A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



Australian Speakers Agency


The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Three out of four living astronauts who walked on moon are skeptics (men the ABC won’t interview)

Charles Duke, NASA Astronaut, Moon, climate skeptic. Photo.

Charles Duke, 1972

There are only 12 men who have walked on the moon, and only 4 are still living. Selected from the best of the best at the time, with impeccable reputations, why would any of them speak out and risk being called names like deniers of “basic physics”. Yet three of the four have: Harrison Schmitt, Charles Duke, Buzz Aldrin. (Plus others like Australian born Phil Chapman (support crew, Apollo 14) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7).

Maybe because they hate watching as the good name of NASA gets subverted into a pagan weather changing cult?

And because these are guys comfortable with risk.

The NASA space program was once one of mankind’s greatest scientific and engineering achievements. In 2012 49 former NASA staff including astronauts, directors of shuttle programs, flight operations, and spacecraft maintenance, wrote to NASA warning that GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) was risking NASA’s reputation by making unproven remarks and ignoring empirical evidence.

Harrison has been a vocal skeptic now for at least nine years. So far the ABC has not asked him why, or anything at all on the topic. But then, he’s only a PhD in Geology, what would he know? If he had a degree in international relations and journalism, or law, he could tell us what the climate is going to do all the time.

Schmitt, Duke, Chapman, Cunningham and Aldrin are only a phone call away from our national broadcaster and the ABC gets $3m a day to cover the bill. How many years will it take for them to get curious enough to ask “why”?

If they were climate believers, how many times would we have heard about it?

Apollo 17 moonwalker Harrison Schmitt stirs up a buzz with climate change views

by Alan Boyle

Harrison Schmitt

Harrison Schmitt, December 1972

The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur addressed the elephant in the room with an assist from science writer Betsy Mason. Here’s how the exchange went:

St. Fleur: “In 2009, we wrote a story called ‘Vocal Minority Insists It Was All Smoke and Mirrors,’ where we quoted you, Dr. Schmitt. The story was basically about people who think the moon landing was faked, and here’s someone who’s actually been there and walked on the moon. You were saying that ‘if people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. … For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.’

“I’m wondering if you see any irony in your remarks there and your views on climate change, 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?”

Chorus from the audience: “Yes!”

Schmitt: “Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. 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. We don’t know how much CO2, for example, is being released by the Southern Oceans as the result of natural climate change that’s been going on now since the last ice age.

“The rate of temperature increase on the surface of the Earth and in the troposphere is about the same over this period of time, particularly since the Little Ice Age, which was not caused by human beings. Nor was the Medieval Warm Period, preceding that, caused by human beings. So that’s the only skepticism I have: What is the cause of climate change?

“Normally, we have always assumed up until the Industrial Revolution that climate change is a function of the solar cycles — and indeed, there is still very strong evidence that’s the case. So, no, there is no irony in that. I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the United States 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.”

Betsy Mason: “I just want to say that I’m a geologist, and I think that maybe you should reconsider speaking for geologists on that topic.”

Schmitt: “Really?”

Read about Boyles surprise that climate change dominated a discussion that was meant to be about the 50th Anniversary of the Apollo missions. “Fifty years ago today, for example, Apollo 7’s astronauts were putting NASA’s moonship to the test for the very first time in Earth orbit.”

We’ve lost three men who walked on the moon in the last two years. When will the ABC / BBC / CBC interview the ones still alive and ask them their views on one of the most important scientific issues of the day?

h/t Joe Bast, Heartland

Wiki on Charles Duke, Harrison Schmitt, and Buzz Aldrin. Photo: Harrison Schmitt, Charles Duke, and Buzz.

9.2 out of 10 based on 123 ratings

85 comments to Three out of four living astronauts who walked on moon are skeptics (men the ABC won’t interview)

  • #

    Well what would they know?
    They don’t have the brainpower of Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Oh Bummer, Angela Merkel and the other swag of climate “scientists” who know it all.


    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I was raging at the world this morning because I’m so frustrated at stupid people.

      A sure sign of intelligence is the ability to look at and understand things from a different point of view, and intelligent people are open minded towards new information and changing parameters.

      Stupid people on the other hand will continue arguing forever and will not budge from their position, regardless of any valid arguments brought against them. That also means they will not notice if the other person happens to be more intelligent and competent.


      • #

        Greg, In all my working life I only ever came across one man who could happily accept an alternative point of view to his own, if this view was in fact superior. This highly inteligent individual never cared about point scoring, proving points or being seen to be controlling or pedanntic, it was always about best outcomes for the problem in hand and for the business overall. I, along with many others always required additional convincing. My colleauge could, in short order and very publicly, change from his viewpoint to an alternative, and argue strongly for it, in the time it takes to read this. A rare man indeed ! Equally, he could not be swayed if in his opinion he was right, and , damn, if you couldn’t change his mind, it was because he was .


