posted 02-16-2009 01:01 AM               

AP News: Former Astronaut Speaks Out on Global Warming.

Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

posted 02-16-2009 01:02 AM               

As for Mr. Schmitt, he doesn't back up his stance with any argument and his stance on Helium-3, if it were not so tragic, is funny.

As for his quote "government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." Now he's anti-government? the same government that sent him to the Moon...

Sad. Really sad.

posted 02-16-2009 01:20 AM               

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity.

His departure in November 2008 came as a result of the Society's "new roadmap" and his stated concern over their focus on Mars as the driving goal of human spaceflight, including the deferral of humans returning to the Moon. Of the 1,100 words he chose to explain his resignation, only 100 were devoted to the subject of global warming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
...his stance on Helium-3, if it were not so tragic, is funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
His position reflects the viewpoint...

---

posted 02-16-2009 05:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Yes, the fusion programs needed to take advantage of Helium 3 are in their infancy, but does that mean they aren't worth investigating?

---

It's like asking the Wright Brothers how are they planning to fly at Mach 2 between New York and London. Let's investigate the fusion reactors (just to see if they work or not - as of today, they don't) and let's spend a few billions on the only fusion reactor that works: our Sun.

posted 02-16-2009 09:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Let's investigate the fusion reactors (just to see if they work or not - as of today, they don't)

---

posted 02-16-2009 10:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
His position reflects the viewpoint (one I am inclined to agree with) that environmentalism is a form of people control in that it imparts restrictions on individual liberty.

---

...unlike retina scans at airports, fingerprinting, DNA databases, CCTV cameras, email scanning and phone tapping, holding without trial,...etc, etc

Regardless of whether it is caused by human activity, it is MY human liberty NOT to have MY (and my childrens') environment polluted by the excessive consumption of fossil fuels by a selfish minority.

Paul

posted 02-16-2009 11:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
if it were not so tragic, is funny.

As for his quote "government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." Now he's anti-government? the same government that sent him to the Moon...

Sad. Really sad.

---

This is exactly the sort of thinking that Schmitt is standing up against... the idea that if you don't go lock-step with the AGW cult you don't have the right to express your opinion, or that if that opinion isn't in line with the favored media story then your behavior is somehow unacceptable.

What is "sad, really sad," is this narrowing of thought, ideas and expression. It certainly doesn't foster good science, and I'm happy Schmitt has the courage to stand up for both his opinion and for individual human liberties.

Furthermore, stating a preference for a system in which individual liberties are protected and government is restrained from interference in citizen's lives is not "anti-government." It is simply living under the principles under which our government was founded and formerly operated... the government of liberty and free choice that belongs to the only nation that has sent humans to the Moon.

posted 02-16-2009 11:44 AM               

We space afficionados have a privileged cognition of how slim Earth's atmosphere really is, let alone its most specialized stratas such as the ozonosphere...

The industrial revolution and the applications of high-yield energy sources in the last hundred years of so have brough onto us a positive-feedback spiral of global effects on the tiny home of ours. We've been using and abusing resources with the potential to transform the geochemestry and geophysics of our biosphere at such an unprecedented speed that, yes, I support unprecedented institutional regulation, with profound - and eventualy positive - changes in the lifestyles of the most polluting people among Earth's population. And this means us, people!...

posted 02-16-2009 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
As for Mr. Schmitt, he doesn't back up his stance with any argument and his stance on Helium-3, if it were not so tragic, is funny....Sad. Really sad.

---

posted 02-16-2009 01:43 PM               

There have been warming and cooling cycles for eons - to think that humanity is responsible for whatever might be happening currently (if, indeed there's anything happening) is more than a little presumptuous.

When I saw the title of this topic, I feared the worst. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when I read that Harrison Schmidt has chosen not to buy into the global warming hysteria. I'm glad he has the courage to think and speak objectively and for himself. Hopefully he will not be castigated for doing so.

posted 02-16-2009 02:17 PM               

In fact, I am what you would call, an "anti-environmentalist". I purposefully do not recycle, I waste water and electricity and I keep my tire pressure low just so that I can expend more fuel driving from place to place.

Why? Because I believe that we need a stiff kick in our collective rear-ends if we're ever going to become a spacefaring civilization. I used to believe that humanity was capable of embracing the challenge, the romance of exploration. Now, I think it will only happen when our lives are being threatened, either by a sizable asteroid heading our way or when our planet becomes inhospitable.

