Apollo Astronaut Says Global Warming Alarmists are Committing Fraud

images (1)

Once upon time we reached for the stars. Now we have no more space program, thanks to Obama, but we have recycling programs everywhere while grants are given to any scientist willing to claim that the sky is falling.

It’s important sometimes to look back and consider what the environmentalists have taken away from us with their massive ecoscam.

“Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it,” Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said. “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.”

“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.”

“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.”

It’s certainly the most ambitious.

  • Dave Andrews

    Walter Cunningham has “the right stuff” in this debate.


    The real issue is the Tree Hugger claim that Global Warming is Man-Made – and not a natural phenomenon.

  • Pete

    Fraud in science occurs all the time

    20 Things You Didn’t Know About… Science Fraud

    “1 What evil lurks in the hearts of scientists? Behavioral ecologist Daniele Fanelli knows. In a meta-analysis of 18 surveys of researchers, he found only 2 percent ’fessed up to falsifying or manipulating data…but 14 percent said they knew a colleague who had.”


    Here is a case of scientific fraud from this year.

    Research integrity: Cell-induced stress

    There was scientific fraud in the claim that MMR vaccines causes autism.


    Mr Wakefield took payments from lawyers litigating against pharmaceutical companies. Mr Wakefield was also taken off the medical registry as a doctor.

    I am not going to argue whether thiomersal causes autism. What I am going to state is that Mr Wakefield fudged his data.

    • Ice Czar

      How exactly is a three year old excerpt considered news?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        How is it not relevant to the topic under discussion?

      • Pete

        The Discover magazine blurb shows how endemic or systemic that scientific fraud is. 2% admit to lying and 14% say they know of some who commits scientific fraud.

        You would have to argue that scientists as a group have changed since 2012 and are much better than that.

        You would have to argue that the 2012 stat was a spike or that there has been a downward trend, because ….

        because …

        because scientists are saintly and they don’t suffer form human foibles

    • olgahmccoin

      Josiah . although Jacqueline `s stori is surprising,
      last week I bought themselves a Chrysler from having made $5060 thiss month
      and-in excess of, 10/k last-month . it’s realy the easiest-work I have ever
      done . I started this 4 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin in
      at least $78 per-hour . why not look here C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

    • DanielEPhillips

      Science has a agenda .Did you notice NOAA Quietly Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record ….
      http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp Global Climate change news for you :)

      • gerry

        Everyone knew that!

        • TheRMSDave

          It’s consistent with what I heard Rush say on the radio many years ago.

  • zoomie

    fwiw, dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years during ” global warming “.

  • bah

    …its not the numerical concentration, nor the actual temperature. it’s the rate of change, and whether or not the things that live on this world, humans included, can adapt at the same rate. That’s a real big question. The world will be fine. It’s seen much much worse. But we are worried about the things that live on it. Mostly because most of the worlds mass extinctions occurred with sudden changes in temperature and greenhouse gases, and this gives us some reason to be concerned. The alarmists like to attract attention. The deniers like to be comfortable in denial. The actual science serves neither of the loudest voices and is lost somewhere in the middle.

    • baa

      the alleged 0.7 degrees over the last century a normal rate of change in any historical time frame. there are plenty of studies that show this.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “The actual science serves neither of the loudest voices and is lost somewhere in the middle.”

      Because the actual science is neither comforting nor alarming. If you want to be “somewhat” alarmed over that, be my guest.

    • Pete

      “The alarmists like to attract attention. The deniers like to be comfortable in denial. ”

      Can you be any more trite?

      Why don’t you say Mexicans take siestas and are lazy and Norwegians are industrious. It could not be any more stupid than what you said.

      You do know that Germany is building coal plants now? Solar isn’t cutting it.

      If you have not read the news Russian has Europe over a barrel due to Europe’s reliance on natural gas a fossil fuel.

      If fossil fuels were only 10 or 20% of the whole, Europe could make sacrifices, tighten their belts, come up with a crash program and make up that 10% or 20%.

      But no, solar & wind is not cutting for Europe. if it did they would not be under Russia’s thumb.

      I have been want solar to make it for almost 40 years. I want it for energy independence form hostile nations. I want it privately to get off the grid. But it is not here yet. And for all the money dumped onto cronies of Obama and the Democrats they are not speeding yup the day.

      So get over it.