        • #
          robert rosicka

          Sambar the day you stop learning is the day you die , and the day they can come up with something other than a model to prove that Co2 is in fact doing what they say it is I’m open to change my stance .
          But the evidence better be scientific and not a computer game or theory .


      • #

        How many of the points made apply to CAGW activists?
        John Maynard Keynes said when taken to task for changing his opinion over some economic matter: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”


      • #
        Radical Rodent

        I am nicking much of this, if you don’t mind… then, I’m nicking it, anyway – too good not to!


    • #

      Tim Flannery said it would never rain again


    • #
      Ian Knows

      Walking one the moon doesn’t qualify you as a climate scientist any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.


  • #

    In 2030 when the oceans haven’t boiled away, the GBR is a healthy as it’s ever been and the world is even greener, people might begin to wonder about all this hysteria as they collect more dripping for their candles. But I’ll bet that the same ones will still be screaming ‘The end of the world is nigh!’ and that we only have a few years before we reach a tipping point.


    • #

      Yes preaching the end of the world from their gated mansions surrounded by the trappings of ill gotten gains, while the uncooperative are rounded up at the commands of those that are unelected and unknown to their prey.


    • #

      They can never confess they were wrong as the fear climate change is part of their political mantra, it makes the left the only party with the greens that will save us. Recently on the news I saw the huge poster for the bi election showing Sydney mostly under water.


  • #

    World Socialist Web Site, but some very good stuff in here:

    18 Oct: WSWS: A discussion with Helen Pluckrose, co-author of “Grievance Studies” hoax article
    By Eric London

    jo’s thread on the subject:

    4 Oct: JoNova: Humanities research politicized too: Silly fake papers “feminist Mein Kampf” get through peer review
    Unfalsifiable theories and no dissenting ideas allowed


  • #

    No one seems to ask the critical question. Can we tell how much of the CO2 increase is man made?

    Yes, we can. Almost none. Strangely even Schmidt does not know the answer to that question. Nor do many. They seem to accept the idea that you can unilaterally increase the amount of CO2 in the air and it will stay there.

    I suggest that is because people are not familiar with the concepts of physical equilibrium, that water seeks it own level and in a similar way, so does CO2. The ratio between CO2 in the ocean and in the air is determined by sea surface temperature and nothing else. A tiny increase in sea surface temperature would be quite enough for the 50% increase in CO2 since 1900. However people are prepared to believe that CO2 is determined by man.

    At least Schmidt asks how much CO2 has been released by the Southern Ocean in that time. He is starting to get to the point. He could also ask how much has been absorbed in that time too.

    With a half life for absorption of 14 years and 98% of the world’s CO2 in the oceans, only 0.2% of the 1900 CO2 is still around.
    Since 1950, 68 years have passed. So only 4% of 1950 CO2 is still in the air.
    Even since 2000, 70% of all CO2 has been exchanged with the oceans.

    The system is self setting, self cleaning from that worst of pollutants, CO2. The stuff of life. As important as H2O in the creation and maintenance of life. We are carbon creatures and CO2 is the Carbon Cycle embodiment. Of course we have to get rid of it.


    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Since 2002, the Southern Ocean has been removing more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, according to two new studies. These studies, out today in the journals Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and Science, make use of millions of ship-based observations and a variety of data analysis techniques to conclude that the Southern Ocean has increasingly taken up more CO2 during the last 13 years. That follows a decade from the early 1990s to 2000s, where evidence suggested the Southern Ocean CO2 sink was weakening.’


      Taking it on face value, going from one mode to another requires a mechanism. This may simply mean the Southern Ocean has become cooler, which would improve sink function.


    • #

      TdeF wrote:

      The ratio between CO2 in the ocean and in the air is determined by sea surface temperature and nothing else.

      This is not correct. There are many factors other than surface temperature that impact on the solubility. For example the high pH of the oceans has a significant impact because the majority of the CO2 that enters the ocean is converted to carbonic acid so is not held as an aqueous gas. Due to the slow rate of exchange there is never global equilibrium. For example, warm tropical water carried to higher latitudes will not be in equilibrium with the air above. Likewise wind and waves impact on the diffusion rate.

      In any case the top 100m of the oceans are cooler now than in 1998 and yet the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is not declining.


  • #
    el gordo

    Harrison Schmitt wrote an article in 2013 which claimed that increasing levels of CO2 would actually benefit humanity. At the time it produced uproar in some circles.


  • #

    You can’t argue with stupidity and ignorance that have formed into a cult.
    I was in Nuremberg yesterday and toured the Nazi party parade grounds.
    It really reinforced the power propaganda had on the masses.
    We all know how that ended.
    The current climate change cult is following the same model.
    Elite activist have manipulated the media and politicians and attacking anyone opposing them.
    It will be interesting To see if the western world survives.
    The greenies won’t win however as China, India, Russia etc aonly give lip service to this madness and will readily step in to fill the vacuum.


    • #
      Mark D.

      The current climate change cult is following the same model.
      Elite activist have manipulated the media and politicians and attacking anyone opposing them.

