Simulation Run Length Planning - Columbia University: Fill & Download for Free

No. And I tell you why. They may have been a real scientist one time, before they degenerated into a fake expert for corporate interests.In this answer I will debunk all the fake experts of the Heartland Family. Dont be surprised to see all of them are fueled by fossil fuel money and or have been caught butt naked cheating.What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you?A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.The professional climate deniers are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry used to play down the hazards of tobacco smoking. A playbook which was created by the lead polluters. Some of the climate denial think tanks are in fact still denying the hazards of tobacco smoking.Its called denial for profit.There is a red line from lead, asbestos, DDT, mercury, nicotine denials and climate denial.All these industries kept portraying their product as harmless even after they knew it was not. And they used and still uses billions of dollars on disinformation campaigns telling the public there is nothing to worry about."As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway PublicRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How similar to past tobacco-cancer denial is human contributed CO2- global warming denial?There are very few people still alive in our world with actually background from climate-related sciences, who still to some degree, deny AGW or who plays down the role and impact of C02 as a driver for climate change. Most of the denier "experts" are experts in a different field of science or a blown up authority paid to present the usual sewer stream of propaganda lies and myths on behalf of the oil industry funded think tank who puts money on them. Many of them stopped being scientists and degenerated into talking heads for polluters industries. Now they are bloggers who feeds the amateur deniers with junk science and fossil fuel propaganda.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial?The true climate scientists are out there in the field right now, working to increase the knowledge base on climate science matters. This database is added to on a daily basis. But climate deniers are instead relying on the now stigmatized and outdated hypothesises from these long time retired retirees.The most referred ones by deniers, with actual background from climate related matters, are ALL directly linked to the fossil fuel industry front groups and think tanks -and creationists. Wherever there are climate denial, creationists are never far away. They flock to anti science nonsense like flies to horse shit.Most notably, most of the fake experts, are directly linked to “Denial for profit” think tank The Heartland Institute. A think tank also known for their tobacco and asbestos denial.Heartland is an libertarian think which pushes corporatism and free marked libertarian ideology.Heartland Institute - Media Bias/Fact CheckTheir dream world is a world where mighty corporations runs and controls everything. A world where corporate self interests, wealth and power rules everything at the expense of public enlightenment and freedom and can pummel the public into submission and where governments are divested of the ability to control policy, economy, and ultimately the fate of the nationAnd they will attack anything which comes in their way. Thats why they attack democracy, governments, freedom, science, the scientists and the education system etc. Its a predatory anarcho capitalist system which has imploded into fascism.How the oil industry pumped Americans full of fake newsLeak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate scienceHeartland Institute: A Manifestation of the Kochtopus EmpireKoch Foundations Funding to Climate Science Denial Front Groups, 1986-2017But surely, The Heartland Institute are not talking down the hazards of tobacco smoking in 2020, right?Im afraid they do:Heartlands tobacco and asbestos denial is using the same arguments as their climate denial:Heartland Institute 2020:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science"."The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."https://www.heartland.org/Alcoho...Asbestos denial:"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-o...Nature describes Heartland like this:"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728Heartland even has it written down, black on white, in their board papers, their agenda is to undermine climate science.WOW!!Is the Heartland "Strategy Memo" a Fake? Let's try using science! - Greg Laden's Blog“Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/?fbclid=IwAR0sF0YjTSpyrOjt_O08SLZQSR8xtx-jIhs-rnhPFmioL4IykzzWTul1yi4&utm_term=.c4ab0fc45257Latest march 2020:Heartland now uses german neo nazis to spread their gospel:The Heartland LobbyHeartland Launches Website of Contrarian Climate Science Amid Struggles With Funding and ControversyThe good news is:Deniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits HomeDeniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits Home“In other words, the arguments were mostly easily debunked, contradictory nonsense in service of the most profitable and polluting industry in human history.”Heartlands fan club are now limited to a few very old white men with links to creationists.BUT FIRST,THE SPIDERS IN THE DENIAL FOR PROFIT HEARTLAND WEB:Executive director of Climate Depot and communications director for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-science think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. Morano previously worked for Sen. James Inhofe and began his career with Rush Limbaugh.Morano is a marionette for Big oil:Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc MoranoMarc Morano and his CFACT/Climate Depot blog is the heart of the Heartland Denial for profit movement.Most smear campaigns and attacks on scientists and the science has been planned by Morano. Im pretty sure he was involved in planning the (manufactured) Climategate smear attack on scientists.Interviewed in the 2014 documentary Merchants of Doubt, he described his involvement with the climate change controversy and how he started Climate Depot.“We went after James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer and had a lot of fun with it. ... We mocked and ridiculed James Hansen. I was authorized - I couldn't believe they let me do this - I did a two-part probably 10,000 words unbelievably scathing critique on James Hansen. ...Actually his scientific work isn't even in question, it's more of his public claims and publicity and interviews. I still felt restrained, so I started doing what I call the underground newsletters which went much further than anything else, had a lot more fun, a lot more humor, wit, sarcasm and sometimes nastiness. That went out and that became the basis for Climate Depot.”Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc MoranoMarc Morano - RationalWikiMarc MoranoTop 10 Climate DeniersHEARTLAND INSTITUTES AND THE WORLDS NR.1 DENIER BLOG WHATSUPPWITHTHAT.Again, in their board papers we can see they are funding WUWT blog and Anthony Watts:Here are the climate denier darling crooks A-ZTim BallChristopher BookerJohn ColemanJohn ChristySusan CrockfordJudith CurryFreeman DysonDon EasterbrookPeter FerraraDonna LaframboiseIvar GjæverWilliam HapperSteve Goddard/Tony HellerOle HumlumCraig IdsoRichard LintzenBjørn LomborgRyan MauePatrick MichaelsChristopher MoncktonPatrick MooreMarc MoranoNils Axel MørnerJoanne "Jo" NovaJordan PetersonMurry SalbyNir ShavivFred SingerWillie SoonRoy SpencerJames TaylorAnthony WattsGregory WrightstoneIncluding:Blogger and creationist Roy Spencer, creationist Timothy Ball, blogger and lobbyist Richard Lindzen, the former evangelical pastor John Christy, notorious lier and oil shill Patrick Michaels, the former tobacco lobbyist Ivar Gjæver, the fraudulent Willie Soon and lobbyist blogger Judith Curry.I’m also debunking many of the most used OPed writers used by the Denial movement.Lets debunk them one by one:Roy SpencerFunded by George C. Marshall Institute and Heartland Institute? Check!Directly linked to the fossil-fuel-industry? Check!Crank-expert? Check!Creationist? Check!Roy Spencer is just a very sad example as to how a scientist can degenerate into a fake expert. Spencer betrayed science, his profession and his colleagues to become a misinformer for corporate polluters. Now he runs a blog where he cherry picks data and twist the science so that it always turns out convenient for the polluters.ROY SPENCERS BIG LIE AND CHEAT:Have predictions historically been bad? The evidence they (deniers) cite is from Dr. Roy Spencer, who showed in 2013 that 95% of climate models over predict the temperature rises due to greenhouse gases.Unfortunately, that chart itself is based on falsely calibrated data.In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe.HOW THE FAKE GRAPH WAS CREATED:More:John Christy, Richard McNider and Roy Spencer trying to overturn mainstream science by rewriting history and re-baselining graphsThe correctly adjusted chart:The RSS data as misrepresented by deniers:Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998THE UAH SATELLITE DATA DENIERS THINKS DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED:Can you see the trendline?Here, let me help you:Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warmingWhat trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:The University of Alabama in Huntsvillehttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.BONUS:If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average.Spencer being paid to write junk science on behalf of fossil fuel funded think tanks:Roy Spencer augments $190k U of Alabama salary by doing a climate denial paper for oil funded think tank https://t.co/NRGMODHMZv— Peter Dykstra (@pdykstra) July 20, 2016But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?SPENCER THE CREATIONISTSpencer is also a Creationist, which confirms he is anti-science. Roy Spencer has signed the The Cornwall Alliance creationist petition - declaring that "God" would never allow global warming / climate change to happen because its “sustained by His faithful providence”."We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."Prominent Signers of "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming (An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming)Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science - Real SkepticThe Cornwall Alliance seems to me to be more of an astroturf organisation, a fossil fuels front group dressed up as a creationist org where they can pander to conservative christians and sneak in fossil fuel propaganda.In the book The Evolution Crisis, creationist Spencer denies evolution:"I was finally convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, because the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexities of the world. [...] Science has scared us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to get rid of the need for a creator and designer.”http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.phpRoy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer and more lies? Climate misinformation by source: Roy SpencerThese are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really. | Dana Nuccitelli).Even more lies debunked.More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimatesCreationist Spencer debunked “Again & Again”.Roy Spencer's Great Blunder Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1, part 1A debunkingThese are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really. | Dana Nuccitelli of creationist Spencers 13 big lies.Still,ROY SPENCER CONFIRMING THE GHE AND OUR C02 CAUSES WARMING:Roy Spencer on the greenhouse effect:"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."Roy Spencer 5 August 2010http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010..."Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengtening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surfacehttps://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots....hilarious:"Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. "http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014...BONUS 2.Roy Spencers CALIFORNIA wildfire denial debunked:California Wildfire DenialJohn ChristyLinked to oil funded think tanks? Check!Crank? Check!“Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.”The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education FoundationCHRISTY HAS BEEN WRONG FOR DECADES“It surprises no one that Christy is wrong here. Christy, and University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) colleague Roy Spencer, famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.The old and tired misleading non peer reviewed Christy-graph debunked again:No, you cant expect to find a correlation if you dont use the same elements. 3 apples + 2 cucumbers is not 5 bananas.https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243Graph shows a comparison between the average of an ensemble of 102 model calculations and observations (average of 3 satellite measurements and 4 balloon measurements). They have clearly not understood that they compare different sizes, so that they can not dismiss model calculations based on such.The model calculations shown by Christy are derived from the Dutch data portal ClimateExplorer. However, model calculations of temperatures at different heights above the ground in this web portal can not be found, only the temperature near the ground. The satellite measurements and balloons, on the other hand, represent the average temperature in a volume that stretches from the ground to a height of about 15 km.In addition to various statistical sizes, Christy uses different physical measures in comparison when comparing temperatures at the surface with the temperature of 15 km of the atmosphere. Increased greenhouse effect causes the lower part of the atmosphere (troposphere, which goes up to about 10km) to get warmer while the above layers of the stratosphere become colder. Does anyone see the problem with this comparison?Not only that. The satellite measurements are also model calculations,. In fact, they base on similar models that show that CO2 provides global warming. Ironically, neither Spencer nor Christy have realized this fact. In addition, the satellite curve is sewn together by different satellites with short lifespan, and the measurements from the different satellites are scattered. It is not so easy to put them together to a reliable temperature curve. They have been corrected several times.In other words, the figure of Christy and Spencer reveals basic deficiencies in understanding both statistics and physics.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimatesDifferent types of numbersThe upper left panel in Fig. 1 shows that Christy compared the average of 102 climate model simulations with temperature from satellite measurements (average of three different analyses) and weather balloons (average of two analyses). This is a flawed comparison because it compares a statistical parameter with a variable.A parameter, such as the mean (also referred to as the ‘average’) and the standard deviation, describe the statistical distribution of a given variable. However, such parameters are not equivalent to the variable they describe.The comparison between the average of model runs and observations is surprising, because it is clearly incorrect from elementary statistics (This is similar statistics-confusion as the flaw found in the Douglass et al. (2007)).http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures. Another Christy debunkThe Guardian:“Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.”The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studieshttps://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1908A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instrumenthttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1WoW really? Richard Lindzen a Heartland hired crank? Check.Directly linked to fossil fuel industries? Check!Working for creationists? Check!Linked to tobacco inustry? Check!Lindzen is a contrarian who angered climate scientists by writing to President Trump, urging him to withdraw from the UN Climate Convention.Since 2013, Lindzen has received $25,000 a year from the Cato Institute, founded in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, and $30,000 from Peabody Coal for testimony in legal proceedings.“He's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.”Richard Lindzen's views are rejected by his MIT colleagues. All of them."Lindzen clings to his agenda of denial, advancing spurious hypotheses that have been thoroughly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, even by climate scientists otherwise inclined toward a conservative view of the issue."MIT professors denounce their colleague in letter to Trump for denying evidence of climate change - The Boston GlobeLindzens Iris-theory is debunked a long time ago:https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htmLindzens sensitivity nonsense debunked:https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htmTim BallLatest:Michael E. MannTimothy BallLinked to oil industry? Check!Creationist? Check!Crank and fake expert? Check!Ball is even lying about his credentials:He is often seen titled as a “former Professor of Climatology at the Univerrsity of Winnipeg.”But the problem is:The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology.His degree was in historical geography and not climatology:"Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996.”But surely, he is not a creationist right? RIGHT?Ball admitting he is a creationist:"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."Try and see this video and without laughing:I cant stop laughing.And Tim Ball is apparently too LUDICROUS to be taken seriously:Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel.The Hotwhopper blog saw it coming a long way:Climate science denial dismissed - Judge finds Tim Ball too wacky to be believed“By the way - I did predict that Tim Ball was trying for the insanity defense, back in April last year. He must be very pleased his efforts have come to this!”B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood criticized Ball (a long-retired geography professor from the University of Winnipeg) at length. Justice Skolrood wrote:“… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”Later in the judgment, Justice Skolrood wrote,“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/judge-dismisses-libel-claim-sceptic-tim-ball-not-credible-enough-take-seriously“Climate science denier and Trump transition team advisor Dr. Tim Ball, who a Canadian court earlier derided as incompetent, ill-intended, and apparently indifferent to the truth, has been further rebuffed in the British Columbia Court of Appeal and must now stand libel for a 9-year-old attack against prominent Canadian climate scientist (and outgoing BC Green Party leader) Dr. Andrew Weaver.”Canadian Court Slams Trump Climate Advisor in Successful Libel CaseWilliam Happer, born 1939 (age 78–79), is a climate change denier and Professor of Physics at Princeton University, specialising in MRI imaging. He has no training in climate science. He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denier think tank.William Happer - SourceWatchHapper is not a climate scientist, but is very often used as the “C02 is good for us” alibi. He is a typical fake expert and an “appeal to authority” fallacy in persona.And let me warn you…this one is ugly!! This is after the same playbook tobacco industry used to play down the dangers of tobacco smoking.Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science“Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal.”“Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.”“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate sciencehttps://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/fossil-fuel-industry-academics-08122015/Happer is simply a talking head for the polluters industry paid to talk down the dangers of climate change and to portrait C02 as a “gift from God”. The tobacco industry had similar fake experts to talk down the dangers of tobacco smoking.MY DEBUNK of HAPPERS CLAIMS:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to If William Happer thinks CO2 it a good thing, should he lead a presidential committee on climate change?Why Happer is wrong about climate models:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How many past long term predictions about global warming/climate change are true versus false?Why Happer is wrong about “C02 is good for us”.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why does the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have ill effects on life?Is C02 a pollutant? C02 is many things, but also a pollutant. Think of it as the oceans. When the waters are in the oceans, its all good. But if the waters in the oceans floods your home, its a bad thing .The US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in a landmark 2007 case.FREEMAN DYSONDyson has succumbed to old age crank syndrome as well, becoming a global warming denier. However, he hasn't done any actual criticizing of climate science besides dismissing the models as flawed and saying that if it is a real problem, we can easily cook up some super-tree to suck the carbon dioxide out of the air.Freeman Dyson - RationalWikiFreeman Dyson, RIP | National ReviewLOBBYIST BLOGGER JUDITH “ I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry” CURRYJudith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htmhttps://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curryPatrick J. Michaelsalso known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.Latest: They are shutting down Michaels:Cato closes its climate shop; Pat Michaels is out“The Cato Institute quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.”POLITICS: Cato closes its climate shop; Pat Michaels is outPatrick Michaels debunked:Linked to oil/koch-brothers funded think tank? Check!The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warmingWatch Potholer54s brilliant takedown of Michaels:https://climateinvestigations.or...https://www.desmogblog.com/patri...https://www.desmogblog.com/cato-...https://sourcewatch.org/index.ph...https://skepticalscience.com/pat...https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pa...https://www.sourcewatch.org/inde...https://exxonsecrets.org/html/pe...PATRICK MICHAELS BIG LIE:In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph — part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism. Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful. Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen’s predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book — see here).In this video Michaels is admitting he is funded (40%) by the oil industry:WILLIE SOONhttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html"At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie SoonExcept for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.THE FAKE EXPERTS:IVAR GJÆVER.Who We Are - Ivar GiaeverGjæver is not a climate scientist and thus has written zero peer reviewed papers, nothing, on climate matters. He is a fake expert for the fossil fuel industry think tanks. And he did the same dirty job for tobacco industry.Here are Ivars own words on his climate credentials:"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google”. (Ivar Gjæver)Ivar Giaever (2012)Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in physics (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.