NASA Chief: Global Warming is Real Because I Have Cancer

SellersA senior scientist at NASA has announced in the New York Times that he has terminal cancer. This is sad.

What’s sadder, though, is that he has chosen to exploit his personal tragedy for the purposes of promoting climate change alarmism.

Here is how Piers Sellers (pictured) – acting director of NASA’s Earth Sciences division – begins his New York Times article:

I’M a climate scientist who has just been told I have Stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

This diagnosis puts me in an interesting position. I’ve spent much of my professional life thinking about the science of climate change, which is best viewed through a multidecadal lens. At some level I was sure that, even at my present age of 60, I would live to see the most critical part of the problem, and its possible solutions, play out in my lifetime. Now that my personal horizon has been steeply foreshortened, I was forced to decide how to spend my remaining time. Was continuing to think about climate change worth the bother?

At the risk of being ungracious to the terminally ill, the correct answer to that question on any number of levels is “No.”

But Sellers disagrees. He uses that intro as an excuse to spout the usual litany of nonsense so beloved by the climate alarmist establishment – “steady accumulation of evidence”, “climate change is real”, “computer models”, “unforeseen, disastrous events” – expecting his audience to receive it sympathetically because, hell, he’s got terminal cancer and if he says something is important  it jolly well must be, right?

Sorry, but no. Sellers’ cancer says no more about the validity of global warming theory than Einstein’s having shagged Marilyn Monroe says about the validity of his theory of relativity.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (18)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    It is truly unfortunate that Piers Sellers will leave this earth before it is obvious to all that disastrous man made climate change is a fraud. The alarmists should live to see just how wrong they are.

    However, they are very good at ignoring their failed predictions. This includes ignoring that the UN climate models are running over three times hotter than observed data, that polar bears are thriving, that the Artic would be ice free in the summers by 2014, and many others. Once the fraud is obvious they will probably live their lives conveniently forgetting about the thousands of jobs they caused to be lost, economic hardship of higher energy prices, and harm in general to so many economies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well we can agree climate changes , we are coming out of the last ice age in all likely hood , and Mr Sellers cancer is a very unfortunate .

    Mr Sellers suggests he hasn’t seen ” solutions ” to climate change in his life time ? As a scientist, does he really think humans can or should alter climate change to suit some predetermined temperature number ? Or does he really mean his view that the human contribution of a fraction of !% of CO2 is causing the earth to warm to the detriment of the animal kingdom and the human race ?

    In terms of “solution” there have been hundreds in his life time that are protective of the environment. He likely contributed to some .

    A focus on CO2 was a mistake as it is essential to life ,has been at much higher levels before humans could have had any influence and when plants and animals thrived .

    The legacy of the scary global warming
    propaganda is that for decades it has robbed other areas of science of resources to solve problems including cancer .

    I wish Mr Sellers and his family well as
    they meet the challenges of cancer bravely as he clearly is .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Re 196- to -zero ” Crystalizing what is important in one’s life “. No doubt he is concerned about the people who inhabit the planet , That we share in common . We just don’t agree that a trace gas is wagging the
    temperature tail of the earth .
    If natural occurring climate variables or external factors were to bring on the next ice age humans would be very disappointed if they thought adding CO2 was going to stop it .

    This doesn’t mean we should not aggressively pursue wise use of energy and embrace pollution control technology but flogging the scary global warming scam
    is wasting limited resources .

    The earth doesn’t have a fever nor is it about to . If it warms a few degrees gradually as it has in the past so what ?

    Given human history with respect to self inflicted annihilation some warming would be welcome to the vast majority of plants and animals . Humans are quite capable of finding other excuses to wipe each other out beyond small fluctuations in temperature where Mother Earth holds all the Ace’s .

    I am sure there are many reasons to celebrate Mr Sellers .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    196-to -zero I would love to see your comments . “railroading him ” Really ?

    An honourable man is diagnosed with cancer and he feels passionate about his life’s work and beliefs . If we don’t necessarily agree with everything he says or to the extent he does
    how is that railroading him ?

    Take a look in the mirror if you want see who is into the victim blame game .

    I wish nothing but the best for Mr Sellers
    and his family despite a different
    perspective . I would hope Mr Sellers
    supports freedom of speech and expression . Clearly you don’t .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    196-to-zero
    Is the Arctic ice free , are polar bears drowning , does the earth have a fever , and what happened to global cooling ? What exactly was the science that supported that not so distant error ?

    The fact is some people have not been shy about grossly inflaming or speculation about the earth warming or cooling . Consequently discrediting some otherwise good work in a very complex field of science . It has been politicised and there are no shortage of hedge fund parasites and other rent seekers trying to make it their business .

    Take the money out of global warming fear mongering and it will disappear as the crisis it is made out to be .