      Yes by exploiting several fairly well known human weaknesses. Tragic to see now but we evolved by working well together as thuggish tribes. Survival not by being right but by cunning and deceit. When lead by masterful propagandists, we humans can be made to perform all kinds of evil acts.

      Been that way all through time. Not likely to change much either. Only by fairly strict adherence to a few principled laws and precepts have we been able to get this far as a race.


      • #
        Tom O

        Since this post and the one you are replying to are, presumably, referencing the National Socialists of Hitler’s Germany, I have to ask a simple question – How dose taking a broken, heart broken nation from abject poverty to full employment qualify as “propaganda?” If so, I think it time western nations all learned this art of “propaganda” as well so that they can support those who think they deserve to have it all, too, but without working for it. It always amazes me that people can only think of Germany post 1939, but cannot be bothered to remember what was done to the nation after WW1, and how it bloomed during the western “great depression” under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.


        • #
          Mark D.

          sorry Tom O.. I sense you would benefit from a course in the meaning of the word “propaganda”. Without that in place, I cannot help you.

          On the way to learning, read my comment carefully again and try carefully to find where I mention Hitler? Also only a very naive mind would claim that propaganda was a recent invention.

          On your second re-read, imagine what propagandist preceded Hitler to cause a “broken heart broken nation” in “abject poverty”.

          If you are trying to have me believe that Hitler was simply “misunderstood” or some other nonsense then give up. Good God give up!


  • #
    Kinky Keith

    I guess it’s too late now to extricate the term Skeptic from its current usage where it denotes a Climate Change Denier but nevertheless dream of a more positive image.

    I readily identify as a “Skeptic” although would prefer to be seen as a “qualified scientist”.

    The Moon Astronauts and support team were the ultimate in real world application of learning, skills training, common sense, scientific evaluation and planning and not to forget: Courage.

    Their opinions therefore are to be well regarded and given due consideration.

    When they say that they “know” something it’s very unlikely that they are wrong.

    It’s good to have a Post that acknowledges them for who they were and which values their opinions.



  • #
    Latus Dextro

    “The rate of temperature increase on the surface of the Earth and in the troposphere is about the same over this period of time, particularly since the Little Ice Age, which was not caused by human beings.”

    In fact, Holocene records up to 8000 years before present from several ice cores show that the differences in temperatures between all records approximately a century apart were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C, almost exactly what is seen today (Lloyd 2015).
    The AGW “climate change” signal to the natural “climate variability” noise are inseparable. This is actually the science.
    On the other hand, “settled politics,” consensus scientivism, progressive Green climatism and, add the Rainbow Cult for good measure, pride parade their skimpy beliefs mistakenly thinking that they are safe in their reliance on political correctness and the neo-Marxist secular taboos it has installed.

    They are not, as the PC taboos are failing around the Wold as more people call out the climatism charade and see the Paris Discord for what it is, the Trojan horse of globalism


  • #
    Bill In Oz

    I read that the arctic icecap is’ shrinking’. That each Summer more sea ice melts and does not refreeze.Ummmm ?

    If there is more open cold sea water in the Arctic that should also mean that more CO2 is absorbed into the cold waters of the Arctic ocean.

    And surely the capacity of frozen ice to absorb CO2 would be clsoe to zero…

    I am also interested in the issue of CO2 being released by vulcanism under the seas. There is a huge ‘seam’ which is tectonicly active from Iceland in the North all the way to the Southern Ocean…CO is released in volcanic eruptions..So an awfl lot of CO2 is being absorbed by the Northern Atlantic ocean, the Southern Atlantic ocean and the Southern Ocean.


    • #

      I believe that compared to other sources of natural CO2 emissions, volcanoes emit very little. For example, freshwater emits ten times as much and vegetation a lot more. Willing to be corrected if I’m wrong here.


    • #

      Bill in OZ:
      You can add to that the volcanism around the edge of the Pacific plate: that’s way bigger than the Atlantic Ridge, running right around the edge of the Pacific plate, and it’s even more active from the Sunda trench, Sumatra, up through the Mariana Trench off the Philipines, past Iwo Jima, Taiwan, Japan, the Kuriles off the Kamchatka peninsula, through the Aleutians south of Alaska and down the west coast of North America. That’s the Northern Half. There’s the Southern Half to go …

      I haven’t mentioned the Indian Ocean …

      The major portion of the globe’s volcanic activity from both aerial volcanoes and submarine volcanoes, exists mostly around the edges of these tectonic plates and always on the plate which is overriding the subsumed plate.


  • #
    robert rosicka

    A lefty on the Sky Outsiders face book page has taken offence to Rowan Dean’s lampooning of an ABC weather report, Rowan was pointing out that although there was a likely hood of record lows being recorded the presenter had to keep the faith by dismissing the cold temps as being caused by Globull Warming.
    The troll threw the usual insults then explained that the BOM forecast for hottest Evah for the region was not an exact science , so I replied ” you say they can’t be exact with predictions 3 – 6 months out but accept they can predict what the weather will be to the nearest Hundredths of a degree in 12, 30 , 50 and a 100 years in advance .