      • MaxRedline

        natural gas a fossil fuel

        For the most part, I like your post. Natural gas, however, is not a fossil fuel. Coal is a fossil fuel, but that’s about it. Peat’s close, but still doesn’t qualify.

        • Pete

          I had qualms about writing it. I was not sure about all the ways gas is created. I should have read up on it before writing.


          Natural gas is a fossil fuel formed when layers of buried plants, gases, and animals are exposed to intense heat and pressure over thousands of years.

          Natural gas is found in deep underground rock formations or associated with other hydrocarbon reservoirs in coal beds and as methane clathrates. Petroleum is another resource and fossil fuel found in close proximity to, and with natural gas. Most natural gas was created over time by two mechanisms: biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas is created by methanogenic organisms in marshes, bogs, landfills, and shallow sediments. Deeper in the earth, at greater temperature and pressure, thermogenic gas is created from buried organic material.


      • TheRMSDave

        I grew up in a household where Dad constantly fantasized about getting off the grid and alternative energy. Needless to say I threw the BS flag when Obama campaigned on being just six months away from cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels. If we would only throw funding behind the effort. We spent money on green energy hand over fist, and now what? Nothing is cheaper.

        • Pete

          I live on the grid. Even when I try to get off the grid it will be partial. It will be to control utility prices.

          In my domicile, the spouse will throw the BS flag, if the alternative is not less expensive.

          In the meantime I read what I can about solar panel designs, efficients and cost.

          So it is not here yet (if it ever arrives), but I keep an eye out.

          Was your dad shocked by prices in the 1970s?

  • DiogenesDespairs

    Excellent stand being made by Mr. Greenfield, may his tirbe increas.

    Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global wrming that may have influenced his thinking. Everyone interested in this subject should be made aware of them.

    The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

    Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

    But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

    The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

    The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that Anthropomorphic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

    [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

    by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    [2] ibid.

    [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

    [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

    [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

    [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

    [8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

    [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009″ http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

    See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

    HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.


    What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which has been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

    Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

    In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

    I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

    Please feel to copy and paaste this essay wherever youi think it will do the most good.

    • bah

      Quickly: The MWP was local. No temperature change has been recorded in various proxys around the rest of the world. The extent of it was most likely Europe, into the east Atlantic waters and around some parts of Greenland. Local fluctuations in temperature are not what we are interested it. LIkewise, the 2013-2014 winter in North America was extremely cold. That does not say global temperatures are cooling because we are worried about the Earth on whole, not in part.

      Water vapor is a product of temperature, and vice versa. The two are inextricably linked. Carbon dioxide, although it is only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere, is the only gas in the atmosphere that absorbs that most energetic portion of Earth’s blockbody emission spectra. Methane, vapor, hydrogen sulfide, and the rest absorb much weaker portions. This is why carbon dioxide is the important greenhouse gas – it’s absorption spectra means that it is the more potent of the gases, and why it, at the moment, is the controlling variable in temperature (although the exact controlling variable in Earth’s climate has changed many times over the last few billion years). Methane will be a problem, but only due to relative change in absorption following increased concentration in the atmosphere. The total energy stored in CO2 far outweighs the total energy stored in CH4.


      It’s wikipedia, find the actual source yourself, I’m sure it’s in the credits.

      Either way, you miss the point. The issue is less about who is causing it and more about the ability of us and life to adapt to a rapid temperature change. If lowering our C02 output is a way to mitigate something that has historically led to a dominant species shift, then why would you argue against it?

      Look up all my points yourself, I’m not providing credits for readily available information that you should know anyway.

      • baa

        >>The MWP was local. No temperature change has been recorded in various proxys around the rest of the world. The extent of it was most likely Europe, into the east Atlantic waters and around some parts of Greenland

        the above is not true. the MWP occurred in south america, antarctica, china, australia and various other parts around the world. lookup co2science.com that has a MWP repository of all the MWP studies. if your claim is that the MWP had no effect on global temperature then there would be an equal number of studies showing a cooling during the MWP to cancel out those that show warming. these studies do not exist. you’ve been lied to.

        >>>Carbon dioxide, although it is only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere, is the only gas in the atmosphere that absorbs that most energetic portion of Earth’s blockbody emission spectra.

        the above is not true. water is the biggest GHG, ~ 90%.

