NYT asks Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt about UN IPCC report:
The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur: “…as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”
Schmitt:
“I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change? Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence.”
“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns…”
“I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…
“If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”
Sedimentary rocks and ice are open systems. It requires other cross-cutting evidence to verify the isotope signature. I doubt that light isotopes would hang around during diagenesis to reflect a true story. Calibrating to the modern is a mug’s game.
“The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?”
— I have to disagree. It’s not even relevant whether mankind is causing some of the climate change, all of the climate change, or none of it. IF future climate change carries with it catastrophic changes for us, AND IF we can do something about it, AND IF the expected benefits of proposed action exceed the expected costs, then we should take action. It matters not a whit if mankind is the proximate cause or if it’s all natural.
The core question is what are the costs and the benefits of various courses of action.
In any model of decision-making under uncertainty, the do-nothing scenario is ALWAYS one of the primary options. You’ll notice that it’s never even considered by the church of CAGW. Their decision tree analysis is even worse than their underlying science.
While taking action for the wrong reasons may produce a positive outcome, it will also promote corruption of methods, institutions, and people.
“You’ll notice that it’s never even considered by the church of CAGW”
Or the Church of Germophobia (of which Donald “Germophobe” Trump isn’t a member). The vaxxers always want to impose more vaccines, more “prevention”, more cancer screening, etc.
The idea of doing nothing against future possible “pandemic” diseases and possible future cancer isn’t even considered.
Simple,
Do you have objections to the germ theory of disease?
Do you, like Green Meanies, want billions to die?
The parents of a Catalan boy who died of diphtheria because they listened to anti-human anti-vaxxers have tragically been awakened to biomedical reality:
https://elpais.com/elpais/2015/06/29/inenglish/1435559306_461811.html?rel=mas
The boy died because he was not treated in a timely manner.
1) Why wasn’t diagnostic done before?
The vaccine skeptic phobia and corresponding hate speech makes parents of non-“sufficiently” vaccinated children to avoid (fascistic) doctors. (Professional medical organisations cheer when vaccine skeptic parents are jailed. This qualifies as medical fascism.)
2) Why are doctors so poor at diagnosing previously common diseases? Because of vaccines. The vaccines made the diseases uncommon. Medical doctors are also badly trained, they were made into hysterical drug dealers.
SJW look sane when compared to modern vaxxers.
3) Why wasn’t the treatment available in the country?
This is lack of preparation. That kind of irresponsible behavior is typical of vaxxism.
Vaxxism is a mental disorder. Vaxxers are dangerous fascistic people. They cannot be allowed in society.
Simple,
The treatment wasn’t available because Spain had had no need of it for about 30 years.
The boys parents didn’t recognize the disease because it is practically nonexistent in countries which had vaccination programs in the 20th century.
We used to have people trained to recognize diseases.
We used to call them “doctors”.
Now the “doctors” are dealers-cops in charge of verifying that everyone got useless and dangerous drugs, and their professional associations are cheering when a real old-style doctor is deprived of his livelihood because he has some weak reservations about some mandatory drugging, and so-called conservatives (except a few like Rand Paul) are cheering and want even more mandatory drugging.
And when a mother is jailed for refusing a useless treatment for her child, they have an orgasm.
I wonder how much of tolerance for abuses of children is caused by the desacralization of the body by “evidence based (please don’t laugh) medicine” and their conservative cheerleaders.
Simple,
The boy died because he wasn’t vaccinated. Dozens of other kids were infected in the same outbreak, but they survived because their parents had wisely had them vaccinated.
Dread diseases once virtually eradicated from Europe are now once again stalking the continent because of whackos like you.
So you now admit that modern Western medicine cannot be expected to cure illnesses that can be cured elsewhere, because of vaccines.
Thank you. You have demonstrated how phony modern “evidence based” medicine is.
Not even the harshest medicine skeptic would be as harsh against modern medicine.
This is the final nail on modern medicine.
Nice OT re-direction. NOT.
Jefff, it’s just more os Simple-t’s thread hijacking with his anti-vaxxer nonsense.
simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.
says it all really.
Really, it’s getting boring; you worship “doctors” and “experts”. We GET IT. You love drugging people. We GET IT. You love products you don’t anything about; we GET IT.
If you worship experts so much, do you also believe that access to medical isotopes used for diagnostic will be impossible after BREXIT and leaving EURATOM?
Organisations representing medical professionals clearly imply it will be. (They also strongly suggest that medical isotopes are regulated pretty much like fissile products.)
