Watch Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham blast global warming

By |2014-10-31T13:58:49+00:00October 31st, 2014|Videos|81 Comments

Minnesota ABC News affiliate KSTP: “A legendary astronaut touched down tonight in the Twin Cities.  Walter Cunningham is here tonight to bring his insight into the climate change debate.”

“On Apollo VII in 1968 Astronaut Walt Cunningham viewed the world from a perspective few ever will.”

Walt Cunningham addressed a CFACT Collegians event at the University of Minnesota where he was interviewed by ABC.

Col. Cunningham: “Models are not data… I’m here to encourage everyone to look at the data themselves, not just buy what they’re told.  I find that my standards for science are more important to me than anything else, and I hate to see them being depreciated by the alarmists’ claims today.  Politics and the media and what have you have allowed us now to be facing one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history.  That’s what’s being pushed on us.”

Apollo VII was the first manned American mission in space after the tragic fire claimed the lives of all three Apollo I astronauts.

Walt Cunningham was the featured member of CFACT’s delegation to COP 19, the UN conference on Climate Change in Warsaw, Poland.  Walt and his wife Dot plan to join CFACT for COP 20 in Lima, Peru in December.

About the Author:


  1. DJ October 31, 2014 at 11:17 AM

    It doesn’t take an astronaut to figure it out just common sense and look
    at the actual data. But I’m glad he’s on the right side.

  2. wdcraftr October 31, 2014 at 1:26 PM

    There is always climate change, daily, hourly.. The changes we see now are caused by Planet X / Planet 7X / Niburu, perturbing our galaxy, all the planets.. Back in history, you will see where the Mayans had a 7 year draught, and another time also of a 7 year draught.. Is California now in a 7 year draught? Maybe.. Earthquakes, and 13 volcanos around the world are now erupting, spitting dust in the air that will impede the suns warmth again this winter.. Bundle up… That global warming is going to get colder, until X hits, 2016-2017, and then sun burning the skin, as in Revelations.

    • Tricia Harris October 31, 2014 at 2:57 PM

      Darn good thing we have “global warming”! think about how darned freezing it would be this winter WITHOUT IT!
      All of these global warming activists are NUTJOBS! Every one of them!

      • PATRIOT.WW48 October 31, 2014 at 3:38 PM

        Yes, I remember an episode of Drew Carey, it was winter in Clevland he was standing with the back door open spraying an aerosol bottle out-side demanding he wanted ‘global warming’ NOW.

        • Tricia Harris October 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM

          OMG! I had forgotten about that one – it was a kick! Thanks for the memory!

          • PATRIOT.WW48 October 31, 2014 at 9:01 PM

            Your well come. It was a great sitcom. THX 4 come back :o) :o)

    • Ron October 31, 2014 at 3:33 PM

      wdcraftr you are dealing in reality. That’s something Leftist, progressive liberals cannot understand. They want to change everything to better accommodate their inability to fit in. It would not surprise me to learn some of them want to change the sky from blue with white clouds to multicolor.

      • Donna Smith November 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM

        And, by golly, they probably believe that they CAN create multicolored clouds! But they can’t accurately predict next week’s weather (let alone the next 50 yrs.). And I’m offended that they scare little kids in school about devastation of the planet to expect when they grow up!

      • zn November 3, 2014 at 7:20 AM

        Err… you mean like a sunset? Cos you know that they already exist, right?

      • jj November 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM

        Some like the rainbow colors, heyyyy

  3. Tom Monfort October 31, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    The crime being committed on a global scale is that this whole climate change agenda is not based on facts. Climategate in 2009 exposed the ‘hockey stick’ graph showing the increase in global warming was based on manipulation and deletion of data and then the cover up to avoid providing the information they used to replicate their findings, They just regrouped and continued with their agenda by renaming it ‘climate change’ and the new direction of naming carbon dioxide, an essential component to life on this planet, as a greenhouse gas. It’s all politics and power for socialist/communist elitists, who want some form of ‘one world government’ thru the UN. Complete and total BS.

    • 8true8 October 31, 2014 at 2:15 PM

      Global warming was “invented” as an excuse for Cap & Trade taxes and re-distribution … scare people, make them pay, then use their money for One World Order. Simple …

    • odin2 October 31, 2014 at 2:42 PM

      You are correct, and every time the facts change (18 years of no global warming) they move the goal posts and change the debate- proof positive that the CAGW claim is all about politics and not science.