    No doubt humans have some impact but if the scientists of the 1970’s got global catastrophic cooling wrong is it unreasonable to question the current
    scary global warming agenda .
    At least with global cooling their wasn’t the same drive to make money out of the issue .

    Mr Sellers efforts in the field of science are not at issue or his passion for his beliefs as far as I’m concerned .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    196-to-zero

    |

    The Arctic is the smallest it has ever been at this point of the year (January 18) and the Arctic extent in summer months is 40% smaller than it was 35 years ago and its volume is 75% smaller.
    Regarding global cooling: According to the scientific literature when climate science was in its infancy — in the 60’s and 70’s — cooling was supported in about 15% of the papers, Now the number of studies that postulate that scenario can be counted on one leper’s hand (not counting the thumb).

    Who makes money from global warming, who pays for it and how do these “benefactors” benefit? Can you name any actual living and/or dead people who have either been paid or are paying for global warming??

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Global warming is a massive industry ,book sellers, carbon traders ,hedge funds ,media,
    green lobby groups , green wash consultants , top name a few .
    Our accurate records of the Arctic are extremely short term. It gets a little tiring to see actors that barely made it through high school mislead the public about “warmest year on record ” when that record is 1979 .

    The scary global warming establishment likes to fear monger and leave this impression earth must stay exactly as it is .

    Whether we have some influence or not
    it is never going to stop changing .

    Despite the massive size of the Arctic and Antarctica very few people live in them because of the extreme cold . Without protection most people wouldn’t last 15 minutes in Antarctica and most of the year in the Arctic . Warming from minus – 45 to -43 F in a continent bigger than the USA (Antarctica ) will probably make Penguins happy and once humans stopped shooting Polar bears in the Arctic so much they are doing just fine .

    With or without human CO2 the earth is either going to warm or cool . When it’s
    natural occurring do we try and change the direction to suit ourselves ? The sun solar flares are down gee lets let off a whole bunch of CO2 to regulate the temperature to within 2 degrees of what somebody thinks the earth’s temperature to be . As if we can actually measure the earth’s temperature within a couple of degrees anyway .

    There are plenty of good reasons to conserve ,reuse and strive for better energy choices but controlling the earth’s temperature based on predictions of scary global warming is a waste of time and money .

    Take your next vacation to the Arctic from September to June or Antarctica anytime and see how big a threat predictions of global warming are . The Arctic may very well be losing ice . Why would that not be the case regardless of human activity when it is coming out of an ice age ?

    For some reason Antarctica ice expansion isn’t mentioned . Why ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Michel Mann charges $10,000 per lecture.

    I don’t have a list of names but researchers receive significant money in government grants as long as they continue to arrive at politically correct conclusions.

    The wind and solar energy industries receive 5 billion in subsidies a year.

    Currently climate science is in its infancy. A mature science would have models that could predict temperatures for any time period. The current UN IPCC models totally fail for the warming period of 1910 to 1941. In our time even if the data set that has been altered by NOAA to be warmer is used, these models are still running hotter than observed data.

    Some day the science will mature. At that point the models will give most of their weight to solar activity and glacial cycles.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    196-to-zero

    |

    “Michel Mann charges $10,000 per lecture.”

    No he doesn’t. That misinformation was put out by a scam artist Alyssa Carducci and Media Trackers.

    Below is a link that debunks your assertion but first it is important to realize that when speaking fees are called for, there are venues and agents and assistants to be paid for from that fee:
    http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/01/17/media-trackers-writer-ignorant-hypocritical/

    Climate science is an Earth science and, like all Earth sciences, is based on OBSERVATIONS. Models are simply a tool — a tool that is used in every industry and and science. If what you say was true about models then Astrophysics would be a meaningless science no one because predicted Dark Matter.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    196-to-zero

    |

    Amber,
    I asked you to provide one NAME of anyone who either provided “inappropriate” financial assistance to or received assistance from “global warming”.

    David Lewis tried and failed and I am still waiting.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    You know why your posts get removed. The same reason you have to use an IP Spoof.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Amber,
    I asked you to provide one NAME of anyone who either provided “inappropriate” financial assistance to or received assistance from “global warming”.

    David Lewis tried and failed and I am still waiting. [/quote]
    “RICO 20 Ringleader Jagdish Shukla, a professor at George Mason University, has been a longtime beneficiary of agency-administered, taxpayer-funded largesse. Shukla, his wife, and daughter reportedly received $900,000 in 2014 alone from GMU and federal grants to the Institute for Global Environment and Society (IGES), an organization he founded and directs.
    http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/

    That however appears to be just the tip of an iceberg. IGES reportedly received $63 million in federal grants since 2001, accounting for 98% of its budget. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/uh-oh-jagdish-shukla-and-the-rico20-has-captured-the-attention-of-congress-and-foia-documents-are-coming-out/
    Five other signers of the RICO 20 letter are also GMU professors, three signers teach at Columbia University, two at the University of Maryland, and two at Florida State. A pretty cozy affair. If planned in cahoots with their funders, it might even be called a conspiracy. My CEI colleague Christopher Horner has filed requests for public records with the various universities to obtain the signers’ statements of economic interest.