___________________________________________________But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.The only people who uses Ivar at this moment are fossil fuel funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute or creationists. Here we see Ivar speaking at the Cornwall Alliance creationist convention:Nobel physicist Ivar Giaever's classic lecture on global warmingAnd I almost forgot to mention that Ivar used to do the same fake expert thing for tobacco giant Philip Morris.Ivar Giaever: Nobel Icon For Climate Deniers, and Philip MorrisNobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate ChangeClimate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration. As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015 (supporting AGW).Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for your self: https://www.cmu.edu/.../2016/nas-climate-change-letter.htmlIf we add this report,Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, the world’s most prestigious academy, founded by Abraham Lincoln, with over 200 Nobel Price winners among their members.“Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”We end up with AGW Nobel Laureates 276 - Ivar Gjæver 1Ivar Giæver en skam for vitenskapen.Gjæver er ikke klimaforsker og har således skrevet null, ingenting, zip, nada, om klima i den fagfellevurderte litteraturen. Han er en falsk ekspert for fossil brensel. Og han gjorde den samme skitne jobben for tobakksindustrien.På The Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting for noen år siden holdt han et innlegg om et tema han ikke har satt seg inn i; global oppvarming. Forelesningen var så til de grader infantil og mangelfull, at de øvrige 36 deltagende nobelprisvinnerne (herav 16 fysikere og 2 astronomer) skjønte at kunnskapsfornektelsen nå hadde nådd deres egne rekker, og reagerte med å forfatte det som nå omtales som The 2015 Mainau Declaration, adressert til verdens politikere for å be dem om å lytte til vitenskapen (altså ikke Giæver).Senere er det kommet til flere nobelprisvinnere og det er nå >70 signaturer.Nobelprisvinner og klimaguruKronikk: Forunderlige klimamyterNobel Laureates Issue A Call To Action On Climate ChangeENTER THE SEA LEVEL CRANKNILS-AXEL MØLNER.As you can see from the picture (above), Mølner is a regular at Heartland conventions.Mörner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.And no surprise, his climate denial and sea level crankery is at the same level as his dowsing nonsense:“Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification which are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that Mörner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level rise or climate science in general. One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data.”INQUA has been trying to dissociate itself from Mörner's views.“Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level RiseNils-Axel MornerOle Humlum.THE MAD PROFESSOR BEHIND THE climate4You denier blog.Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for – CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is don’t worry, it’s natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.Humlum et al paper debunks here and here.De fagfellevurderte papirer Humlum har vært med på blir grundig avvist her:Looking at irrelevant aspectsHumlum et al. (2013; HSS13) argued that changes in CO2 follow changesin the temperature, and that this implies that the increases seen in the Keeling curve are not man-made. Their claims implicitly support the CO2-curve 21 presented by Beck (2008), and the thesis that the increase in the CO2 concentrations seen in the Keeling curve is not due to the burning of fossil fuels, has long been an aspect of agnotology surrounding the global warmingissue. The analysis on which HSS13 based their conclusions filtered out the long-term signal through a correlation between the annual time differences in CO2 and temperature. This procedure removes the long time scales, and emphasises the short-term variations. Hence, HSS13 found the well-known link between El Niño Southern Oscillation and CO2. They then incorrectly assumed that this link excludes the effect of anthropogenic emissions.HSS13 chose to analyse a short series from 1980 describing the global analysis of the CO2 concentrations rather than the almost identical series from Mauna Loa going back to 1958. They also applied a differencing operator (DIFF12) to the data followed by a lagged correlation, and in effect removed all trends and long time scales.A comparison between the shorter global and longer Mauna Loa series had some effect on the lagged correlation, however, the main problem was the use of DIFF12 followed by the correlation, as this strategy is designed to neglect trends. It is easy to demonstrate that the method Humlum et al. used is unable to pick up the longer time scales, as shown in replication Demos. In other words, the analysis emphasised the short time scales, and the analytical set-up was pre-disposed to ignore the anthropogenic component to the CO2 concentrations. Hence, the analysis contained a logical flaw since conclusions based on short-term fluctuations were drawn for the long-term time scales.Another problem was that their study did not account for the carbon budget such as sources and sinks. It is not clear whether the increased CO2 was assumed to originate from the ocean surface or the deep ocean, and their discussion ignored the literature concerning diffusion of trace gases in the oceans. They also neglected the work documented in the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007) regarding changes in the O2/N2 ratios, the acidification of the world oceans, and isotope ratios (Kern and 22 Leuenberger, 2013). Further criticism of HSS13 have been published in comments to the article (Masters and Benestad, 2013; Richardson, 2013). The way HSS13 fails logically suggests it can be attributed to category C: addressing a different question. Another point was missing relevant contextual information, such as facts about the carbon cycle and ocean dynamics.Selective use of data Humlum et al. (2011a; HSS11a) suggested that natural cycles, e.g. the moon and solar variability, play a role a role in climate change on Earth, and that their influence is more important than changes in the greenhouse gases (GHGs). A replication of their analysis can provide a means for turning these contrarian claims into an educational exercise. The core of the analysis carried out by HSS11a involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.A new paper (Richardson, 2013) in the journal Global and Planetary Change that calculates the man-made and natural contributions to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2) since 1980. It comments on a study by Humlum and others (2013) and uses the same data and part of the same approach as them, but gets a completely different answer. I do this because I follow the maths to calculate the size of each effect and I find that the entire rise in atmospheric CO2 is man-made.https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337NIR SHAVIV“Shaviv is a climate change skeptic and was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. While he does believe the earth is warming, he contends that the sun's rays, rather than human produced CO2, are the cause.But a 2009 analysis of data "on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest.The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate."Shaviv's arguments and research conclusions have been undermined by subsequent research and his analyses critiqued as "based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and [drawing] untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming.". Shaviv argues that cosmic rays influence cloud cover, but this link is still under question.”Nir Shaviv - SourceWatchJORDAN PETERSON.Jordan Peterson has degenerated into and eerie conservatism and pseudo intellectualism and is thus a perfect propaganda tone troll for cultural Marxism , alt right white supremacists and the whole War on science movement.Him posing with fans wearing hate speech t-shirts just after the New Zealand terror, really says it all.His recycling of creepy crawly PragerU propaganda and denier think tank nonsense really says it all.Experts on climate change about Peterson.https://www.thestranger.com/slog...A Field Guide to Jordan Peterson’s Political ArgumentsJordan Peterson - RationalWikiBJØRN LOMBORG“With respect to climate change mitigation, Lomborg presents the same false dichotomy in much of his output: there are limited resources, so we must choose between dealing with global warming or what Lomborg has decided are "more important problems". He considers AIDS and other diseases, starvation, malnutrition, and poverty to be more important problems than global warming, yet his framing of the issue treats global warming as a discrete issue, ignoring the fact that it will actually exacerbate the other problems he considers to be more important. Strangely, Lomborg spends most of his time and effort debunking these "unimportant" environmental concerns, writing tendentious books and setting up bullshit forums titled in such a way as to confuse the ignorant — he has done little to nothing to encourage greater spending on what he considers the really great problems.”Bjørn Lomborg - RationalWikiSome look at these data in an attempt to find something, anything, they can cherry-pick to claim that either global warming’s effect on sea level isn’t happening, or that we should look at it as “no problem.” A classic example happened nearly 10 years ago, when Danish climate “skeptic” Bjorn Lomborg wrote this in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian:THEIR NEW CATO INSTITUTE DENIER DARLING RYAN MAUEAnd , you can't make this shit up;Even other climate deniers think tanks admits Maues graphs are fake:Global Warming Policy Foundation concedes that the Tory peer's supposedly official figures were wrong and produced by a right-wing think tankHowever the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has now revealed the source of these supposedly “official” figures was a meteorologist who works for a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, founded by US billionaire and leading climate sceptic, Charles Koch.“It has been brought to our attention that a temperature chart prepared by US meteorologist Ryan Maue and published by Joe Bastardi, and which was referred to in the Today programme appearance of Lord Lawson, was erroneous.UK’s leading climate sceptics admit claim that global temperature has fallen was falseIt’s important to note that Maue is part of a think tank that’s co-founded by wealthy climate denial funders, the Koch brothers, and that Bastardi is a well-known climate denier. It’s likely that the GWPF already knew about their backgrounds – they just hoped no one would do a little digging and find out.Although this admittance is weirdly satisfying, it’s also worth pointing out that the GWPF tweeted immediately afterwards that the rest of Lawson’s claims to the BBC were true – despite the fact that they were demonstrably false.Since the ruckus, the GWPF has gone back to telling the world that man-made climate change is a massive hoax. At the same time, most of the world has continued working on combating climate change.Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph | DeSmog UKTONY HELLER / STEVEN GODDARDHellers batshit crazy conspiracy theories are so bad even fellow deniers are having none of it. Hilarious:Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication". [...] "I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,"Full debunk from Politifact.Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warmingPolitifact judge Hellers claims as :POTHOLER54 BRUTALLY DEBUNKS HELLER.Steve Goddard/Tony HellerGoddard in his own words:“First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. As a result, any layperson on the Internet who has researched global warming with Google to a fair degree has likely read the bullshit posted on my website […]”“And so although a complete nobody in the climate debate, I have a fair amount of influence over thousands, perhaps millions, of impressionable individuals who don’t have a basic grasp of the facts on global warming…My next big break was my speaking gig at Heartland Institute’s climate denier conference held in Las Vegas just a couple of weeks later in July. You can watch my rambling, bumbling presentation at the conference here. Despite my rather underwhelming talk, the event was still a fantastic opportunity to network with other climate deniers and start connecting with others who could help me get paid for spewing my bullshit to my denier lemmings and clouding the climate change debate for my unsuspecting readers.Since that time, the hundreds of embarrassingly bad blogs posts that would torpedo any real scientist’s career hasn’t put a dent in my career as a professional denier. For example, there was the time I confused sea ice with a glacier on my blog and had to erase all evidence of my post when I got called out on it. Despite my buffoonery, things have actually been going swimmingly. Because fake news has become indistinguishable from real news in the minds of many and because scientific knowledge has been overwhelmed with nonsense, it makes it possible for someone like me to have real influence. My bogus charts have been cited by the likes of United States Senator Ted Cruz and I even appeared and spoke alongside Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts at his press conference in 2016. I’m also now frequently quoted as a climate authority by right wing propaganda outlets like Climate Depot and Breitbart.I’m looking forward to continuing my work and building upon my reputation as an unapologetic sociopath and fighting the climate jihadists with juvenile insults. I am a rabid partisan and my work is an extension of my extreme right-wing ideology. Do I feel shame deceiving readers with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, half truths, and ceaseless cherry picking? Nope! In fact, I view all progressives as the enemy and I will gladly say next to anything if I think it will undermine them. And I certainly have no issue with doing all this work for money so please donate today!”Who Is Tony HellerDid NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000?http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003Fox News Flash! NASA Fakes Temp Data! Obama Born in Kenya! Batboy Found in Cave!NOAA and temperature data - it must be a conspiracy.Debunks:Steven GoddardHow Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science - Greg Laden's BlogWas Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sunIt’s Time to Boot Climate Deniers Off Social MediaPATRICK MOOREMoore went from being a defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters”Patrick Moore - SourceWatchBut lets get the facts first:Patrick Moore Did Not Found GreenpeacePatrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.Full debunk:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why would the founder of Greenpeace suggest there is no evidence of man-made global warming?FRED SINGER:SINGER HAS DONE IT ALL:Talked down the dangers of tobacco smoking, denied the ozone hole threats and now AGW.S. Fred Singer is well known for taking a stand contrary to medical evidence that second hand smoke from cigarettes is not bad for you. Funding for his work has been linked to special interests both in the tobacco industry and more recently the fossil fuel industry. Dennis Avery, is an economist.[Singer] has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having "published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971.S. Fred Singer - RationalWikiS. Fred SingerLeaked documents obtained by DeSmog revealed that Fred Singer has also been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute. With the help of Craig Idso, Singer helped develop the Heartland Institute's “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),CRAIG IDSOCraig IdsoThe Idso Heartland junk:We Fact-Checked a Bogus “Study” on Global Temperature That’s Misleading ReadersWe Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading ReadersMURRY SALBY.is a crank.Thus you will only find links to him from the usual echo chamber of denier blogs.In fact, his hypothesis are so bad even denier blogs are not having it:“Salby’s natural carbon dioxide theory cannot be true. It is falsified. Even before detailing his definitional, mathematical, and factual errors.”Is Murry Salby Right?Salby is really a rotten egg:“John Mashey and The Guardian's Graham Readfearn decided to research Salby's legal history and came up with some stunning findings. Salby had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money after the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that Salby's "actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies."The NSF report found that Salby had funneled himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grant money through a for-profit company he created, of which he was the sole employee. To justify his salary payments to the NSF, Salby claimed to be working for this company for an average of 14 hours per day for 98 consecutive days, which aside from being entirely implausible, would also have left him no time to fulfill his university obligations. The NSF concluded that Salby's behavior was likely fraudulent, but by the time the report was completed, Salby had resigned from the University of Colorado and moved to his job at Australia's Macquarie University.Potentially fraudulent and unethical behavior aside, what about the scientific credibility of Salby's arguments? They too are entirely lacking in quality. We know that humans emissions are responsible for 100 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase from simple basic accounting. Humans are emitting approximately 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, and the amount in the atmosphere is increasing by approximately 15 billion tons per year (the other half is absorbed by the oceans, which in turn is causing ocean acidification, known as "global warming's evil twin"). Quite simply, human greenhouse gas emissions cannot magically vanish.Salby's argument is based on a mathematical error detailed in papers published by two of my colleagues, Gavin Cawley and Mark Richardson. In short, Salby and others who make this same mistake confuse the natural contribution to the short-term wobbles in atmospheric carbon dioxide with the contribution to the long-term trend, which is unquestionably due to human emissions. This is as settled as science gets, as noted above, proven based on simple accounting. Those who wish to be considered climate "skeptics" should think twice about unskeptically accepting the claims of someone with Salby's history and with his obviously fundamentally wrong climate arguments.”Wretched week for a typical trio of climate contrarians | Dana NuccitelliMore debunks:The lines of evidence that humans are raising CO2 levelsPETER RIDDClimate Science Deniers Have a New Hero and His Name Is Peter Ridd“Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”James Cook University professor Peter Ridd's sacking ruled unlawfulGreat Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting scienceExclusive: Panel head Ian Chubb compares ‘roadshow of Dr Ridd’ to tobacco industry strategy defending smokingGreat Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting scienceState government-funded managers urge cane farmers to question reef scienceExclusive: Speaking tour by controversial academic Peter Ridd is being supported by sugarcane managers paid for with Queensland government fundsState government-funded managers urge cane farmers to question reef scienceClimate Science Deniers Have a New Hero and His Name Is Peter RiddAre climate sceptic Peter Ridd's controversial reef views validated by his unfair dismissal win?Could Salvatore Vasta be Australia's worst judge?Real science tells us the Great Barrier Reefs are not in a good condition.Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier ReefDuring 2015–2016, record temperatures triggered a pan-tropical episode of coral bleaching, the third global-scale event since mass bleaching was first documented in the 1980s. Here we examine how and why the severity of recurrent major bleaching events has varied at multiple scales, using aerial and underwater surveys of Australian reefs combined with satellite-derived sea surface temperatures. The distinctive geographic footprints of recurrent bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 were determined by the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year. Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016. Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs.Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier ReefGlobal warming and recurrent mass bleaching of coralsKey points from the study:2015-2016 saw record temperatures that triggered a massive episode of coral bleaching across the tropicsCoral bleaching events should no longer be thought of as individual disturbances to reefs, but as recurring events that threaten the viability of coral reefs globallyThe Great Barrier Reef has had three major bleaching episodes, in 1998, 2002 and 2016, with the latest being the most severe and with catastrophic levels of bleaching occurring in the northern third of the Reef (a region approximately 800 km or 500 miles in length)The amount of bleaching on individual reefs in 2016 was tightly linked to local heat exposureThe cumulative, superimposed footprint of the three mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef has now encompassed virtually all of the Great Barrier ReefPast exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of the bleaching in 2016Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of AustraliaJOHN COLEMAN (r.i.p)Coleman was not even a scientist. He was a tv weather man. The Heartland Institute hijacked him towards the end and made him go on TV and spew the usual long time debunked fossil fuel propaganda talking points.Deniers are still using Coleman to attack climate science even after he is no longer with us. Maybe they dont even know he is dead??Just to make it clear, and please dont laugh now, but his own Weather Channel is rebuking Coleman:The Weather Channel has released an official position statement on global warming, just two days after the channel’s co-founder told Fox News’ Megyn Kellythat climate change is based on “bad science” and does not exist.In the statement, The Weather Channel said the planet is “indeed warming,” with temperatures increasing 1 to 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. The statement acknowledged that humans are helping make the planet warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.Weather Channel Rebukes Its Co-Founder On Climate ChangeColeman doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology, as he himself has admitted.To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April.But a climate scientist, he is not.Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.FAKE “LORD” CHRISTOPHER MONCKTONHeartland Institute? Check!Fossil fuel crank? CheckBlown up fake authority? Check!Long history of lies and disinformation? Check!No peer reviewed papers? Check!In 2015, scientists looked at one of his very few scientific papers to make it into the peer-reviewed literature in a junk journal and found it was “riddled with errors” — and published a response in the same journal.'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate sciencePotholer54s brilliant series of debunks on Monckton:Another debunking from Peter Sinclair:Climate Denial Crock of the WeekDON EASTERBROOK:Very old conservative white man?? Check!Linked to Heartland Institute? Check!Connections to Big Oil?? CheckCrank-expert? Check!Decades of misinformation? Check! and Check!https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.htmlEasterbrooks prediction models are very very bad:BONUS - HEARTLAND AND OTHER OPINION WRITERS AND WOLF PACK ATTACKERS SPEWING ANTI SCIENCE NONSENSE AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES FASTER THAN YOU CAN SAY BREITBART.Who We Are - Peter FerraraPeter Ferrara, a "senior policy adviser" at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. 'I do that all the time,' Ferrara [said]. 'I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future',"Peter J. FerraraTaylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds, and the Heartland Institute, which has consistently received funding from ExxonMobil.James M. Taylor - SourceWatchPinch your arm, you wont believe this:SOME “CUTE” ASBESTOS DENIAL FROM JAMES TAYLOR:"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1Gregory WrightstoneWhile Heartland Institute have their own fake experts to channel their desinformation through, they sometimes hire some “regular” dude to promote their denial propaganda. Gregory Wrightstone is another puppet who has seemingly “written” a book, but its really just a front for Heartland propaganda. The same old tird lies.The book is thorn apart here:It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate DenierAnd , here is their mandatory Corona denial too:Donna Laframboise“Donna Laframboise is a journalist, photographer, and founder of Global warming info you deserve to hear, a website critical of the IPCC and skeptical of climate change. In late 2013, Laframboise became a senior fellow for the Frontier Center for Public Policy, a freemarket think tank based in the US and Canada.”“The content at Global warming info you deserve to hear. makes clear that we are dealing with a writer who does propaganda, not any investigative journalism driving by an honest desire to learn and understand.””Her “Heartland”-book debunked:Donna Laframboise recycles old attacks on IPCCDonna LaframboiseJoanne "Jo" Nova(real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut. She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.Joanne Nova - RationalWikiChristopher Bookeris a creationist columnist for the Sunday Telegraph in the UK, where he writes anti science nonsense faster than you can say quackery quack.He is known for being a crankery crank who talks down the hazards of tobacco smoking and asbestos as well as spewing the mandatory climate denial propaganda junk.Booker’s false claims (42 articles and counting) downplaying the risks of white asbestosChristopher BookerSUSAN CROCKFORD.Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed“University of Victoria adjunct professor Susan Crockford doesn't seem interested in discussing the monthly payments she appears to receive from the climate denying Heartland Spinstitute.The Heartland Institute's Denialgate documents indicate that the spinstitute gives Crockford $750 per month. She is one of three Canadian university professors on the denier dole at Heartland, along with Madhav Knandekar and Mitch Taylor.”According to a description of her work by The Martlet, Crockford is“a sessional adjunct professor in Archaeozoology in the Pacific Rim with research focuses on the domestication and breed development, evolutionary theory and the evolution and history of the domestic dog.”Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford ProbedDENIERS FAVORITE BLOGGER ON POLAR BEARS IS LYING THROUGH HER TEETH ON BEHALF OF FOSSIL FUEL FUNDED THINK TANKS:How climate denial blogs misinform so many people with such poor scientific arguments.New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial | Dana NuccitelliSusan Crockford writes a lot about polar bears, but does so mostly on her own website and for anti-mitigation thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); not in the scientific literature.Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing BackThe researchers also singled out Polar Bear Science, a blog run by Susan J. Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, as a primary source of dubious information about the status of polar bears.About 80 percent of the contrarian websites that the researchers studied referred to Dr. Crockford’s blog as a primary source, they said.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/...Analysis of "Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying"Published in Financial Post, by Susan Crockford on 27 Feb 2018Three scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Misleading. Financial Post publishes misleading opinion that misrepresents science of polar bears’ plightInternet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy | BioScience | Oxford Academichttps://academic.oup.com/bioscie...Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back.Hun ble ikke sparket.. Hun hadde kun vikar jobb på korte perioder, og fikk ikke jobb videre , etter kontrakt var gått ut. Hun leverte vel heller ikke noe fagfelle vurdert forskning, så da måtte hun gå. Dem fleste påstandene hennes er uten hold. Og hun er blitt hauset opp av skeptikere som en helt.https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/16/deniers-club-meet-the-people-clouding-the-climate-change-debate/?utm_term=.d4e1d99457c1https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/a-list-of-climate-misinformers-like-roy-spencer-and-murray-salby.329735/Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?

Q. Can I go to medical or dental school with a 2.89 undergrad GPA?I have military service, (officer), and volunteer at a hospital. I really want to become a doctor and work in the ER. I’m almost 30 years old too, is that a problem? Thanks to anyone who can reply to my question.Boston UniversityA. I would go with dental school given length of training, lifetime earning and quality of life. I have a sister and a former roommate who are dentists. See interview with Dr John Williams below. In general, it is easier to get into dental school. You will need a high DAT score. You are all set for EC though.What does it take to get into dental school?Top Dental Schools Ranked By GPA | Dental DAT Prep Most schools have a cutoff of a 2.75 GPA. Average student that matriculates into dental school each year has a 3.5 GPA.University of ConnecticutWhat does it take to get into dental school?A conversation with John N. Williams, Dean at Indiana University School of DentistryBY Jeffrey B. Dalin, DDS, FACD, FAGD, FICD, FADIDr. Dalin: Dentistry is a great profession! Being a dentist was just listed as the No. 1 job in America in 2013 by U.S. News and World Report. I followed in my father's footsteps and chose this as my profession. When I applied to dental schools, my father was my advisor. He guided me through the process of choosing a school. Frequently, I'm asked about applying to dental school. What does it take to get accepted? What do prospective students need to think about while attaining an undergraduate education?Today, we're talking about this issue with Dr. John Williams, Dean of Indiana University School of Dentistry.Dr. Williams: During the past seven years, demand from prospective students to attend one of the 61 dental schools in the U.S. has been strong. The recent U.S. News and World Report ranking of dentistry as the No. 1 job will keep student demand high. In 2011, there were 12,039 applicants to dental schools for 5,311 first-year positions, according to the American Dental Education Association in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the competition to gain admission is tough. But admission to dental school is not impossible. It takes planning, organization, self-discipline, leadership, and civic engagement, the same things needed to be a successful dentist.John N. WilliamsSpecifically, prospective students should have a strong academic background (a minimum of a 3.0 grade point average on a 4.0 scale in core courses of biology, chemistry, and physics). They should plan an undergraduate curriculum with their college advisors. In addition, working with a predental club can be helpful to learn more about the profession and to gain civic engagement and shadowing opportunities.Many dental schools evaluate candidates for admission using a comprehensive application review known as a "whole file review." This consists of an admissions committee assessment of biographical and academic information provided by the applicant and the undergraduate and graduate schools the applicant attended. These committees generally assess the applicant's results from the Dental Admission Test (DAT minimum of 17 on the academic average), grade point average (GPA), additional information provided in the application, letters of evaluation, and interviews. The GPA and DAT are minimum scores considered nationally. When a student identifies which schools are of interest, the student should check directly with these programs to obtain minimum qualifications for admissions. A great resource book is the 2013 ADEA Official Guide to Dental Schools at http://www.adea.org/publications/Pages/OfficialGuide.aspx. This guide outlines admissions requirements for each U.S. dental school. ADEA also runs the centralized application service (AADSAS). Almost all U.S. dental schools use this service to assemble applicant admissions information.Dr. Dalin: How important is the DAT examination? What would you recommend to a student who is preparing for this test?Dr. Williams: This test is very important. In addition to practice, practice, practice, some students may elect to take a Kaplan review course or purchase DAT review books that are available online or in bookstores. Students should focus strongly on the perceptional ability test (PAT) and the reading comprehension test subcomponents of the DAT. These scores are important to assess a candidate's eye-hand coordination, and the ability to read and comprehend a large volume of content. Overall, candidate scores should be balanced among the various subsections of the DAT.Dr. Dalin: Do you have any advice about the application process and the submission of a personal essay?Dr. Williams: One consideration for the application process is to apply early. Even though the various schools may post a closing date for applications late in the fall each year, the earlier applicants submit their materials, the better opportunity they have to be considered initially in the application process.The personal essay is an important aspect of the application. While the GPA and DAT scores tell an academic story, the personal essay should answer questions such as why a candidate wants to study dentistry, extracurricular activities involving leadership, discipline and civic engagement, sharing experience and knowledge about dental practice as a result of shadowing, and