Astronaut Claims Climate Alarmism is Complete .. Bu .. Bunk

GBFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
1,455
Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.

"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 rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Cunningham urges Americans to look at the data and decide for themselves, instead of taking anyone else's word for it:

"You go out and take a look at it and you find out that a lot of it is pure nonsense and wishful thinking on the part of the alarmists who are looking for more and more money to fall into their hands."

"Don't believe it just because your professor said it. You gotta go take a look at it. Go back and look at the history of temperature and carbon dioxide, and you look at the value of carbon dioxide, and how it's a benefit today."


Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

"In one area after another, we find these people overly concerned about, one, the danger they're trying to push on us and, secondly, the claim that we can somehow or other control the earth's temperature by affecting it," Cunningham says.

"I can't say we don't have any impact, at all, but it'd be so miniscule and so tiny, that it wouldn't be worth any effort."

So, what does dictate the Earth's temperature? Cunningham says it's well-established that "principle controllers" are natural forces like sun, ocean temperature, and even volcanic activity.

Thus, he calls climate alarmism "the biggest fraud in the field of science":

"The case is, to me, really, it's laughable to find somebody who claims to be a serious scientist - that he would buy into this. So, I would really question anybody who claims to be a scientist doing this - so, what they do is try to control the nomenclature."

"To me, it's almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of science, certainly in my lifetime, maybe the biggest one in centuries."

"If you go back and you look at the data that has been well-documented over the years, you can look and see, for example, that right now both carbon dioxide and temperature are simultaneously at one of the lowest levels in at least the last 600-800 million years. The last time they were both together at this low a level, more or less, was 300 million years ago, and if you go back go back about 500-600 million years ago, carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than what it is now. So, what I'm getting at is this, the history shows you that most of this is just plain nonsensical today."

"And, the amazing thing to people like me... is that there are people that believe the nonsense they're being fed."

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.

Worst of all, Cunningham says, media are promoting the "nonsensical" claim that there's scientific consensus accepting the hypothesis of man-made climate:

"When they're out propagating this so-called 97% of scientists believe we're controlling the temperature - I mean, that's the most nonsensical, stupid number in the world - and all they have to do is do a little research on Google - I'm not going to do it for them - go in there and take a look and you find out that's a ridiculous statement that people are making - and even the president makes a statement like that."

"If you have a totally anonymous survey of real scientists involved in this field, I would almost guarantee you that you going to have a majority that are not going to agree with the alarmists."

"I can only tell you that, even back in the days of Apollo, we didn't have to face this kind of nonsense," Cunningham concludes.
 
Werbung:
Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.

"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 rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Cunningham urges Americans to look at the data and decide for themselves, instead of taking anyone else's word for it:

"You go out and take a look at it and you find out that a lot of it is pure nonsense and wishful thinking on the part of the alarmists who are looking for more and more money to fall into their hands."

"Don't believe it just because your professor said it. You gotta go take a look at it. Go back and look at the history of temperature and carbon dioxide, and you look at the value of carbon dioxide, and how it's a benefit today."


Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

"In one area after another, we find these people overly concerned about, one, the danger they're trying to push on us and, secondly, the claim that we can somehow or other control the earth's temperature by affecting it," Cunningham says.

"I can't say we don't have any impact, at all, but it'd be so miniscule and so tiny, that it wouldn't be worth any effort."

So, what does dictate the Earth's temperature? Cunningham says it's well-established that "principle controllers" are natural forces like sun, ocean temperature, and even volcanic activity.

Thus, he calls climate alarmism "the biggest fraud in the field of science":

"The case is, to me, really, it's laughable to find somebody who claims to be a serious scientist - that he would buy into this. So, I would really question anybody who claims to be a scientist doing this - so, what they do is try to control the nomenclature."

"To me, it's almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of science, certainly in my lifetime, maybe the biggest one in centuries."

"If you go back and you look at the data that has been well-documented over the years, you can look and see, for example, that right now both carbon dioxide and temperature are simultaneously at one of the lowest levels in at least the last 600-800 million years. The last time they were both together at this low a level, more or less, was 300 million years ago, and if you go back go back about 500-600 million years ago, carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than what it is now. So, what I'm getting at is this, the history shows you that most of this is just plain nonsensical today."

"And, the amazing thing to people like me... is that there are people that believe the nonsense they're being fed."

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.

Worst of all, Cunningham says, media are promoting the "nonsensical" claim that there's scientific consensus accepting the hypothesis of man-made climate:

"When they're out propagating this so-called 97% of scientists believe we're controlling the temperature - I mean, that's the most nonsensical, stupid number in the world - and all they have to do is do a little research on Google - I'm not going to do it for them - go in there and take a look and you find out that's a ridiculous statement that people are making - and even the president makes a statement like that."