  • #

    “The NASA space program was once one of mankind’s greatest scientific and engineering achievements.”
    I would venture to say that the NASA Apollo space program was THE greatest scientific and engineering achievement of mankind, certainly within the modern era.


    • #

      Landing probes on comets was rather good too.


    • #
      Another Ian

      IIRC Jeremy Clarkson points out that some NASA folk consider that making Concorde work as a commercial proposition ranks higher


      • #

        “IIRC Jeremy Clarkson points out that some NASA folk consider that making Concorde work as a commercial proposition ranks higher”

        The Concorde was a great technical achievement but I don’t think it was ever a commercial success.


    • #

      I agree and here is a great song from the era celebrating the achievement.

      Higher and higher, by The Moody Blues

      Blasting, billowing, bursting forth
      With the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes
      Man with his flaming pyre
      Has conquered the wayward breezes

      Climbing to tranquility
      Far above the cloud
      Conceiving the heavens
      Clear of misty shroud

      Higher and higher
      Now we’ve learned to play with fire
      Go higher and higher and higher

      Vast vision must improve our sight
      Perhaps at last we’ll see and end
      To our homes endless blight
      And the beginning of the free

      Climb to tranquility
      Finding its real worth
      Conceiving the heavens
      Florishing on earth

      Higher and higher
      Now we’ve learned to play with fire
      Go higher and higher and higher

      and here is a recent you tube clip


  • #

    Little people locked in the zone
    of consensus opinion can’t (or won’t)
    engage with contra views (or worse)
    naychure’s trial and error tests
    of what is, or what ain’t,’tis
    enough ter make them faint,
    no way yr’d find’em, any day soon
    flyin’ to the moon.


  • #
  • #

    “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.”
    I totally agree funding driven science is corrupting ALL science.


    • #

      Two thoughts come to mind, Eisenhauer
      observation and IPCC mission.


    • #

      I recently (this year) watched a supposed NASA video about how the Greenland Ice Sheet was in the terminal stages of melting away.
      It was delivered by a (relatively) young female physicist who was very much on the “official song sheet.” I thought about that P38 fighter plane, Glacier Girl, as an anodyne to `Greenland is melting and we’re all gonna be washed away.’
      I think I was supposed to be sucked in by this pretty Physical—ist.

      Twenty years ago, Greenland was steadily building it’s ice cap. Now it might, just might (and the `evidence’ is not satisfactory) be melting a bit during summer, but that is strongly indicative of cyclic behaviour. Nope, not a mention. The Song Sheet says it’s all my fault (and yours) for running SUVs. But I don’t run an SUV, but it’s my fault for eating meat. I’m an Omnivore, and all the Vegans I’ve known died young. I made it to retirement age. YAY! and I’ll eat what suits me.


  • #

    18 Oct: Reuters: Tim Nixon: Breakingviews – Guest view: Climate activism nears final frontier
    MINNEAPOLIS – Climate activism is nearing the final frontier – and at just the right moment. Last week’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that keeping the rise in the Earth’s temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius requires us to make unprecedented changes by 2030 in the way we use energy resources. One big stumbling block is a lack of enough accurate data. That will soon change, though, as Google, Planet, MethaneScan and a host of space agencies are starting to track greenhouse gases from orbit.

    Just a handful of around 250 global corporations and their supply chains account for about one-third of total annual emissions caused by human society, according to a recent study by Thomson Reuters, CDP, and Constellation Research. Think Exxon, PetroChina, Coal India and other oil, gas, transportation, capital-goods and mining engines of the world from which we have all benefited, and through which lies a key solution to climate change.

    More than half of these companies, though, do not voluntarily disclose their major sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, let alone their plans to reduce future pollution. In lieu of disclosure, outside experts try to estimate the numbers. What results is a guessing game on who matters most, and what their rate of increase or decrease might be over time.

    It’s like having 100 factories on a river from which we all must drink. One-third disclose what they put into it. Two-thirds do not. It’s simply untenable at a time when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is, at 410 parts per million, literally off the historical chart…
    There are moves to improve disclosure…

    The needle has to move more quickly, though – and preferably in the next five years when the opportunity for action will be the least expensive and disruptive. Taking to the heavens offers just such a chance. The ability to measure emissions levels and sources from orbit will allow us to generate “unprecedented images” of greenhouse gases and how they change over time, European Space Agency scientists revealed in a recent Thomson Reuters report. Now others are collaborating. This month the United Nations Science, Business and Policy Forum is hosting a meeting in Paris with the ESA and fellow space agencies and others: the goal is to determine how to combine data and artificial intelligence to identify and manage sources of emissions.
    Alphabet’s Google division is involved in orbital planetary defense too…

    Any big global emitters that are not disclosing their emissions could soon have them measured for them and made public without their involvement. Similarly, those that have released the wrong data will soon stand publicly corrected…

    Reputational, financial and regulatory risk will increase along with emissions. So the ability to properly measure greenhouse gases with real-time data is key. It will remove one of the biggest barriers to addressing climate risk – opacity – and allow companies, investors, policymakers and watchdogs alike to boldly go where we have not been able to go before.