explaining what unique talents the candidate can bring to the profession. Thoughts about a career plan are appropriate, too.Dr. Dalin: Patients and predental students ask to shadow me. Is there anything that practicing dentists should do during the shadowing process? Should we just make these superficial sessions, or should we try to teach the prospective students some specifics about what we do in the office?Dr. Williams: Shadowing is a great way for a candidate to actually observe and learn more in depth about dental career options. Many times applicants base their dental experiences on their orthodontic care and their interest in pursuing this career path. Dentistry, however, encompasses many different dimensions -- private practice, specialty care, public health, academics, or research -- so the more shadowing experience a student can gain, the better.I suggest dentists who are working with prospective students in a substantive way observe a variety of procedures, talk with the front office staff, and keep a journal of the behavior they have seen. Mentorship is an important part of the profession for all of us. So doctors who offer shadowing opportunities should develop a plan to make this a meaningful experience. Students could even approach the doctor about doing some type of project, such as learning about where new patients come from or why certain treatment options are selected as compared to others.Dr. Dalin: Most dental schools conduct interviews. Please talk about this process, and any advice we can give to prospective students to prepare them for these interviews.Dr. Williams: Practice, practice, and practice -- there is a theme developing here. Interviews are important to bring a candidate to life. The most promising candidates are invited for interviews. They should be prepared to tell their story in a conversational way, but also to get their essential points across to the interviewer in short order.It is important to organize the "elevator speech." Can the candidate get his or her essential points across in the time it takes an elevator to travel 10 stories -- perhaps 30 seconds? Most schools calibrate their interview teams so that candidates are asked the same questions, such as why they have an interest in dentistry, what do they know about the dental profession, or their future career aspirations. It is wise for the applicant to have background information about each school in order to ask insightful questions of the interviewers. Excellent communication skills are key to a successful interview.Dr. Dalin: How have the actual four years of dental school changed since I attended Indiana University School of Dentistry 33 years? I really thought that when I graduated, I was ready to hit the ground running. Obviously there are the simulators now, but there are also new models of dental schools popping up around the country.Doctor SalaryA physician would have to undergo residency training lasting 3–7 years with low pay, before earning the higher income. A well-run dental practice with many hygienists can be very profitable, well over what listed above.Dr. Williams: In some ways, dental education has fundamentally not changed in the last 33 years, but in other ways, it has. We are a biologically based, scientific profession, so the first two years of dental school are concentrated on developing and integrating the biopsychosocial aspects of human biology in the context of clinical patient care. The third and fourth years of dental school provide rich clinical education experiences for students to demonstrate their understanding and application of these biological principles in caring for patients.The amount of laboratory preclinical work required of a student has diminished. The use of computers and information technology, from digital radiology to using simulators or haptic technology to learn preclinical skills to electronic curriculum and electronic health records, rounds out the innovative ways dental schools have changed in the past 33 years.Dr. Dalin: Dean Williams, thank you for talking with me. I think our readers will appreciate the information you've offered. There has been much talk on Internet discussion groups about this subject. Many of us have relatives and patients who are interested in joining our profession. Is there anything else you would like to tell our readers?Dr. Williams: Dental education and dental practice, like so many things in today's U.S. society, are facing changes and opportunities to enhance what we do. At Indiana, we have challenges, too. Like you, Jeff, I have thoroughly enjoyed several aspects of my career. Initially, I served six years as a general practitioner in Louisville, Ky., prior to joining the faculty at the University of Louisville School of Dentistry, where I graduated in 1980.My experience in academic dentistry has been exhilarating -- initially as an assistant professor doing field research on access to care and workforce needs in Kentucky, and now serving as dean at three fine dental schools. The concerns I have are the cost of dental education, student debt, and the management of this debt. The key to managing student debt, just like making application to dental school, is planning, organization, self-discipline, leadership, and civic engagement. These traits have served and will serve the test of time to enable someone to pursue his or her dreams in dental school, and their dreams once in practice. Enjoy the exciting journey ahead!Jeffrey B. Dalin, DDS, FACD, FAGD, FICD, FADI, practices general dentistry in St. Louis. He is a cofounder of the Give Kids A Smile program. Contact Dr. Dalin at [email protected] of North CarolinaEdit: Top Dental Schools Ranked By GPA | Dental DAT PrepIt is very important that you take your grade point average (GPA) seriously. Most schools have a cutoff of a 2.75 GPA. When applying to dental school there are a few things that you have to realize when calculating your GPA.1. If you get a C- or lower in any required course you must retake it in order for it to go towards the prerequisite requirements.2. If you retake a class for a higher grade both scores will count on your GPA. For instance, if you received a D grade and retook the class for an A grade, both the D and the A will go towards your overall GPA. Many colleges will not calculate your low grade into your GPA which will make your GPA look higher than it really is.3. When submitting your application schools will look at your GPA with the plus and minus sign (ex: A-, B+, B-, etc…). They will also look at your GPA without the plus and minus signs which means that if you have an A- it will round up to an A or if you have a B- minus it will round up to a B.4. Schools will not only look at your overall GPA but they look at your science GPA. The science GPA is calculated only using science and math courses. This allows for the schools to see overall how strong you are in your science courses.5. Remember your GPA is very important! Many will say “schools don’t want students with 4.0 GPAs because that means they are bookworms”. This is true to some extent. If all you have is an excellent GPA but no other qualifications then your application may not be very strong BUT if you have an excellent GPA and very good extracurricular activities then you will be a quality applicant with a very good chance of getting into dental school. No matter the case, a strong personal statement and some glowing letters of recommendation can make a big difference.Many students ask the question “is my GPA good enough?”. My question to them is “good enough for what?”. If you have a 3.3 GPA and you want to know if it is “good enough” for Harvard then my answer would be “no”. However, if you have a 3.3 GPA and you want to know if it is “good enough” to get into dental school then my answer is “yes”. Is a 3.3 GPA ideal? No, of course, the higher the GPA the better, but not everyone getting into dental school has a 3.9 GPA.Remember that the average student that matriculates into dental school each year has a 3.5 GPA. Each school has a slightly different average GPA. In order to make this easy on everyone, I have posted the average GPA for each dental school starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This should help you see where you fit in statistically when it comes to GPA. If you’re reapplying to dental school because you didn’t get accepted last year, then it’s important to diagnose the problem – we’ve identified 5 main reasons why students don’t get accepted.GPA is not the only thing you should consider when applying to schools. You will also want to find schools that fit within the range of your DAT scores (check out “Dental Schools Ranked by DAT“). In addition, consider other factors such as your volunteering experiences, shadow experience, individual wants, family needs, and PRICE!In this table are the latest mean GPA and average science GPA for students admitted into dental school. Below that are listed the same from 6 years ago, giving you an idea of how things have changed in case you’re interested in that.StartClass | GraphiqClick here to see dental schools ranked by DAT scoreAnd here are the historic stats for those who are interested:Dental School Rankings 2010 (Overall GPA)Nebraska 3.83Harvard 3.81Iowa 3.74Colorado Denver 3.73Mississippi 3.71Alabama 3.7Stony Brook 3.7Detroit Mercy 3.68Minnesota 3.67Southern Illinois 3.66Pennsylvania 3.66Pittsburgh 3.66Ohio State 3.65San Antonio 3.65Oklahoma 3.64Nova 3.63Missouri – Kansas City 3.63UCLA 3.62Connecticut 3.62Louisiana State 3.62Creighton 3.62Buffalo 3.61Oregon 3.61Houston 3.61Illinois at Chicago 3.6Case 3.6Marquette 3.6South Carolina 3.59Indiana 3.58Louisville 3.57Tennessee 3.57Georgia 3.56New Jersey 3.56Washington 3.56West Virginia 3.56Kentucky 3.54Puerto Rico 3.53Michigan 3.52Chapel Hill 3.52UCSF 3.51Florida 3.5Maryland 3.5Columbia 3.5Baylor 3.5Virginia Commonwealth 3.5UNLV 3.49Midwestern 3.48UoP 3.46Temple 3.46Tufts 3.45New York 3.45Loma Linda 3.43Arizona 3.37Western U. 3.33Boston University 3.3USC 3.25Meharry 3.16Howard 3.15Dental School Rankings 2010 (Science GPA)Nebraska 3.77Stony Brook 3.7Colorado Denver 3.67Iowa 3.67Harvard 3.66Mississippi 3.65Detroit Mercy 3.63Minnesota 3.63Pennsylvania 3.62Missouri – Kansas City 3.61San Antonio 3.61Alabama 3.6Southern Illinois 3.6UCLA 3.59Nova 3.59Pittsburgh 3.58Oklahoma 3.57Louisiana State 3.56Oregon 3.55Connecticut 3.54Ohio State 3.54Houston 3.54Case 3.53Georgia 3.52Indiana 3.52Florida 3.5Illinois at Chicago 3.5New Jersey 3.5Columbia 3.5South Carolina 3.5Tennessee 3.5Marquette 3.5Chapel Hill 3.49Creighton 3.48UCSF 3.47Washington 3.47Kentucky 3.46West Virginia 3.46Virginia Commonwealth 3.44Baylor 3.43Louisville 3.42Michigan 3.41Puerto Rico 3.41Maryland 3.4New York 3.4Midwestern 3.39UoP 3.38Tufts 3.37Temple 3.37Loma Linda 3.35UNLV 3.34Boston University 3.3Arizona 3.26Western U. 3.25Buffalo 3.22USC 3.2Howard 3.2Meharry 3.02*NOTE: The statistics that have been listed were taken from the “2010 ADEA Official Guide to Dental Schools”.Click here to see dental schools ranked by DAT scoreRemember, getting accepted to dental school is a big undertaking. It’s important to arm yourself with the latest statistics (found on this page) and also check numerous resources for information on application requirements, taking the DAT, and what to expect in dental school. We’ve put together a list of the 3 best pre-dental websites to help you with your journey. Check it out and leave a comment if you have suggestions.