"If you have a totally anonymous survey of real scientists involved in this field, I would almost guarantee you that you going to have a majority that are not going to agree with the alarmists."

"I can only tell you that, even back in the days of Apollo, we didn't have to face this kind of nonsense," Cunningham concludes.
Oh no .........

Don't tell Aus and Labgboltz .......

Better leave our liberal friends alone in their false little realities! ;)
 
Astronaut, aka guy who is not actually in he field of Climate study with no science background in the area.

small minded trolls eat up the words of one man, and ignore the thundering voice of almost all who actually study it. Like a man telling you 5 plus 5 is 11...and 99 math teachers tell you its 10...so you say 11.
 
Astronaut, aka guy who is not actually in he field of Climate study with no science background in the area.

small minded trolls eat up the words of one man, and ignore the thundering voice of almost all who actually study it. Like a man telling you 5 plus 5 is 11...and 99 math teachers tell you its 10...so you say 11.
He is, however an actual scientist and thus qualified to guage if scientific methodology is in use. In a very real sense his life depended on science unlike clinate guys. But you ho ahead with the 97% nonesense and all. Fortunately it doesnt matter if you fret over it and ignore how nothing that they thought would result has done som
 
He is, however an actual scientist and thus qualified to guage if scientific methodology is in use. In a very real sense his life depended on science unlike clinate guys. But you ho ahead with the 97% nonesense and all. Fortunately it doesnt matter if you fret over it and ignore how nothing that they thought would result has done som
First of all, one has to have the intellect to discern the difference between a scientist and an activist. That means understanding that no matter what Bill Nye says, he is just a whacko leftist alarmist "activist" ... not a scientist!
 
He is, however an actual scientist and thus qualified to guage if scientific methodology is in use. In a very real sense his life depended on science unlike clinate guys. But you ho ahead with the 97% nonesense and all. Fortunately it doesnt matter if you fret over it and ignore how nothing that they thought would result has done som

Thats like saying a guy who has a Doctorate in applied Physics can do surgery. Both are Dr's. Its not his area of Study and I will listen to those who actuly study it over a guy who does not. I know you will just listen to who ever you think will save you money...screw the kids and the earth just make sure you get a few bucks.
 
First of all, one has to have the intellect to discern the difference between a scientist and an activist. That means understanding that no matter what Bill Nye says, he is just a whacko leftist alarmist "activist" ... not a scientist!

fine just listen to all the Climate scientents who say your idiot if you keep listening to your right wing bullshit. Just say you don't care if the earth warms and kills many and all that. Just stop the pretend its not real shit. If someone told you you could make money off it, you would be all over it.
 
Thats like saying a guy who has a Doctorate in applied Physics can do surgery. Both are Dr's. Its not his area of Study and I will listen to those who actuly study it over a guy who does not. I know you will just listen to who ever you think will save you money...screw the kids and the earth just make sure you get a few bucks.
Not what i said and its nothing like the same. There is the scientific nethod that any scientist has to learn first and it applies to any field of study.
I read that an obscoue journal for some science has recanted 30 some studies it had published for the bsame practice the climate boys used which was a tight circle of bogus peer review. Thesr guys would rubberstamp one another's papers to qualify them for publishing (publish or perish).
Point being there is nothing wrong with looking at the particulars of research. In fact its probably good if you do.
Now we can agree that doing something about polution is a good thing. Its bad for you and is really nothing more than waste which only raises the cost of goods. But lets focus on real problems and leave fake oned behind.
 
I have extracted (out of context) some of the phrases Cunningham uses.
warmist ... just their guess ... pure nonsense and wishful thinking ... Don't believe it just because your professor said it ... really, it's laughable to find somebody who claims to be a serious scientist - that he would buy into this ... almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of science ... just plain nonsensical ... people that believe the nonsense they're being fed ... most nonsensical, stupid number in the world ... alarmists ... this kind of nonsense ...
This sort of mockery is nowhere near the sort of logical argument that a thoughtful person would use. He does not do his cause credit by emotionally appealing only to those who already avidly believe what he says. That kind of language certainly will not sway the undecided.

Furthermore he says,
"they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans" ... "only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern"

I have not seen anyone who believes that predicted levels of CO2 are bad for humans; they say it's bad for the environment that humans want. His talk about the CO2 levels in a spacecraft are irrelevant.

That kind of language coming from a single astronaut gives his cause no credibility, and is really not worth posting, unless to point out the fact that it is largely devoid of intelligent content, and not worth posting.
 
Artfully worded ? No. Made fir a svuentific audience ? No. Its a tv intetview. Overplayed bit on levels ? Yes.

Any reason to not look at the situation yourself ? Nope. Far too much just doesnt add up.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top