    About the writer, Tim Nixon:
    Tim Nixon is the founder and managing editor of the Thomson Reuters Sustainability site. He is Head of Sustainability Thought Leadership at Thomson Reuters and has ongoing engagement with a wide spectrum of NGO and private sector partners. Tim has contributed at many global policy-making events, including those hosted by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Economist. He is a frequent author of multiple reports on global greenhouse gas emission trends from the largest companies of the world. Tim is a lawyer by training and has spent most of his career working to build change-leading initiatives.


    • #
      Kinky Keith

      What a complete waste of human effort.

      Imagine what could be done to better the lot of humanity if these resources were put to more sensible use.



      • #

        Yes, its evil, IMHO.

        Think about what benefit we could have provided to humanity with that money, instead of peeing it against a wall for no result.


      • #

        In fact, it would be interesting if someone did an opportunity cost calculation for the trillions wasted whete we could as a society be now…


    • #

      posting because nothing annoys me more than the CAGW/Reuters nexus:

      23 Nov 2017: ThomsonReutersFinancial: ESG Responsible Investing: Sustainable Development Goals: Unlocking value in ESG investing?
      Written by Inside Financial & Risk – Editor
      The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) align the interests of investors, companies and society on sustainability matters. But are these 17 Global Goals able to unlock value in impact investing?…
      New products such as funds and indices themed around the SDGs are also in the pipeline or in development…

      The UN’s Global Goals agenda
      The UN recognizes that the SDGs must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address social needs.
      The SDG agenda is enormous. To succeed in meeting the goals, the total required investment over the next 15 years is US$90 trillion with over 80 percent of that investment coming from private capital…

      At the recent webinar sponsored by Thomson Reuters, we asked a panel of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) experts for their thoughts.
      •Xander den Uyl, a board member for the Principles for Responsible Investment.
      •Christopher Greenwald, Executive Director, Sustainable and Impact Investing, UBS Asset Management.
      •Carly Greenberg, Senior ESG Analyst, Walden Asset Management.
      ***•Tim Nixon, Head of Sustainability, Thomson Reuters

      Xander den Uyl, who is on the board of trustees at ***Europe’s largest pension fund, outlined the Global Goals in terms of risk and opportunity…

      Greenwald thinks there needs to be a shift from analysis based on company reporting to one that is based on the insights of environmental and health sciences…

      The SDGs may also serve as helpful criteria for investors to identify leaders and laggers…

      ***Tim Nixon supported this point with reference to the Global 250 Greenhouse Gas Emitters report which was published by Thomson Reuters and the United Nations…

      30 Oct 2017: ThomsonReutersBlog: Sustainability: Release: Global 250 Greenhouse Gas Emitters: A new Business Logic
      Highlights Relationship Between DeCarbonization Strategies and Long-Term Financial Performance
      Geneva — Thomson Reuters today released its report, GLOBAL 250 GREENHOUSE GAS EMITTERS – A New Business Logic (LINK), in tandem with the United Nation’s flagship emissions gap report. Both reports were released in advance of the upcoming Climate Change Conference (COP 23)…

      The report was written in collaboration with CDP, an international not-for-profit organization holding the world’s largest collection of self-disclosed corporate environmental data, Constellation Research and Technology, a team of sustainability experts from Yale University, and BSD consulting, a global sustainability consultancy. Key contributions were also made from Baker McKenzie, KPMG, State Street Global Exchange, the United Nations Gigaton Coalition, and the Norwegian Climate and Environment Ministry, and the European Space Agency…

      Erik Solhiem, head of UN Environment shared,
      “As global policymakers regulate to reduce emissions, going green is increasingly a requirement for doing business. The markets are moving rapidly, and the private sector is where some of the most exciting low-carbon innovations and new business opportunities are taking place. This leadership is essential to close the emissions gap and ensure long-term economic prosperity.”…

      ***Tim Nixon, Head of Sustainability Thought Leadership, at Thomson Reuters, and co-author for the report commented,
      “Current emission trends are flat when they should have been going down by roughly 3% per year. This delay in reduction will increase the cost and complexity of the required transformations in the future, and decreases the probability of meeting targets required for limiting disruptive climate events. The urgent commitment of non-state actors is critical.”…

      19 Jan: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Norway’s $1 trillion fund curbs holdings in biggest CO2 emitters
      The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGC), which represents investors with more than 21 trillion euros ($26 trillion) in assets under management, welcomed the shift.
      “The fund … reducing its stake in major emitters is a strong signal that investors are increasingly focused on aligning their portfolios with the rapidly progressing energy transition,” Stephanie Pfeifer, IIGC chief executive, told Reuters…