Neil Alden Armstrong (August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012) was an American astronaut and aeronautical engineer, and the first person to walk on the Moon. He was also a naval aviator, test pilot, and university professor.A graduate of Purdue University, Armstrong studied aeronautical engineering; his college tuition was paid for by the U.S. Navy under the Holloway Plan. He became a midshipman in 1949 and a naval aviator the following year. He saw action in the Korean War, flying the Grumman F9F Panther from the aircraft carrier USS Essex. In September 1951, while making a low bombing run, Armstrong's aircraft was damaged when it collided with an anti-aircraft cable, strung across a valley, which cut off a large portion of one wing. Armstrong was forced to bail out. After the war, he completed his bachelor's degree at Purdue and became a test pilot at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) High-Speed Flight Station at Edwards Air Force Base in California. He was the project pilot on Century Series fighters and flew the North American X-15 seven times. He was also a participant in the U.S. Air Force's Man in Space Soonest and X-20 Dyna-Soar human spaceflight programs.Armstrong joined the NASA Astronaut Corps in the second group, which was selected in 1962. He made his first spaceflight as command pilot of Gemini 8 in March 1966, becoming NASA's first civilian astronaut to fly in space. During this mission with pilot David Scott, he performed the first docking of two spacecraft; the mission was aborted after Armstrong used some of his re-entry control fuel to stabilize a dangerous roll caused by a stuck thruster. During training for Armstrong's second and last spaceflight as commander of Apollo 11, he had to eject from the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle moments before a crash.On July 20, 1969, Armstrong and Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) pilot Buzz Aldrin became the first people to land on the Moon, and the next day they spent two and a half hours outside the Lunar Module Eagle spacecraft while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the Apollo Command Module Columbia. When Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface, he famously said: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." Along with Collins and Aldrin, Armstrong was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Richard Nixon. President Jimmy Carter presented Armstrong with the Congressional Space Medal of Honor in 1978, and Armstrong and his former crewmates received a Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.After he resigned from NASA in 1971, Armstrong taught in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati until 1979. He served on the Apollo 13 accident investigation and on the Rogers Commission, which investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. He acted as a spokesman for several businesses and appeared in advertising for the automotive brand Chrysler starting in January 1979.Early lifeArmstrong was born near Wapakoneta, Ohio,[1] on August 5, 1930, the son of Viola Louise (née Engel) and Stephen Koenig Armstrong. He was of German, Scots-Irish, and Scottish descent.[2][3] He had a younger sister, June, and a younger brother, Dean. His father was an auditor for the Ohio state government,[4] and the family moved around the state repeatedly, living in 16 towns over the next 14 years.[5] Armstrong's love for flying grew during this time, having started at the age of two when his father took him to the Cleveland Air Races. When he was five or six, he experienced his first airplane flight in Warren, Ohio, when he and his father took a ride in a Ford Trimotor (also known as the "Tin Goose").[6][7]The family's last move was in 1944 and took them back to Wapakoneta, where Armstrong attended Blume High School and took flying lessons at the Wapakoneta airfield.[1] He earned a student flight certificate on his 16th birthday, then soloed in August, all before he had a driver's license.[8] He was an active Boy Scout and earned the rank of Eagle Scout.[9] As an adult, he was recognized by the Scouts with their Distinguished Eagle Scout Award and Silver Buffalo Award.[10][11] While flying toward the Moon on July 18, 1969, he sent his regards to attendees at the National Scout jamboree in Idaho.[12] Among the few personal items that he carried with him to the Moon and back was a World Scout Badge.[13]At age 17, in 1947, Armstrong began studying aeronautical engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. He was the second person in his family to attend college. He was also accepted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),[14] but he resolved to go to Purdue after watching a football game between the Purdue Boilermakers and the Ohio State Buckeyes at the Ohio Stadium in 1945, in which quarterback Bob DeMoss led the Boilermakers to a sound victory over the highly regarded Buckeyes.[15] An uncle who attended MIT had also advised him that he could receive a good education without going all the way to Cambridge, Massachusetts. His college tuition was paid for under the Holloway Plan. Successful applicants committed to two years of study, followed by two years of flight training and one year of service as an aviator in the U.S. Navy, then completion of the final two years of their bachelor's degree.[14] Armstrong did not take courses in naval science, nor did he join the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps.[16]Navy serviceEnsign Neil Armstrong on May 23, 1952Armstrong's call-up from the Navy arrived on January 26, 1949, requiring him to report to Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida for flight training with class 5-49. After passing the medical examinations, he became a midshipman on February 24, 1949.[17] Flight training was conducted in a North American SNJ trainer, in which he soloed on September 9, 1949.[18] On March 2, 1950, he made his first aircraft carrier landing on USS Cabot, an achievement he considered comparable to his first solo flight.[18] He was then sent to Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas for training on the Grumman F8F Bearcat, culminating in a carrier landing on USS Wright. On August 16, 1950, Armstrong was informed by letter that he was a fully qualified naval aviator. His mother and sister attended his graduation ceremony on August 23, 1950.[19]Armstrong was assigned to Fleet Aircraft Service Squadron 7 (FASRON 7) at NAS San Diego (now known as NAS North Island). On November 27, 1950, he was assigned to VF-51, an all-jet squadron, becoming its youngest officer, and made his first flight in a jet, a Grumman F9F Panther, on January 5, 1951. He was promoted to ensign on June 5, 1951, and made his first jet carrier landing on USS Essex two days later. On June 28, 1951, Essex had set sail for Korea, with VF-51 aboard to act as ground-attack aircraft. VF-51 flew ahead to Naval Air Station Barbers Point in Hawaii, where it conducted fighter-bomber training before rejoining the ship at the end of July.[20]On August 29, 1951, Armstrong saw action in the Korean War as an escort for a photo reconnaissance plane over Songjin.[21] Five days later, on September 3, he flew armed reconnaissance over the primary transportation and storage facilities south of the village of Majon-ni, west of Wonsan. According to Armstrong, he was making a low bombing run at 350 mph (560 km/h) when 6 feet (1.8 m) of his wing was torn off after it collided with a cable that was strung across the hills as a booby trap. He was flying 500 feet (150 m) above the ground when he hit it. While there was heavy anti-aircraft fire in the area, none hit Armstrong's aircraft.[22] An initial report to the commanding officer of Essex said that Armstrong's F9F Panther was hit by anti-aircraft fire. The report indicated he was trying to regain control and collided with a pole, which sliced off 2 feet (0.61 m) of the Panther's right wing. Further perversions of the story by different authors added that he was only 20 feet (6.1 m) from the ground and that 3 feet (0.91 m) of his wing was sheared off.[23]F9F-2 Panthers over Korea, with Armstrong piloting S-116 (left)Armstrong flew the plane back to friendly territory, but due to the loss of the aileron, ejection was his only safe option. He intended to eject over water and await rescue by Navy helicopters, but his parachute was blown back over land. A jeep driven by a roommate from flight school picked him up; it is unknown what happened to the wreckage of his aircraft, F9F-2 BuNo 125122.[24]In all, Armstrong flew 78 missions over Korea for a total of 121 hours in the air, a third of them in January 1952, with the final mission on March 5, 1952. Of 492 U.S. Navy personnel killed in the Korean War, 27 of them were from Essex on this war cruise. Armstrong received the Air Medal for 20 combat missions, two gold stars for the next 40, the Korean Service Medal and Engagement Star, the National Defense Service Medal, and the United Nations Korea Medal.[25]Armstrong's regular commission was terminated on February 25, 1952, and he became an ensign in the United States Navy Reserve. On completion of his combat tour with Essex, he was assigned to a transport squadron, VR-32, in May 1952. He was released from active duty on August 23, 1952, but remained in the reserve, and was promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) on May 9, 1953.[26] As a reservist, he continued to fly, with VF-724 at Naval Air Station Glenview in Illinois, and then, after moving to California, with VF-773 at Naval Air Station Los Alamitos.[27] He remained in the reserve for eight years, before resigning his commission on October 21, 1960.[26]College yearsAfter his service with the Navy, Armstrong returned to Purdue. His previously earned good but not outstanding grades now improved, lifting his final Grade Point Average (GPA) to a respectable but not outstanding 4.8 out of 6.0. He pledged the Phi Delta Theta fraternity, and lived in its fraternity house. He wrote and co-directed two musicals as part of the all-student revue. The first was a version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, co-directed with his girlfriend Joanne Alford from the Alpha Chi Omega sorority, with songs from the Walt Disney film, including "Someday My Prince Will Come"; the second was titled The Land of Egelloc ("college" spelled backwards), with music from Gilbert and Sullivan but new lyrics. He was chairman of the Purdue Aero Flying Club, and flew the club's aircraft, an Aeronca and a couple of Pipers, which were kept at nearby Aretz Airport in Lafayette, Indiana. Flying the Aeronca to Wapakoneta in 1954, he damaged it in a rough landing in a farmer's field, and it had to be hauled back to Lafayette on a trailer.[28] He was a baritone player in the Purdue All-American Marching Band.[29] Ten years later he was made an honorary member of Kappa Kappa Psi national band honorary fraternity.[30] Armstrong graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering in January 1955.[27] In 1970, he completed his Master of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Southern California (USC).[31] He would eventually be awarded honorary doctorates by several universities.[32]Armstrong met Janet Elizabeth Shearon, who was majoring in home economics, at a party hosted by Alpha Chi Omega.[33] According to the couple, there was no real courtship, and neither could remember the exact circumstances of their engagement. They were married on January 28, 1956, at the Congregational Church in Wilmette, Illinois. When he moved to Edwards Air Force Base, he lived in the bachelor quarters of the base, while Janet lived in the Westwood district of Los Angeles. After one semester, they moved into a house in Antelope Valley, near Edwards AFB. Janet did not finish her degree, a fact she regretted later in life. The couple had three children: Eric, Karen, and Mark.