    Simple logic suggests what that interest is. House Science Chairman Lamar Smith on October 1 wrote a letter to Professor Shukla, which states:

    “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    196-to -zero
    You put quotation marks around words . Show us were you are getting your quote from please then try and bait someone else .

    I see your response to a questions is to make up words and questions .

    If you don’t believe global warming is a $$Billion industry congratulations for walking the talk and living in a cave .

    You asked for an example ,
    Bankrupt , Solyndra, $536 million dollar loan guarantee from the USA government .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I have carefully re-read Amber’s posts and don’t find her making a comment any where about “inappropriate” funding. That is why I didn’t attempt to answer that question. From my perspective you are asking her to prove a comment she didn’t make. You obviously interpreted something that way.

    I stand corrected that Michael Mann doesn’t receive $10,000 per lecture but I could have just said that he makes money by lecturing. The $10,000 does provide higher motivation but so does supporting others with his lecturing.

    There is no doubt that the collective activity on climate change adds up to a huge business. People benefiting are motivated to protect it.

    The standard scientific process is to compare data to the relevant theory (models) and if there is a discrepancy modify the theory to be consistent with the data. That has never been done with climate change.

    It is also too much to ask for the huge cost and impact to our life styles in taking action on climate change for a theory that doesn’t even come close to working when applied other time periods.

    Astrophysics is a special case in the sciences. The extreme values of the distance and time involved mean we don’t have the luxury of as much data as we do for something happening on earth. For that reason there is less data to compare to the theories. That is okay because the theories in some cases are all that we have. However, in astrophysics, unlike climate change, if they get data that conflicts with the theory, they will change the theory.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]The Arctic is the smallest it has ever been at this point of the year (January 18) and the Arctic extent in summer months is 40% smaller than it was 35 years ago and its volume is 75% smaller.[/quote]

    What were you lying again Duhh-Rooski?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    As for the lie about what Arctic Sea ice was like. Let’s go back a little further. The Satellite data goes back to 1974, But Alarmists choose 1979 because it supports their false narrative that sea is has fallen at an alarming rate. It has not.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screenhunter_8822-apr-30-06-28.gif[/img]
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/more-on-the-arctic-ice-satellite-scam/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]I have carefully re-read Amber’s posts and don’t find her making a comment any where about “inappropriate” funding. That is why I didn’t attempt to answer that question. From my perspective you are asking her to prove a comment she didn’t make. You obviously interpreted something that way.[/quote] No drewski does this all the time. It is purely intentional and utterly dishonest. His modus operandi and reason why he keeps having to use IP Spoofing and new login names to get around his ban.

    Your best bet is to simply use the “Report to Administrator” button when the serial liar and offensive troll rears his ugly head.

    Like this steaming “Nugget”.
    [quote]Models are simply a tool — a tool that is used in every industry and and science. If what you say was true about models then Astrophysics would be a meaningless science no one because predicted Dark Matter.[/quote]

    The trouble with this is that Models industry use actually work because they are compared to reality. And when they “fail” the hypothesis is changed to match observation. cLIEmate models are ALL wrong so cLIEmate UNscientists change the data to fit the failed models.

    A comparison between the two here.
    [quote]In engineering FEA, the input parameters are determined with laboratory precision by repeatedly measuring actual materials. Even non-linear ‘unsolvables’ like Navier Stokes fluid dynamics (aircraft air flow and drag modeled using the CFD subset of FEA) are ‘parameter’ verified in wind tunnels (as car/airplane designers actually do with full/scale models).[/quote]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/the-trouble-with-global-climate-models/

    If industry had to rely on Models that failed 100% of the time when tested. Would you every trust a bridge or high rise? Fly in a plane?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Climate science is an Earth science and, like all Earth sciences, is based on OBSERVATIONS. Models are simply a tool — a tool that is used in every industry and and science.[/quote] Yeah… Then why do alarmists say stupid things like this?
    [quote]In short, the day lined up Phil Jones, oceanographer Andrew Watson, and physicist Mike Lockwood, the latter to argue that the sun couldn’t possibly have caused recent warming.

    He was followed by the most impressive presentation from Henrik Svensmark, whose presentation stood out head and shoulders above anyone else. Why? For two reasons. The correlations he shows are remarkable, and don’t need curve fitting, or funky statistical tricks. And he has advanced a mechanism, using empirical science [image above], to explain them.[/quote]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/people-underestimate-the-power-of-models-observational-evidence-is-not-very-useful/

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.