    • Scottar November 20, 2014 at 5:35 AM

      Make you wonder why enviros like ZN just can’t connect the dots!

      • zn November 25, 2014 at 5:15 AM

        Seems to me like the dots are all pointing towards this idea of renewable energy leading to some kind of ‘new world order’. I keep hearing this argument over and over. So am I right? Is this all about the fear of an NWO?

        • Scottar November 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM

          Yes this is part of the agenda of the Elites to keep the middle class from rising. They want total power so it’s part of UN’s agenda 21. Look at the state of the middle class, are they getting richer or poorer?

          But the top 1% just get fewer and richer. And along with them there are more millionaires in Congress, especially Democrats so go figure.

          • zn November 26, 2014 at 6:14 AM

            Gottcha 😉

  4. WeeWax October 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    When you can convince man the sky is falling, you can get him to do just about anything within the context of fear and survival. Just another “order out of chaos” by our good friends the free masons.

  5. peterfalexander October 31, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    Hero then…Hero now
    Then WOW
    Great saying most can understand!!!!

    • odin2 October 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM

      Agreed. A sound bite that is powerful and 100% correct.

    • Sam Pyeatte November 1, 2014 at 12:28 AM

      The computer models were written to produce a desired result – AGW. No matter what the data, the fix was cooked in.

      • benny November 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        in the old days they would say “trash in ,trash out” when talking about computer models.

    • ConservativeGovernment.Net November 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM

      I’d add that models are like political polls. Often crafted to provide the desired narrative which is then peddled as news. Dishonesty in, dishonesty out.

  6. 1bimbo October 31, 2014 at 2:07 PM

    can you blame us for shaking our heads when the climate cultists and environutjobs say the polar bears are drowning

    • jj October 31, 2014 at 2:31 PM

      it’s funny how Antarctica ice grew more this year than in decades. Have not seen one drown yet, but im still waiting on any species to evolve into a man

      • PATRIOT.WW48 October 31, 2014 at 3:26 PM

        YEA, if man came from apes, how come there are still apes???

        • Biff Wellington October 31, 2014 at 4:57 PM


        • Doreen Gaydoon November 2, 2014 at 11:36 AM

          Obama is not an ape, but a mulatto. Can’t get any clearer than that.

          • zn November 3, 2014 at 7:26 AM

            What are you saying here?

            • Doreen Gaydoon November 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM

              cross between a donkey and an ape. Look it up in the bible.

              • zn November 7, 2014 at 12:17 AM

                That’s racist. Stop being racist.

        • zn November 3, 2014 at 7:17 AM


      • jerry October 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM

        You should NEVER see a polar bear drown in Antarctica; as they live at the North Pole (The Arctic).

        • John of Cloverdale, WA, Austra November 1, 2014 at 4:07 AM

          You mean they died out. How about the walruses?

          • jerry November 1, 2014 at 4:38 AM

            There are NO bears at the South Pole (Antarctica)

            • John of Cloverdale, WA, Austra November 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM

              Humor, Jerry! 🙂

              • jerry November 1, 2014 at 4:49 AM

                Ya never know 😉

        • jj November 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM

          it was a joke, jerry

          • jerry November 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM

            Then make a happy face, or something; so we don’t think you’re ignorant. 😉 lol

            • jj November 13, 2014 at 3:08 PM

              wow, speaking of ignorant

  7. American Idiot October 31, 2014 at 3:05 PM

    Al Gore has the eyes of a liar. I mean for real. Recent photos show the eyes of a slanderer, backstabber and compulsive, repetitive liar. I study this stuff.
    And it’s real! That’s why we have that reaction to different faces. It’s an aspect of so-called ‘body-talk’ that’s hidden in plain sight.

    • Doreen Gaydoon November 2, 2014 at 11:37 AM

      algore has the eyes of a rapist. just ask the woman in Oregon he raped last.

  8. PATRIOT.WW48 October 31, 2014 at 3:23 PM

    In the mid 70’s they were worried about the coming “ICE AGE”………No, not the movie. THX, Walt…..

