His thoughts on being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
They’ve revealed their end game:
…that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.
Yup. It’s been a long time since it had anything to do with actual science.
How the movie distorted history.
The Left always has to whitewash (almost literally, in this case) the past.
When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.
Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.
It’s not a new interview, but if anything, it’s even more true now than then. The “consensus” has broken down considerably in the interim.
Why libertarians hate it.
Much of the health-care system was a huge infringement on liberty even before it passed. This just made it worse.
…is a gift for the GOP.
The book has been out for over a year now, so it’s nice to see them finally acknowledge its existence with a review. It’s not really new, though. It’s the same thing from Fodroci that AAS and The Space Review published a few months ago.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, in reading, it looks like it may be an updated version. Here’s one area with which I disagree, and it’s key to some of his critique:
Individuals flying on private carriers are, of course, free to accept whatever risks they mutually deem acceptable, something which Mr. Simberg spends considerable time on, but which I believe to be a red herring: The exploration of the solar system will almost certainly be carried out by international partnerships, not by daredevils, and they will insist on a methodical approach to risk identification and mitigation.
I don’t believe that is true. The “international partnerships,” I mean. I think that private individuals are much more likely to venture into the solar system.
[Update a few minutes later]
I’d also note that he completely avoids discussion of my point of the value of the activity at ISS. And then, there’s this:
Mr. Simberg seems to think that “Safety First” is a bad notion somehow. I’d be interested in an example of a successful program where this was not held to be the ideal.
He must have missed the example that I gave in the book itself. If “safety first” had been the motto in Apollo, we wouldn’t have flown Apollo 8.
I suppose I should address this, too:
Mr. Simberg also questions the need for a lifeboat for each crewmember on the ISS – here it’s impossible not to imagine the fun headline writers would have comparing the ISS to the Titanic – and suggests as an alternative that we could use a co-orbiting platform of some sort as a temporary safe haven. How this would benefit someone suffering from a heart attack, a ruptured appendix, or the bends, he doesn’t say. Nor does he address the cost of such a venture.
I’ve often noted (though I admit, I didn’t really address it that much in the book, except to say that we accept the need not to have it at places like Amundsen-Scott in the winter) that the ambulance requirement set is so different from that of a lifeboat as to pretty much demand a completely different vehicle. NASA’s CRV plan was always to have one vehicle do both, but a lifeboat must evacuate the whole station, whereas an ambulance only has to get a subset down (if the whole crew requires hospitalization, things are already pretty disastrous). And it would be crazy to have to evacuate the entire station (which you’d have to do, unless there was a spare lifeboat aboard) in order to return an injured crewperson. Also, an ambulance has to provide a more gentle ride entry and recovery, for someone suffering from broken bones or burns. So if it were to be developed, it would probably be much smaller (one or two passenger) and of a different design. In fact, an X-37 might be a reasonable basis for such a vehicle.
It’s down, but contains five new space programs.