      Despite the decline in its percentage holdings, the value of the fund’s investments in the top 150 emitters rose to 484 billion Norwegian crowns ($61 billion) in 2016 against 448 billion in 2014, a fraction of the $1 trillion fund’s stakes in almost 9,000 companies.
      The survey showed the fund had no investments in Coal India during the period and trimmed its percentage stake in Gazprom. It raised its percentage stake slightly in Exxon Mobil and kept it steady in Thyssenkrupp and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp…

      Tim Nixon, director of sustainability at Thomson Reuters, said the data indicated a good start “but to be effective you really need to pick out the laggards from the leaders.”…
      Unilever, for instance, says it helps consumers save energy and emissions with washing powder that works at lower water temperatures…


  • #

    Warmism is no passing phase,
    But a deep-rooted mindset malaise,
    As M.S.M. worldwide,
    Take I.P.C.C.’s side,
    With a grip very hard to erase.


  • #

    the NYT journo who posed the questions:

    LinkedIn: Nicholas St. Fleur, Science Reporter at The New York Times, Palo Alto, Calif.
    Previous:mThe Atlantic, Scientific American, NPR
    Education, Cornell University
    He is also a graduate of the U.C. Santa Cruz Science Communication Program, and an alumni of The New York Times Student Journalism Institute.
    He completed his undergraduate degree at Cornell University in biological sciences with a minor in communication.

    the geologist, to whom Schmitt responded beautifully “oh really!”:

    National Geographic: Betsy Mason
    Betsy Mason is a freelance science journalist and former geologist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. She was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT for 2015-16. Before that Mason was the online science editor for Wired, where she founded the Wired Science Blogs Network and co-authored the Map Lab blog with Greg Miller. She and Miller also co-author the National Geographic blog All Over the Map (see older posts here and follow the blog on Twitter here).
    When she’s not writing about maps, Mason covers science and makes excuses to write about beer.

    from Nicholas St. Fleur’s Twitter page –
    Nicholas St. Fleur Retweeted the following – read the whole thread (eventually Becker corrects the spelling of Schmitt), as Becker ends up in media coverage I will post:

    TWEET: Adam Becker: This just happened a few minutes ago and I’m still marveling at it. At the end of the Q&A, @SciFleur went up to the microphone and quoted Schmidt from this article on moon landing deniers…

    Adam Becker: Many people in the audience (including yrs truly) shouted “YES THERE IS” or something to that effect. But Schmidt carried on denying established scientific fact, citing his expertise as a geologist…

    I know that at least a couple of people in the audience were recording audio of all of this, and I *think* that someone got it on video. Or at least I’m desperately hoping someone did…

    Also, when @SciFleur started out his question with Schmidt’s own quote on moon landing deniers, there was palpable tension in the air. A fair fraction of us in the room knew about Schmidt’s climate denial, and were wondering if it would come up.

    Google books: Adam Becker is a science writer with a PhD in astrophysics and an undergraduate degree in philosophy. His writing has appeared in the BBC and New Scientist. He has recorded a video series with the BBC and several podcasts with the Story Collider. He is also a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley’s Office for History of Science and Technology. He lives in Oakland, CA.


  • #

    15 Oct: LiveScience: Last Man to Walk on the Moon Mistaken About Climate Change on Earth
    By Mindy Weisberger, Senior writer
    (Mindy Weisberger is a senior writer for Live Science covering general science topics, especially those relating to brains, bodies, and behaviors in humans and other animals — living and extinct. Mindy studied filmmaking at Columbia University; her videos about dinosaurs, biodiversity, human origins, evolution, and astrophysics appear in the American Museum of Natural History, on YouTube, and in museums and science centers worldwide)

    Today (Oct. 15), Harrison Schmitt, a geologist who flew on the Apollo 17 mission in 1972 and who is the last living person to have visited the lunar surface, told a roomful of science journalists that he did not believe climate change is caused by human activity, despite overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus to the contrary…
    Schmitt is known for denying scientifically proven aspects of climate change, Discover Magazine reported (LINK) in 2011…

    Schmitt countered by saying that he “saw no evidence” that global warming was taking place as a result of human activity, and that climate change wasn’t happening as quickly as reported, audience member and astrophysicist Adam Becker wrote in a thread on Twitter…

    “I see no irony at all,” Schmitt answered St. Fleur (his response was recorded by National Geographic writer Maya Wei-Haas, who shared the audio in a tweet)…

    But a geologist in the audience, Betsy Mason, also a writer for National Geographic, quickly interjected that Schmitt “should reconsider speaking for all geologists on that topic.”…

    2011: DiscoverMagBlog: Moon walker, climate change denier
    By Phil Plait
    I’ve written about Apollo 14’s Ed Mitchell diving headlong into antiscience (as well as here, here, and here) for example.
    And now I fear I must add Apollo 17’s Harrison Schmitt to the list…
    Apparently, he’s been using blatantly wrong information to support his arguments. My Discover Magazine co-blogger Chris Mooney gives an overview of this on DeSmogBlog, but the real meat of Schmitt’s claims is pretty handily debunked by Scott Mandia and again by John Cook. There’s also a pretty brutal treatment of it by Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog as well…ETC