    • anagdul October 31, 2014 at 5:14 PM

      I remember that well. The ice at the poles was to become so thick and heavy that it would upset the rotational axis of the Earth in May of 2005, causing the Earth to invert itself, as I recall.

  9. Biff Wellington October 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM

    climate change debate? but Algore said the debate was over…..

  10. anagdul October 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

    Computer models are the present day climate alarmist’s version of chicken bones and tea leaves.

  11. alvin691 October 31, 2014 at 6:28 PM

    Excellent sir

  12. Jeffrey Shoaf October 31, 2014 at 7:47 PM

    We need more people like this speaking out.

    • John of Cloverdale, WA, Austra November 1, 2014 at 4:45 AM

      Phil Chapman, Australian who resides in San Francisco, Doctor of Science (Geophysics) and former NASA astronaut has also spoken out, but is derided for his opinions against man-made global warming by the predominantly left wing, socialist loving media in Australia. Just a complete lack of respect to a great man from a group of Art degree nobodies. Back in 2008 he said:

      • Jeffrey Shoaf November 2, 2014 at 9:35 AM

        Be careful John,,,,I am an art teacher with a degree and I don’t believe in the global warming nonsense anymore than you do. Don’t paint all the artists with the same brush.

  13. earl angus October 31, 2014 at 8:06 PM

    Climate models are only as good as what info is downloaded in them. You can program them to produce any outcome you want. They are all lies. Watch what is put in your local weather forecast. they are rarely accurate and they never explain why they are so far off . they all use modeling . There are very few real weathermen any more and the real one don`t agree with the so-called warmest agenda

  14. alpambuena October 31, 2014 at 11:44 PM

    climate change…yep it changes every day….that’s why we have weathermen/women.

    • Ron November 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

      And when you say “weathermen/women” (forecasters), you are not referring to that evil faction of demons who are criminals. Just wanted to separate the good and useful from the evil and criminal. Thank you.

  15. Jane Fielding October 31, 2014 at 11:53 PM

    As a school teacher who has watched this “science” become embedded in western education, beginning in Kindergarten and continuing as required reading in most academic institutions, I wish more people had spoken out sooner.

    Common Core teaches climate guilt in Reading texts, Social studies, and science texts. Last winter I substituted in a “core” school. Three times that day the textbooks preached climate dogma; during reading instruction, social studies, and science.

    This is a religion with strict dogma.

    In these times it is intolerable to hear someone state that Christianity is the Truth. All ideas are equally valid; all views must be tolerated. But the young have been taught a stricter dogma than any with this indoctrination. And it is not to be criticized or questioned. The young are convinced they can save the planet. They are certain that humans have caused irreparable damage. I have witnessed children who are truly frightened by the future. And young people who have written, “I wish I had never been born.” (because of the damage I’m doing)

    • Swed November 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM

      Then late term abortion should be a requirement for all libtards and ecotopians.
      Teaching this crap to children is child abuse and actionable in a court of law.

  16. The Messenger November 1, 2014 at 1:26 AM

    I find it interesting that the Media, who are about 80% liberal, refuse to do any real fact checking or interviews with anyone who does not share their view, yet they continue with this Global warming b.s, now Climite change, and soon they’ll re-name it.

    • zn November 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM

      I propose we rename climate change ‘Stop Pumping Trillions of Tonnes of Pollution Into The Sky’, or SPToToPITS.

      What do you guys think?

  17. Swed November 1, 2014 at 4:14 PM

    In computer Simulations “Garbage in = Garbage Out”
    Nothing has changed.
    The models are flawed or fraudulent.
    There is no Global Warming / Cooling and Climate change is natural.
    The Hard Science is not behind the alarmists.

    • jj November 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM

      they can’t even tell me if it’s raining in my area. they said it would rain tomorrow and it was sunny. hell i look up and tell the weather better.

      • Swed November 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        What do you expect, with forecasting through computer programs, Garbage in = garbage out.

  18. Scottar November 2, 2014 at 9:51 PM

    Bbuuttttt he’s not a climate scientist….. He’s not even a member of the UN, nor Algores AGW Millionaires club!

    • zn November 3, 2014 at 7:37 AM

      Quite correct, Scottar. He’s not a climate scientist. He’s a pilot. So, what gives him the credibility to comment on the findings of thousands of other certified climate scientists? Being a pilot doesn’t mean you automatically understand everything about science. It just means people think you’re cool.

