an age where we do not mistakenly conflate emotional issues such “saving the world” or a personal cancer diagnosis with the development of scientific ideas.
Ideally, let’s keep science away from powerfully emotional affairs of the heart.
Whether they are self-glorifying e.g. journeying into space or a confident belief that we are saving the world (again), or personally distressing affairs e.g. distress experienced at the failure of an apocalyptic prediction or a cancer diagnosis.
This attitude would certainly help us to preserve the integrity of science in the future.
With sympathy towards yourself and your loved ones.
“Last year may also be seen in hindsight as the year of the Death of Denial.”
———————–
In others’ view, in light of the sheer amount of propaganda required to sell just the notion of “climate change denial”, 2016 is looking like the year of the death of at least, some denial.
…+ 10,000 likes
+10,001…
SOLD to db !!
How do you settle on how many likes to give a post?
Is there an Algoreism for it?
. . .I have a computer model !! LOL
Now THAT was funny!
A computer model!
Why didn’t I think of that.
I’m old school using tree ring data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/the-right-stuff-what-the-nasa-astronauts-say-about-global-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html
Piers Sellers should, perhaps, commune with his fellow colleagues before encountering the great universal truth. There is still some time for some enlightenment. GK
Or 49 out of hundreds of thousands amounts to a hill of bean.
So by your logic, I guess one sick astronaut is only worth a half bean. GK
49 is an unusually high number of individuals within an organization to be publicly critical of that organization’s official message.
How many Enron employees spoke out publicly against Enron?
How many Lehman Bros employees spoke our against the excess leverage and exposure of Lehman?
How many employees of Thiokol tried to warn about the “o”-ring problem leading to the destruction of challenger?
To my knowledge, approximately ONE in each case.
One whistle-blower is worthy of note. By comparison, 49 is a mass-movement.
When working within a large organization – it is certainly preferable to “keep your head below the parapets” and keep taking the pay-checks. Hence this is what the vast majority of employees choose to do. Whistleblowing is usually a career ending move. It takes guts to speak out against a culture of rent-seeking and politically motivated science corruption.
Unfortunately, unlike Enron or Lehman Bros. — NASA can never be brought down by its own tendency to generate spectacular nonsense, since it is supported by the public purse and can therefore expand it’s access to yet more cash by increasing the perceived scale of the problem that it claims to be studying.
Follow the money. Nobody is willing to pay for scientists to tell them that sea level rise or antarctic melt are not abnormal or concerning.
100’s of thousands ??? Come on Al Gorey Baby, stop masquerading as Margaret !!
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. I sympathise with Piers Sellers, having to suffer both terminal cancer and the willing ignorance of the assemblage here.
[well, we suffer you, so I suppose it’s even -mod]
“if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
Lennon/McCartney
You forgot to quote the rest of the lyrics.
“Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
It’s getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn’t matter much to me
No one I think is in my tree
I mean it must be high or low
That is you can’t, you know, tune in
But it’s all right
That is I think it’s not too bad
Always, no sometimes, think it’s me
But you know I know when it’s a dream
I think I know I mean a yes
But it’s all wrong
That is I think I disagree”
Is this the song upon which you base your analysis of life?
It’s true that it “must be high or low”
You say high, we say low.
You say YES, we say NO NO NO…
Margaret,
Don’t worry, you may well live to see the truth exposed, unlike Piers Sellers who will die embracing a wish propagated by the IPCC in its over zealous pursuit of justifying redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations.
For the record, the 49 at NASA are right and Hansen is to climate science as what Madoff is to investing, although the fiscal damage of the malfeasance enabled by Hansen (and now Schmidt) is far greater.
The truth is out there. All you need to do is look for it with your eyes open. Pay attention to details and don’t be swayed by unsupportable predispositions.
Margaret,
You must be the Fool On The Hill.
“[well, we suffer you, so I suppose it’s even -mod]”
Really????
Yes, REALLY !!
Margaret, since you have nothing to say, why don’t you just STFU with your elitist vacuous comments. Go the same way that the similar pompous elitist empty heads Ed Davey and Ed Miliband went.
…. or show some data.
You don’t know what that is do you ?
I’m sorry for anyone who has received such a dire prognosis. But the sympathy ebbs when their response is to write a first draft of the script for a three-hankie movie about how they fought for the cause to the end.
Besides which, as scripts go it’s not exactly “attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion”, is it?
Hey, what ever happened to hankies?
Now they are just pocket squares, and no one uses them to wipe up snot anymore, do they?
…That’s snot funny !!
If you have to wipe up snot after you sneeze, you are not using the hankie properly !!
I think it may be no one uses them anymore is due to modern hygienic sensibilities.
If someone put a cloth with snot and boogers all over it, back into their pocket, that would be… the last party they ever got invited to…the end of the date…reason for a pink slip…just name the ostracism of your choice.
I’m all in on WUWT, but at this point in Seller’s life, I don’t think this blog post was necessary. It adds nothing, let’s pick on someone else.
If you stop feeding Cancer Cells Glucose the die. Dr.Otto Warburg Nobel Prize Winner 1931. And what does the USDA and the UN promote; that we all eat Cabs, Wheat Corn Rice which as soon as it hits your gut it turns to Sugar. The Bad things Government does to us. http://www.chimachine4u.com/cancer-diet.html
It’s a question of balance and temperance and what works for one person, or many people, may be the worst thing for another person. There are any number of diet “positions” supported all over the internet. Very many of the various proponents are selling something. Unless one of those diet advisers is prone to the ill effects which their advice might cause in some individuals, then they may be overzealous in their advocacy. For instance, unless the diet- daktari has suffered through an episode of ketoacidosis, or a diabetic coma induced by low blood sugar, both caused by a lack of carbs in the diet, they may not appreciate the role which carbohydrates play in our diet, in which case, they could be setting themselves up for a hard lesson by following their own advice too rigorously. Even worse, they could induce someone who’s system is less attuned to their advice to become a “believer” and thus cause the death of some adherent to their methods.
While there may be a kernel of truth in just about any given dietary advice, one should become exceptionally skeptical of any and all diet programs/advice given by others and find out what works for themselves. One must take the best knowledge available and test it- carefully.
Or just follow Toucan Sam’s advice.
Let me see if I’ve got things correct. . . .
1. Piers Sellers, scientist and astronaut who has done space walks, is a fervent believer in Global Warming.
2. Harrison Schmidt, scientist and astronaut who has walked on the moon, is a Global Warming skeptic.
Obviously, two opposing opinions from two impressive individuals. . . . .
In trying to decide which is correct, one major thing to consider is I should embrace the Global Warming belief system is because. . . . . Piers Sellers is dying of pancreatic cancer????
Got it!!!
The bad thing Government does to us.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei2wUzrXRyU
But think of the movie they could make. At the end:
“I have seen things you people would not believe.
I have seen hurricanes pin wheeling of the shoulder of the Bahamas
I have seen t-storms glitter in the dark at the equators gate
All these memories…lost in time…tears in rain…”
Sorry Vole, had to.