Having no control over the orbits of wayward space rocks, I can only do what I can to speed the destruction of our planet. Forget global warming; throw enough trash on the ground, waste enough energy, pollute enough skies, and I guarantee you that humans will start seeking a new home.

So, it is music to my ears when I hear that others feel as I do. That we shouldn't police our energy use or monitor the emissions we release into the atmosphere. After all, even though we have the technology to live a cleaner life, it is our right, our personal liberty, to mess up this planet and expedite our exodus.

posted 02-16-2009 03:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
The green brigade still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that we are causing global warming)

---

Is that so? Not a "single shred" of evidence? And yet somehow the majority of the scientific community...a group of people that typically demands solid evidence and data to backup theories...were duped into believing global warming without analytically reviewing the data for themselves? If you know anything about scientists, you'll know that most of them love nothing more than to prove other scientist's theories wrong.

I think the simpler explanation is more likely true...that one doesn't see a "single shred" of evidence as long as one doesn't want to see it. It's often easier to promote ignorance than it is to promote a scientific understanding of the data. Label the scientists as a "cult" or "brigade" more interested in "people control" than science...in lieu of presenting a scientifically sound argument against their theories. Tell people what they want to hear and you'll often find a receptive audience.

While it's tempting to believe those who argue against man-made global climate change, one must consider that those who argue that position are often just as politically-motivated as those they rail against, often masking their arguments with the fear of a conspiracy to control your lives.

posted 02-16-2009 04:09 PM               

I have heard the opinion said that the Global Warming camp may in some way be an extension of the anti American adversaries from the Cold War. I have heard and read from several sources that the goal of the Kyoto Agreement is really to try and economically tie the United States hands behind its back while China and other nations need not submit to such limits on carbon production.

This is certainly another interesting way to look at things, and as far as conspiracies go it does make more sense than faked moon landings, Big Foot and the idea that JFK was shot by who knows how many gunmen from who knows how many directions working for Fidel Castro, the FBI, CIA, USSR, RNC, LBJ, the Mafia and Ho Chi Minh.

Believe it or not I do recycle a lot, I use those poison cfl lights around my house and drive a bit slower these days to save gas.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 02-16-2009 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Tell people what they want to hear and you'll often find a receptive audience.

---

Scientists can be wrong or right, the amount of them that subscribe to a theory (and that is all it is) says nothing.

posted 02-16-2009 06:06 PM               

and the moon ladings were real? Double Damn!

posted 02-16-2009 06:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
While it's tempting to believe those who argue against man-made global climate change, one must consider that those who argue that position are often just as politically-motivated as those they rail against, often masking their arguments with the fear of a conspiracy to control your lives.

---

On the contrary, my simple point is that the AGW fanatics are seeking extraordinary action. And extraordinary action requires extraordinary evidence. Which doesn't exist. We don't have enough data, and the data that does exist is far from conclusive. This just isn't good science. Movements such as this have the capacity to do great harm to reason.

What puts the AGW zealots into the realm of a "cult" or a "brigade" is the frantic call for action. Statements often made by AGW proponents such as "the debate is over" are a testament that the movement goes far beyond a normal issue being examined rationally. In science the debate should never be over.

It is the AGW faction that is asking for big action. I'm simply stating that from a moral perspective the burden of proof remains upon those asking to use the absolute power of government to their own ends. Because it is so absolute, that power should always be restricted to use of the utmost necessity. Increasingly it is being applied in areas without sufficient cause, including the AGW hysteria.

posted 02-16-2009 06:54 PM               

Michael Crichton, in his "State of Fear" novel makes excellent points with regard to the influence environmental advocacy groups have in the court of public opinion regardless of what is true. The bottom line in my opinion is that we have to conserve our environment the best that we can, but not at the expense of our liberties and economic freedom.

posted 02-16-2009 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
...However the extreme end of implementing a costly Environmentalism agenda with the Govt determining which light bulbs we can purchase, having remotely operated thermostatic controls so the Govt can regulate the temperatures in our houses, restricting the types of vehicles we can drive, the food we can eat, etc...