      • Scottar November 4, 2014 at 2:18 AM

        I was joking dumbass. He’s probably got more education on it then you’ll ever get.

        Bachelor of Arts with honors in Physics in 1960 and a Master of Arts
        with distinction in Physics in 1961 from the University of California
        at Los Angeles; completed a Doctorate in Physics

        And so called global warming is mostly physics which I’m sure Cunningham is well versed in being an astronaut.

        Physics is at least 75% of what climate scientists are involved in the models which their ludicrous claims are based on. I trust Cunningham’s conclusion over any gravy train funded scientist as they must support the funding expectations or face unemployment. Many retiring scientists have stated that as they don’t have to worry about being fired.

        • zn November 11, 2014 at 6:05 AM

          His opinion might be valid, but you have to weigh it against the thousands of other scientists – real life scientists who’ve spent decades research climate interactions – to form a truly accurate viewpoint. You can’t just cherrypick one dude’s opinion just because he went to space.

          • Scottar November 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM

            Well I have considered, from thousands of scientists and articles.


            The thing is a lot of scientists are trapped in their careers by institutions, mostly educational, that want them to produce papers that support AGW for government and envrio gravy train grants that far outweigh what the so called oil companies could comeup with. The only time scientists speak their minds is if they are retired or brave the science climate storm on their own. There are some former IPCC scientists that where part or working groups that have come out against the IPCC spin and lies. There are other who have criticized the IPCC for cherry picking out of their articles.

            Cunningham is another scientist I acknowledge and not just because he’s an astronaut. But his bio weighs in, yours does not. You just end up making a fool of yourself.

            The icecaps are expanding, the sea rise has mellowed, the temps are going down.


            Oct 22, 2014

            Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record

            • zn November 11, 2014 at 9:26 PM

              Do you think the burning of fossil-fuels is harmful to our planet?

              • Scottar November 13, 2014 at 4:48 AM

                It depends on how cleanly the fuels are burnt. If there is little to no soot, CO or other harmful components then no, the CO2 produced will not harm the planet but will instead enrich it with greener and more plants.

                Most of this has been accomplished prior to the latest draconian EPA Regs, even old coal plants could but upgraded to practical emissions controls. But the new regs promoted by that

                witch McCarthy goes way beyond practical to absurd levels of emission requirements.

                But China has is pollution at levels of pre US 1970s producing chocking levels of smog and coal particulates in a mad rush to ramp up their economy.

                The EPA has no business trying to regulate GHGs in the name of climate control, that’s not what it was setup to do.

                • zn November 17, 2014 at 6:57 AM

                  How is it that US coal plants produce less smog than their Chinese counterparts? Who do you think is responsible for this? It’s the EPA. I bet if you were around in the 70s you would be arguing tooth and nail that regulations to curb toxic emissions would devastate the economy and lead to a new world order taking over the globe. The EPA is doing the same thing they have always done – to protect the environment from soulless profit-driven corporations that use any and every tool at their disposal to prevent any kind of legislation being passed that may threaten their completely unsustainable business model.

                  Like I’ve said before, you have to really look at the agenda being promoted by the sources you reference. The EPA isn’t some evil green propaganda movement. They’re just trying to prevent a bunch of jerks screwing up the planet just so they can buy a new Mercedes.

                  • Scottar November 17, 2014 at 10:39 PM

                    Before the Clinton administration the EPA was cleaning up real emissions like coal soot, mercury and SO2. But during and after, especially under Obama (who has a proven tract record of lies), the EPA got taken over by radical enviros (just like Greenpeace and other related organizations) that claimed, not proved, that CO2 was endangering the health of people via alleged climate change aka AGW. This has been the ongoing cause of the radicals, like you, a Gruber’s claim how humans are causing runaway green house warming over unsubstantiated claims that I have continually debunked, along with CFACT and other online blog sites.

                    And a Mercedes probably burns cleaner then most other brands so you are cowtowing to the CO2 AGW crap. The claims of the McCarthy EPA and the previous Jackson head are based on a house of cards.


