Jack Schmitt chimes in as a global warming skeptic

[Echnaton]

From an article In Defense of Carbon Dioxide by Harrison Schmitt and William Happer in today's Wall Street Journal.  Also available here.  I bring it up only because Schmitt is an author.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

[Daggerstab]

That's not exactly news - he's been at it at least since 2009. Wikipedia has links to some of his previous articles.

[darren r]

Interesting. If he was part of the Apollo Hoax, wouldn't this be a good opportunity to say :

"You can't trust NASA, and this is how I know."

[Allan F]

Well, if you really want to make a difference on carbondioxide emissions, why don't you start with the south east Asia peat fires? Just a few billion litres of water could reduce the world's emission by 1/4.

[ka9q]

Current worldwide human CO₂ emissions are about 30,000,000,000,000 (3x10¹³) kg/year. That's 30 billion tonnes/year or nearly 1,000 tonnes/second, a bit more than can be explained by southeast Asian peat fires. The daily average CO₂ concentration at Mauna Loa just hit 400 ppm (0.04%) for the first time.

Schmitt's denial of global warming is a disappointment. So was his support for the "flag burning" amendment some years ago. Obviously his politics are pretty right wing.

But he does demonstrate that NASA "insiders" can take public stances that differ from the "party line" and survive...