  • #

    writer is a freelancer in India:

    17 Oct: InternationalBusinessTimesIndia: The last man to walk on moon rubbishes data, saying no proof that humans behind climate change
    Harrison Schmitt, a former NASA astronaut, recently said that he doesn’t believe that humans have caused climate change despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence points to it.
    By Poulami Nag
    He also added that climate change is actually not occurring as fast as the reports are showing, astrophysicist Adam Becker, who was present in the audience, posted in a Twitter thread…

    Apparently, Schmitt is quite well known for denying scientifically proven facts about climate change. In 2011, Discover Magazine had reported that “he’s a climate change denialist” and that “he’s been using blatantly wrong information to support his arguments.”

    In another such instance, in a 2013 Wall Street Journal article, which Schmitt co-wrote along with an American physicist William Happer, he claimed that the rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) is actually good for the world, as it would benefit humanity. The name of the article, unsurprisingly, was ‘Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.’

    In the recent Q&A recording, Schmitt explained that Earth has witnessed climate change in the past; so “the only question is, ‘Is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?'” As soon as Schmitt uttered those words, the audience replied with a loud and chorus “Yes!” However, that didn’t seem to distract Schmitt, as he went on to say that in his profession, which is geology, he found no evidence of the fact that humans influence the climate…

    It’s significant to note that The Geological Society of London had concluded in a statement, which was published in 2010, that humans were the very cause behind the rapid increase of climate change

    Yahoo is carrying the Geekwire article. 19 comments when I visited the page, mostly on Schmitt’s side.


  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    It is cool to ask an astronaut.
    It might be even more productive to ask a farmer.
    More than most of us, farmers live intimately with he consequences of small climate changes.
    Maps of crop coverage, and history of yields, suggest that farmers are coping pretty well
    with climate evolution, whatever the cause. One of the dumbest things about warmists is their
    “dumb farmer” presumption; that rigid farming practices will portend disaster as climate changes.
    No, farmers will adapt. They will change practices, change crops, and change land use patterns
    often without government “help”. As a rural kid, I don’t think of the County agent as government;
    as they are in the fields with us.
    Of course there are massive changes, such as the dust bowl of the 30’s, that require exceptional coping skills.
    Given that we set new records every year today, one must presume that farmers are miracle workers, to prevent a repeat.
    They are.


    • #

      Those that made it to be astronauts did not have time to attend political or student rallies. They were studying and working.
      They were making something of their life and it was for the benefit of mankind.
      The outstanding qualities of those people are frowned upon by today’s academic swill.


    • #

      Richard, I have to disagree with you. The National Farmers Federation has been completely taken over by hobby-farmers and greenies. Fiona Simson, president, frequently comments on ABC TV about climate change causing droughts, floods and every thing else that can go wrong for farmers – pathetic. Lock the Gate are a farmers group opposed to any and all drilling, fracking or other mining activity on farmland. The Knitting Nannas are a another group of silly old country women opposed to all mining activity in country areas. Frequently, in the local paper, self-proclaimed farmers submit articles complaining about climate change causing this or any drought that adversely affects them. They then end their articles by demanding the Federal Government ‘do something about climate change’. It’s a disgrace.


  • #

    Reading this I feel the passing of an era, when, despite the Cold War political overtones/undertones, humans achieved some remarkable things. It was a time of hope, expectation, invention, and achievement. A time of expansion of our knowledge of the world, our solar system, and of the cosmos. Our future was bright and promising.

    That now, in the 21st century, that achievement is even questioned and those men who risked so much and flew to the moon are ridiculed by some as having staged the whole thing in some Hollywood backlot, we have this farce and distortion of science and physics for the venal purpose of imposing some UN-driven one-world utopia. A utopia that will only make the “chosen” few wealthy and powerful, and condemn the survivors of their inherent cruelty and utter selfishness and greed to lives of misery and deprivation. It always ends that way when someone or some group with the means to do so takes a country down that path.

    This time they’re trying for the biggest prize, they want to remake the world; and are using CO2 – a molecule that (to quote poster SimonJ over at Watts Up With That) is in fact 75% Oxygen – that makes up barely 0.04% of the atmosphere as their excuse. That this falsehood has survived so long is testament to the lack of critical thinking among our governments, and to the abysmal standard of our education system.

    What the heck happened to the great promise of 50 years ago? How did we let it happen?


  • #
    Doug Proctor

    I am a 40 year geologist. He can speak for me.


  • #
    Roy Hogue

    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? — Harrison Schmitt”

    He says it so eloquently that I hardly need ad anything except this. All the astronauts who flew or trained to fly and everyone who supported them clear to the end of the lunar landing project were chosen for their analytical ability and their understanding of science. There were other qualification but belief in false science was not one of them. Apollo 13 showed the whole world what can be done by those who, instead of running around crying, “Oh woe is me, the world is ending,” settle down and face the problem in front of them and work on reality based solutions to real problems. The world doesn’t have time for this distraction called climate change.