                    Jul 31, 2014

                    An Incredible $7.9 Billion in enviro funding helps back the EPA’s radical agenda


                    Phony “Environmental Justice” at EPA

                    Gina McCarthy said her new “Clean Power Plan” isn’t really about pollution control. It’s an “investment strategy,” to encourage renewables by making fossil fuel use increasingly expensive or legally impossible, and justifying more taxpayer billions to subsidize wind, solar and biofuel energy.

                    The EPA’s own Urban Air Toxics report chronicles reductions of 66% in benzene levels, 84% in airborne lead, 84% in mercury from coal-fueled power plants, and over 90% in particulates (soot). So the EPA pays its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the American Lung Association millions of dollars a year to say otherwise. “Investing” in “Green” energy technologies requires taking greenback dollars from hard-working taxpayers and delivering them to crony corporatists and campaign contributors who seek hefty profits from climate scares and renewable mandates.

                    More people suffer from sleep deprivation, stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, and poorer nutrition and medical care due to economic depression. More have strokes and heart attacks. More die prematurely. EPA’s climate-based 54.5-mile-per-gallon standards mean cars are lighter and less safe in accidents.

                    But the American Lung Association backs up the White House and EPA claims, vigorously promoting the phony pollution / asthma link. However, EPA’s $24.7 million in grants to the ALA over the past 15 years should raise questions about the association’s credibility and integrity on climate and pollution. EPA also channels vast sums to its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations: $180.8 million to 15 CASAC members since 2000.


                    The Clean Air Act: EPA’s Charade to Justify its War on Coal Plants

                    ..a fact-finding working group within EPA’s own Science Advisory Board (SAB) informed them that such systems (technical feasibility of sequestering CO2) have never been proven outside the laboratory, and that pilot demonstration projects under development are over budget. SAB found that “peer-review “ for some of those DOE studies was conducted by the EPA itself, and that the rest never received unbiased scrutiny either. As reported, DOE could not provide “a documented or publicly available description of the peer review process,” and EPA refuses to share such information with SAB.

                    The recent SAB incident isn’t the first time the EPA has ignored advice that runs counter to their ideological agenda. Its entire 2009 “endangerment finding” decreeing that atmospheric concentrations of 6 greenhouse gases (including CO2) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” was refuted at the time by its in-house “Internal Study on Climate” report conclusions.

                    Clearly the EPA is using over the top, crony Draconian claims that have no basis in reality, it’s just another arm of Obama’s radical, unproven climate change agenda to disenfranchise the middle class, and that is also the ‘elites’ agenda to extend their power over the masses.

                    Your claims are ludicrous in respect to the currant administration’s EPA and are the talking points of radical enviros. Ask yourself this, why are so many proclaimed enviros hypocrites when it come’s to their own personal lifestyles of which so many celebrities are guilty of? Answer- they’re pretenders or frauds. You act like your some kind of troll for move-on or one of their affiliates with your vitriol responses.

                    • zn November 19, 2014 at 8:01 AM

                      Aside from your inexhaustible list of right-wing sources, I still don’t understand what your position is all about. Are you worried that clean energy will bankrupt the US, or is it something more prosaic like some green conspiracy which seeks to enact a new world order? I’m genuinely interested because all we seem to focus on is your hatred for liberal values and some vague paranoia that renewable energy will ruin western democracy.

                      So honestly, why are you opposed to clean energy?

                    • Scottar November 20, 2014 at 5:30 AM

                      As usual you respond with platitudes and straw-man arguments. I’m not against clean energy and fossil and nuclear have clean, affordable technologies. As I said before, the EPA wants to make emissions of fossil so stringent that it will force plants to shut down as the 2014 requirements force them to make the air emitted cleaner then what they took in, absurd. CO2 does not have the forcing that the IPCC claims it does nor is it adding more then 1% to the total atmospheric volumes.


                      The EPA is basing it’s claims on what the IPCC claims which is bogus, bureaucratic BS, it’s not for the environment but for power and money

                      But what you are referring to, renewables, there is no real way that they can be made affordable nor clean as the energy it is trying to harness is too diluted to sustain themselves independent of fossil or nuclear and huge subsides from the grubmint.

                      But you just can’t connect the dots and instead go with the green hype that renewables are clean and sustainable, probably got your info from pro Gruberized green sites that generally don’t tell the truth about the industry. And just what is your background, is it technically oriented?