        • nightspore

          CO2 also doesn’t absorb the “most energetic portion of Earth’s blackbody emission spectra”. The portion in question is at about 10 microns. But CO2 does not absorb radiation from 9 to 13 microns. It absorbs in a band just above 13 microns, but the earth would have to have a temperature lower than that of the South Pole for its peak radiation to occur in that band.

      • Pete

        Like baa says, the MWP happened in more than just Europe. It happened in the southern hemisphere as well.

        Michael Mann weighed in on the MWP. He said it was local. He hung his hat on that and considered it a closed subject, because to reconsider the MWP would be well …

        Embarrassing and problematic.

      • Pete

        Study on paleo rainfall records clearly shows existence of MWP and LIA in Southern Hemisphere


      • rhjames

        You can’t be serious. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. H2O is the most significant. I doubt you even understand the catastrophic AGW hypothesis – basically, it assumes that an increase in CO2 will result in a small temperature increase (eg 1 degC). This will result in higher evaporation. The assumption is that positive feedback (eg heating from water vapour) will dominate negative feedback (eg increased cloud cover, resulting in cooling). To date, there is nothing to support this hypothesis.

      • truebearing

        “The issue is less about who is causing it and more about the ability of us and life to adapt to a rapid temperature change.”

        Then there isn’t any issue because there hasn’t been a rapid temperature change. Try adapting to common sense. It has infinitetly more to do with survival than the global warming scam.

        If you want to understand the earth’s temperature and climate, look up the Goldilocks Theory. Shockingly enough, it goes way out on a limb and posits that energy from the Sun as the culprit in global warming. Maybe we should declare war on sun spots…

  • GSR

    Mr Cunningham is no fool. Very level headed fellow, back when the early astronauts were not only all jet fighter pilots but often held degrees in engineering, which back then, a BS in Engineering meant much more than 99% of all Master’s degrees today.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Of course lying for some material gain or for political power is fraud. We’re just so used to it now that for the most part people simply care if the lies favor or hurt them.

  • Mysterio! BOOGAH BOOGAH

    lol wow the phony moon landing guys are calling fraud on someone? WHO can YOU trust???

  • DanielEPhillips

    NOAA Quietly Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record ….
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp Global Climate change news for you :)

  • bobmaginnis

    “Now we have no more space program, thanks to Obama…- Oh please! We don’t have the money because the neocons blew a few trillion on unnecessary wars in the Mideast.
    Climate indicators:

  • motheroftheBeave

    Global alarmism is not science; it is not based on any rational evidence; it is just nonsense that atheists need to give their lives some meaning and also a good way to make a living . If these “idiots” truly cared about saving mankind from the impending doom of “oceans rising” etc., etc., then they should be relieved to know that the weather has actually been cooling and that their herculean efforts have saved the world. But why kill the goose that has laid so many golden eggs?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It’s a fraud perpetrated by Marxist totalitarians worldwide to destroy the carbon based economy in order to bring down Capitalism, their arch nemesis. Not to mention that even if it weren’t a hoax, you’d have to be an enormous ignoramus to believe that Marxist totalitarians could put into effect measures that could possibly stop it. If anything they would end up accelerating it.

  • MaxRedline

    The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

    America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by NASA, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

    The “scientists” will keep banging on the “man-made global warming” drum, of course – there are simply too many taxpayer grants involved to do otherwise.

  • John Aldis

    No matter the perceived problem pollution (Global Warming), poverty, infrastructure, “reproductive rights” or low test scores the left always has the same solution- one way or another it becomes a tax on the middle class that goes to bureaucrats with a terrible record of results. How could the solution to Global Warming be the same as the solution to stupider kids.
    Here’s some alternate solutions-
    China should use catalytic converters.
    Women should get their birth control at the 99 cent store.
    Africa should quit chopping down trees.
    Tax the Teacher’s Union for poor results.
    Tax the press for every lie.
    Tax congress for every lie.
    The ultra rich in China, India, Africa, Indonesia etc should start their own charities.
    Sell or give dialysis machines to Mexico, to be used in Mexico.

    Here’s one, the poor should try a little harder.
    Don’t scare potential business starters with Obamacare and corporate taxes.
    How’s that for a start?

  • Bob Bingham

    This man may be able to fly a plane but he knows nothing about climate science. He would do better not to display his ignorance. http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/

  • jaklin hammam

    lol wow the phony moon landing guys are calling fraud on someone? WHO can YOU trust???