    After the explosion of a liquid oxygen tank disabled their spacecraft everyone was focused on the real problem. Three men got home because no one tried to deny the real facts of the situation, least of all, the three men whose lives were suddenly in jeopardy. The whole thing played out in front of the world in real time and you didn’t hear anyone complaining. Nothing was hidden. Jim Lovell’s biography, “Apollo 13”, says it like it was. It’s a riveting read if you haven’t read it.


    • #
      Kinky Keith

      That’s it Roy,

      ” the world doesn’t have time for this sort of distraction “.

      There are so many real problems to define and fix.

      For me, the most urgent is that organisation sitting on the East River in New York city.

      The U.N. ___ Peak Tokenism.



      • #
        Peter C

        I visited the UN Building last year.

        I found it a bit disturbing. Green tokenism every where on the public floor and the book shop.

        I talked to a few people who live in the area. To my amazaement they were quite supportive of the USA hosting the UN!


        • #
          Roy Hogue


          One reason those near the UN in New York would be glad to have them there is that the UN people, many employees, probably patronize shops and especially eateries around that headquarters complex.

          McDonald-Douglass had a big plant here that was closed, hundreds of employees were suddenly out of work. And the small mom and pop operations from catering trucks to small restaurants that had grown up around that customer base all went bankrupt soon after the closing.

          It’s an example of that old saying, “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good.”

          Another reason they might like the UN around is simply that they think the UN is a good idea.


  • #

    The warmists, alarmists, global warming idiots, have a lot to answer for. A damned lot. This scam has cost mankind trillions of dollars which could have been spent on honest scientific research.

    Instead the warmy freaks have scared the children for generations to come, wasted trillions of dollars on futile renewables, and hamstrung national economies with their green policies.

    Not one prediction has come true. Every ‘tipping point’ has passed without any change in the climate.

    These people are charlatans, snake oil merchants of the lowest order and are deserving of nothing less than jail time for the damage they have done to Western civilisation.

    Some great quotes from other commenters on this thread:

    “The world doesn’t have time for this distraction called climate change.” (Roy Hogue)

    “What the heck happened to the great promise of 50 years ago? How did we let it happen?” (Bushkid)


  • #

    Another great article Jo.

    Considering the major theme of responses here (how can this warming nonsense be ended), can anyone remember a past change in some other social perception of the order of magnitude necessary to end this whole global warming package scam? If so what was the issue, when did the change happen, and how long did it take?

    I’m looking for something to hope for…


    • #

      Possibly the nearest i can think of would be the spread of the Nazi philosphy of Arian dominance.
      It took many years of world war and millions of lives lost to rectify that social experiment !


  • #

    Hats off to Harrison Schmidtt for going into the lions den and speaking his peace. The gasping reaction of the assembled crowd to Dr. Schmidtt’s denial of climate change can be chalked up to the refusal of most consensus climate scientists to debate the issue. It’s created the illusion for some that the science has been settled. The problem for climate science is that a lot of other people treat the refusal to debate as a tacit admission that the consensus scientists cannot win the debate. Perhaps when a journalist asks why the country is so divided, its time to suggest the tactics used to shut down debate or even airing alternative points of view are a clear culprit. Also point out that promotion of climate action has become a clear political loser, hence the election of Donald Trump. Climate policy has raced ahead of the development of adequate solutions for low carbin energy generation and is only being propped up by regulation and subsidird that’s costing utility customers dearly making them skeptical, angry and motivated. Peter Gleick, who just won a science communication award from the AGU, once tweeted the best way to deal with deniers is tell them to “STFU”. Its time the media tell him and his consensus friends that his strategy is horrendously counter productive.


  • #

    It is frustrating that alarmists who shriek that there is consensus and the “science” is settled continue to do so even when you point them in the direction of the thousands of eminent scientists who beg to differ. You would think that with so many publicly questioning the models and providing very clear reasons for their scepticism, even the most gormless follower of fashion might start to wonder if AGW/MMCC really is settled.

    But not at Fairfax – nope, nothing can convince the catastrophists there that many scientists are sceptics.


  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    ‘ABC’ won’t interview them, nor indeed will the BBC, nor any of the mainstream media in the western world. What a bunch of hypocrites! These people were heroes 50 years ago now they are trash. Times change and generations of young people get brainwashed with green leftist claptrap.


  • #

    What Schmitt says is correct, that Nasa landed men on the moon. Evidence is the laser reflectors placed on the surface, which are used for laser rangefinding of the moon, by moonbounce experiments that continue today. This Youtube video from Mythbusters shows the procedure of firing 1 GW laser pulses at these relectors.


  • #

    Additional information on the reflectors on the moon for laser rangefinding, to show the Mythbusters link is correct –