                      And quit flipping the right wing card mantra, that’s becoming old and juvenile, which is the poster child for you enviro radicals. Cfact is common-sense centered on facts not hype.

                      And you have only to go to the renewable leaders to see how renewables fail to pan out and instead sock it to the lower income users, just another utopian dream fizzling in the sun.


                      And how about some facts from you, links to support your rants that the EPA is justified in it’s regulations and the IPCC are justified in their climate change science. What makes you think that renewables are as clean as advertised?

                    • zn November 24, 2014 at 7:22 AM

                      The International Energy Agency estimates fossil-fuel subsidies in 2013 were around $548 billion worldwide.


                      What do you think about this?

                    • Scottar November 25, 2014 at 3:45 AM

                      Well I’m not surprised with your comeback, it’s the same old, half-baked, refried crap you continuously come up with.

                      When I went to the IEA website I sensed deception, and so I saw the global warming link and I clicked on it. sure enough the bias showed up.

                      “Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the majority of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

                      Baked over hype. so it’s claim the fossil subsides are greater then renewables is the same fraudulent claim.

                      Fossil subsidies greater then renewables, hardly:


                      Obama’s Green Unicorn

                      The true cost of renewable energy is being masked by government subsidies and bailouts.

                      There’s nothing wrong per se with the pursuit of renewable energy; it’s just that what it actually costs is being masked by taxpayer subsidies, federal loan guarantees and renewable fuels mandates at the state level that force power companies to put wind and solar into the energy mix, sometimes at 2 to 3 times what traditional power costs. Ultimately, one way or another, the taxpayers and energy consumers are footing the bill even if they don’t know it.


                      Europe’s “Green Energy” Dream has Become a Nightmare


                      Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply Won’t Work’

                      And more evidence about the AGW scam.


                      The New Consensus: 100 Percent Of Scientists Agree That Global Warming ‘Stopped’ Or ‘Slowed Down’

                      And even NASA can’t account for the missing heat:


                      Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed- NASA

                      As any unpretentious chemist or physicist will tell you, the renewable fuels are not dense enough to be sustainable. It’s an Industrial, science, grubmint mirage.

                    • zn November 25, 2014 at 6:57 AM

                      Haha, it’s all good dude. It’s clear I can’t convince you. Good luck with whatever mission you’re trying to accomplish. In a few years perhaps we’ll have something more to discuss. It should be an interesting few years regardless!


                    • Scottar November 26, 2014 at 5:46 AM

                      Stupid is as idiot does. The facts are on my side while the hype is on yours. In a few years people may smarten up to the RE fiasco like they are to AGW. However, they may never smarten up to who the Elites are.

                    • Scottar November 25, 2014 at 4:12 AM

                      And here’s some more renewable credibility fallout for ya:


                      The Appalling Truth About Energy Subsidies

                      Posted on November 17, 2014 by Euan Mearns

                      There’s nothing makes my blood boil more than to read reports about the international level of subsidies of the fossil fuel industries like this one in Bloomberg:

                      Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies
                      and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the
                      International Energy Agency said. Oil, coal and gas received more than 4 times the $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewables including wind, solar and biofuels, the Paris-based institution said today in its annual World Energy Outlook.

                      In reality:

                      We are comparing apples with oranges but normalizing for energy production, the renewables subsidies are 8.4 times larger and amount to 94% of the value of the energy produced. This latter statistic is hard to believe, but if it is close to true, it suggests that new renewables
                      are contributing virtually nothing to society.

    • jj November 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM

      what!!! You mean he’s not a scientist and he didn’t invent the internet.

      • Scottar November 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM

        He didn’t invent AGW like Algore and Hansen did either. Guess he fails at Progressive science.

  19. NikFromNYC November 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM
  20. Ken Sandale January 7, 2015 at 2:49 PM

    I think Cunningham may have had too much anal sex with his astronaut buddies out in space.

  21. SalmonDaze March 4, 2015 at 8:49 AM

    but . . . but . . . but . . . polar bears.

    but . . . but . . . but . . . ice caps.

    but . . . but . . . but . . . coastal flooding.

    you mean al gore and the other socialist loons have been lying all these years?

    Shocked. I’m SHOCKED I tell you!!!

Comments are closed.