---

Huh? I haven't noticed anyone determining which light bulbs I use (only making me feel guilty for even thinking about throwing old compact fluorescents in the trash), or regulating the temperatures in my house (not doing a very good job, if they are), or restricting which vehicles I drive, and I am eating more (and enjoying it more) these days.

Which environmental dictatorship did I miss?

posted 02-16-2009 07:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
I'm sure that Robert will soon remind us that this isn't a forum to debate global warming.

---

posted 02-16-2009 09:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I am not an environmentalist. Scrap the planet, find a new one.

---

I "agree" with Robert!

Bruce

posted 02-16-2009 11:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
And extraordinary action requires extraordinary evidence. Which doesn't exist.

---

On the contrary...I do think it exists. The atmospheric record in the ice core data shows the trends of warming and cooling cycles back nearly 700,000 years. While the data shows we are likely in a natural warming cycle, it also shows that the rate of warming and the degree of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for this warming cycle are unprecedented. At no point in the atmospheric record are there higher observed concentrations of carbon dioxide than what is seen today.

Unfortunately, the argument over this topic (on both sides) has long abandoned a discussion of the scientific findings and data...and has instead become highly politicized. Both sides use their arguments to further their agendas and the science has been buried by the spin. I suspect most of us here can agree on that, no matter what side of the argument we sit on.

However, I reject the notion from some that the majority of atmospheric scientists have banded together in a conspiracy to twist the data in an effort to control people's lives. That notion, to me, is even more silly than the assertions by some that we faked the moon landings. As implausible as it is to believe that thousands of NASA engineers were willing to conspire to fake the moon landing, it's equally implausible to suggest that atmospheric scientists would fake their data or alter their findings to suit some massive conspiracy to control how warm you keep your house.

posted 02-16-2009 11:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That's not exactly true; per congressional testimony by Schmitt, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion device has produced over a milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium.

---

posted 02-16-2009 11:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
It should be the markets and consumer preference driving these choices.

---

How's the Detroit Big Three doing?

Chris.

But you do have a point: environmentalists look more and more as extremists. And I agree with you on the lightbulbs issue.

posted 02-17-2009 12:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC Giants:
The bottom line in my opinion is that we have to conserve our environment the best that we can, but not at the expense of our liberties and economic freedom.

---

posted 02-17-2009 12:08 AM               

Adopting that approach (which so many do with reckless zeal) is at best going to alienate those who you'd wish to recruit to the cause, and at worst, dangerous, misguided and inflammatory nonsense.

posted 02-17-2009 12:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce:
I "agree" with Robert!

---

You're not saving (or at least trying to) the planet for yourself, your "liberties", your lifestyle (I wonder if that's not what Mr Schmitt is unhappy about) but for the ones who will come after you.

posted 02-17-2009 03:27 AM               

I and an awful lot of others including a lot of eminent scientists think it is a crock of ****. Surely if there is all this "scientific evidence" to support "global warming" more than enough people will be convinced and spend their lives shivering under glow worm like bulbs in their leather thong sandals and pedalling everywhere to save the planet all by themselves. Just leave the rest of us alone, we don't subscribe to your theories.

Our own Prince Charles is invading South America on an "environmental awareness visit" complete with entourage in a chartered private airliner. Bull**** and hypocrisy are two words that spring to mind.

If the "green Brigade" are correct, future generations may well be better off in a world ten foot under water than a world run by small minded megalomaniac little busy bodies.

posted 02-17-2009 08:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colin Anderton:
I have never subscribed to the global warming theory. Can I ask a naive question... where are the rising sea levels?

---

posted 02-17-2009 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Scrap the planet, find a new one.

---

posted 02-18-2009 06:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
For how long? And what was the original amount of energy (electricity) used to produce that milliwatt?

---

posted 02-19-2009 12:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Scrap the planet, find a new one.

---

"Remember the first principle of wing walking. Don't let go of something unless you have a firm grasp of something else".

posted 02-19-2009 09:56 AM               

Has Schmitt ever studied Earth system science or climate change? No.

Is he a Fellow of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - YES; and an honorary member of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers? YES.

No vested interest there, then.

Perhaps humans are not causing ALL of the increased temperatures and CO2 levels. Perhaps they are. However, we can agree that we create pollution and (over) exploit our natural resources.

IMO Instead of disagreeing over who or what is causing global warming or even that it exists, we should focus on CONserving our resources and PREserving our environment.