Yes, your anti-vaxxer nonsense is boring, it’s been boring the dozen of other times you’ve hijacked threads to go on and on with your favorite off-topic bugbear and it will be boring the next time you try to hijack a thread.
And there’s plenty of strawmen on display in your post there simple-t. But then when you’ve got nothing, which is all you anti-vaxxer loons have, then strawmanning your opponents isn’t surprising. what isn’t a strawman in your own words:
I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.
says it all really.
If you want “experts”, why are you even reading WUWT? Go dance with the “experts”, have fun with all the deniers of the pain of victims of Big Scientism.
You have been badly humiliated in every one of these discussions. I can’t believe you are still here.
Ignoring the thread hijacking by the ignorant and getting back to the point Steve O brings up:
“The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?”
— I have to disagree. It’s not even relevant whether mankind is causing some of the climate change, all of the climate change, or none of it. IF future climate change carries with it catastrophic changes for us, AND IF we can do something about it, AND IF the expected benefits of proposed action exceed the expected costs, then we should take action. It matters not a whit if mankind is the proximate cause or if it’s all natural.
It’s very relevant and matters greatly because it determine the answers to your other IFs:
1) if man is the cause then man *can* do something about (stop doing whatever it is that’s causing it) and then we can assess whether or not the proposed actions would be cost-effective
2) whereas if it’s mostly/entirely natural then man *can’t* do a darn thing about it and any proposed actions would not be cost-effective by definition as they would cost $$ for no benefit.
The core question is what are the costs and the benefits of various courses of action
no, that’s the secondary question. The core question is can man effectively do anything about it and that depends on if man’s actions are causing it or if nature is doing it on it’s own.
In any model of decision-making under uncertainty, the do-nothing scenario is ALWAYS one of the primary options. You’ll notice that it’s never even considered by the church of CAGW. Their decision tree analysis is even worse than their underlying science.
on that, we can agree
John Endicott,
With respect to your points, 1) If Man is the cause then Man MAY be able to do something about it. If you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you are the proximate cause of your predicament, but there is probably nothing you can do to prevent a very hard landing; 2) you are claiming that Man can do nothing to prevent climate change, without evidence. Considering that the history of mankind is one of subduing nature with technology, I think you are flat wrong. The problem is really how not to overdue it since we understand the system dynamics so poorly. Now, the economics are an entirely other issue. However, I have rarely heard of a rich man tell a physician, “I don’t heal me if it is going to cost a lot of money.” It’s like war time, when the cost of synthesizing tank fuel from coal is exorbitant.
) If Man is the cause then Man MAY be able to do something about it.
only in the sense that Man may not want to stop doing whatever it is they did to cause the problem. Other than that, If man did it than man an undo it. (though, as point 2 points out, it’s hubris to think man did it)
you are claiming that Man can do nothing to prevent climate change, without evidence
not without evidence, without hubris. It is utter hurbris to think man controls the temperature of this planet. period.
With other notable figures like Nature who are also in denial, he is in good company.
“the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…
I fully agree, Jack.
Equating moon landing denial with “climate change” “denial”, as the NYT “reporter” does, is ludicrous.
NASA’s trips to the moon are facts. “Climate change”, ie dangerous, man-made global warming, extreming or wierding, is an unsupported hypothesis, repeatedly shown false.
Dr. Schmitt is hardly alone among his NASA colleagues.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/NASA-SCIENTISTS-DISPUTE-CLIMATE-CHANGE-2012-4
A position also supported by renowned aerospace engineer Burt Rutan (2011 version):
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
A BIO of this fellow from the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/times-journeys/expert/nicholas-st-fleur/
“Before joining the Times, St. Fleur was an assistant editor at The Atlantic covering science, health and technology. He has also worked for Science Magazine, NPR and Scientific American. St. Fleur completed the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and received his undergraduate degree from Cornell University, where he studied biology and was the science editor of The Cornell Daily Sun.”
“St. Fleur completed the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz…”
A Science Communication Program and then goes on to insult a real scientist and explorer. What a fool!
Sad that in the second decade of the 21st century, “science communicators” presume to pass judgement on real scientists.
We live in debased times.
It’s worse than I thought;
https://scicom.ucsc.edu/about/index.html
Really? And he thinks he can take on the likes of Dr. Schmitt with those scientific credentials?
To paraphrase The Honeymooners, “To the moon, St. Fleur!”
Talking of moons, look what the Chinese plant to do in the next couple of years;
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/china-plans-to-launch-artificial-moon-bright-enough-to-replace-citys-streetlights-by-2020/ar-BBOxyvY?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=mailsignout
LOL, I was just reading that article a few moments ago. My first thought was “That’s no moon, it’s a space station”.