[34] In June 1961, Karen was diagnosed with a diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, a malignant tumor of the middle part of her brain stem.[35] X-ray treatment slowed its growth, but her health deteriorated to the point where she could no longer walk or talk. She died of pneumonia, related to her weakened health, on January 28, 1962, aged two.[36]Test pilotFollowing his graduation from Purdue, Armstrong became an experimental research test pilot. He applied at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) High-Speed Flight Station at Edwards Air Force Base.[37] NACA had no open positions, and forwarded his application to the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, where Armstrong made his first test flight on March 1, 1955.[37] Armstrong's stint at Cleveland lasted only a couple of months before a position at the High-Speed Flight Station became available, and he reported for work there on July 11, 1955.[38]Armstrong, 26, as a test pilot at the NACA High-Speed Flight Station at Edwards AFB, CaliforniaOn his first day, Armstrong was tasked with piloting chase planes during releases of experimental aircraft from modified bombers. He also flew the modified bombers, and on one of these missions had his first flight incident at Edwards. On March 22, 1956, he was in a Boeing B-29 Superfortress,[39] which was to air-drop a Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket. He sat in the right-hand pilot seat while the left-hand seat commander, Stan Butchart, flew the B-29.[40]As they climbed to 30,000 feet (9 km), the number-four engine stopped and the propeller began windmilling (rotating freely) in the airstream. Hitting the switch that would stop the propeller's spinning, Butchart found it slowed but then started spinning again, this time even faster than the others; if it spun too fast, it would break apart. Their aircraft needed to hold an airspeed of 210 mph (338 km/h) to launch its Skyrocket payload, and the B-29 could not land with the Skyrocket attached to its belly. Armstrong and Butchart brought the aircraft into a nose-down attitude to increase speed, then launched the Skyrocket. At the instant of launch, the number-four engine propeller disintegrated. Pieces of it damaged the number-three engine and hit the number-two engine. Butchart and Armstrong were forced to shut down the damaged number-three engine, along with the number-one engine, due to the torque it created. They made a slow, circling descent from 30,000 ft (9 km) using only the number-two engine, and landed safely.[41]Armstrong served as project pilot on Century Series fighters, including the North American F-100 Super Sabre A and C variants, the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief and the Convair F-106 Delta Dart. He also flew the Douglas DC-3, Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, North American F-86 Sabre, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, Douglas F5D-1 Skylancer, Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Boeing B-47 Stratojet and Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, and was one of eight elite pilots involved in the Parasev paraglider research vehicle program.[42] Over his career, he flew more than 200 different models of aircraft.[31] His first flight in a rocket-powered aircraft was on August 15, 1957, in the Bell X-1B, to an altitude of 11.4 miles (18.3 km). On landing, the poorly designed nose landing gear failed, as had happened on about a dozen previous flights of the Bell X-1B. He flew the North American X-15 seven times,[43] including the first flight with the Q-ball system, the first flight of the number 3 X-15 airframe, and the first flight of the MH-96 adaptive flight control system.[44][45] He became an employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) when it was established on October 1, 1958, absorbing NACA.[46]Armstrong was involved in several incidents that went down in Edwards folklore or were chronicled in the memoirs of colleagues. During his sixth X-15 flight on April 20, 1962, Armstrong was testing the MH-96 control system when he flew to a height of over 207,000 feet (63 km) (the highest he flew before Gemini 8). He held up the aircraft nose for too long during its descent to demonstrate the MH-96's g-limiting performance, and the X-15 ballooned back up to around 140,000 feet (43 km). He flew past the landing field at Mach 3 at over 100,000 feet (30 km) in altitude, and ended up 40 miles (64 km) south of Edwards. After sufficient descent, he turned back toward the landing area, and landed, just missing Joshua trees at the south end. It was the longest X-15 flight in both flight time and length of the ground track.[47]Armstrong and X-15-1 after a research flight in 1960Many of the test pilots at Edwards praised Armstrong's engineering ability. Milt Thompson said he was "the most technically capable of the early X-15 pilots". Bill Dana said Armstrong "had a mind that absorbed things like a sponge". Those who flew for the Air Force tended to have a different opinion, especially people like Chuck Yeager and Pete Knight, who did not have engineering degrees. Knight said that pilot-engineers flew in a way that was "more mechanical than it is flying", and gave this as the reason why some pilot-engineers got into trouble: their flying skills did not come naturally.[48] Armstrong made seven flights in the X-15 between November 30, 1960, and July 26, 1962.[49] He reached a top speed of Mach 5.74 (3,989 mph, 6,420 km/h) in the X-15-1, and left the Flight Research Center with a total of 2,400 flying hours.[50]On April 24, 1962, Armstrong flew for the only time with Chuck Yeager. Their job, flying a T-33, was to evaluate Smith Ranch Dry Lake in Nevada for use as an emergency landing site for the X-15. In his autobiography, Yeager wrote that he knew the lake bed was unsuitable for landings after recent rains, but Armstrong insisted on flying out anyway. As they attempted a touch-and-go, the wheels became stuck and they had to wait for rescue. As Armstrong told the story, Yeager never tried to talk him out of it and they made a first successful landing on the east side of the lake. Then Yeager told him to try again, this time a bit slower. On the second landing, they became stuck, provoking Yeager to fits of laughter.[51]On May 21, 1962, Armstrong was involved in the "Nellis Affair". He was sent in an F-104 to inspect Delamar Dry Lake in southern Nevada, again for emergency landings. He misjudged his altitude and did not realize that the landing gear had not fully extended. As he touched down, the landing gear began to retract; Armstrong applied full power to abort the landing, but the ventral fin and landing gear door struck the ground, damaging the radio and releasing hydraulic fluid. Without radio communication, Armstrong flew south to Nellis Air Force Base, past the control tower, and waggled his wings, the signal for a no-radio approach. The loss of hydraulic fluid caused the tailhook to release, and upon landing, he caught the arresting wire attached to an anchor chain, and dragged the chain along the runway.[52]It took thirty minutes to clear the runway and rig another arresting cable. Armstrong telephoned Edwards and asked for someone to collect him. Milt Thompson was sent in an F-104B, the only two-seater available, but a plane Thompson had never flown. With great difficulty, Thompson made it to Nellis, where a strong crosswind caused a hard landing and the left main tire suffered a blowout. The runway was again closed to clear it, and Bill Dana was sent to Nellis in a T-33, but he almost landed long. The Nellis base operations office then decided that to avoid any further problems, it would be best to find the three NASA pilots ground transport back to Edwards.[52]Astronaut careerArmstrong in an early Gemini space suitIn June 1958, Armstrong was selected for the U.S. Air Force's Man In Space Soonest program, but the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) canceled its funding on August 1, 1958, and on November 5, 1958, it was superseded by Project Mercury, a civilian project run by NASA. As a NASA civilian test pilot, Armstrong was ineligible to become one of its astronauts at this time, as selection was restricted to military test pilots.[53][54] In November 1960, he was chosen as part of the pilot consultant group for the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a military space plane under development by Boeing for the U.S. Air Force, and on March 15, 1962, he was selected by the U.S. Air Force as one of seven pilot-engineers who would fly the X-20 when it got off the design board.[55][56]In April 1962, NASA announced that applications were being sought for the second group of NASA astronauts for Project Gemini, a proposed two-man spacecraft. This time, selection was open to qualified civilian test pilots.[57] Armstrong visited the Seattle World's Fair in May 1962 and attended a conference there on space exploration that was co-sponsored by NASA. After he returned from Seattle on June 4, he applied to become an astronaut. His application arrived about a week past the June 1, 1962, deadline, but Dick Day, a flight simulator expert with whom Armstrong had worked closely at Edwards, saw the late arrival of the application and slipped it into the pile before anyone noticed.[58] At Brooks Air Force Base at the end of June, Armstrong underwent a medical exam that many of the applicants described as painful and at times seemingly pointless.[59]NASA's Director of Flight Crew Operations, Deke Slayton, called Armstrong on September 13, 1962, and asked whether he would be interested in joining the NASA Astronaut Corps as part of what the press dubbed "the New Nine"; without hesitation, Armstrong said yes. The selections were kept secret until three days later, although newspaper reports had circulated since earlier that year that he would be selected as the "first civilian astronaut".[60] Armstrong was one of two civilian pilots selected for this group;[61] the other was Elliot See, another former naval aviator.[62] NASA announced the selection of the second group at a press conference on September 17, 1962. Compared with the Mercury Seven astronauts, they were younger,[59] and had more impressive academic credentials.[63]Gemini programGemini 5On February 8, 1965, Armstrong and Elliot See were announced as the backup crew for Gemini 5, with Armstrong as commander, supporting the prime crew of Gordon Cooper and Pete Conrad.[64] The mission's purpose was to practice space rendezvous and to develop procedures and equipment for a seven-day flight, all of which would be required for a mission to the Moon. With two other flights (Gemini 3 and Gemini 4) in preparation, six crews were competing for simulator time, so Gemini 5 was postponed. It finally lifted off on August 21.[65] Armstrong and See watched the launch at Cape Kennedy, then flew to the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston.[66] The mission was generally successful, despite a problem with the fuel cells that prevented a rendezvous. Cooper and Conrad practiced a "phantom rendezvous", carrying out the maneuver without a target.[67]Gemini 8Main article: Gemini 8Armstrong, 35, suiting up for Gemini 8 in March 1966The crew assignments for Gemini 8 were announced on September 20, 1965. Under the normal rotation system, the backup crew for one mission became the prime crew for the third mission after, but Slayton designated David Scott as the pilot of Gemini 8.[68][69] Scott was the first member of the third group of astronauts, whose selection was announced on October 18, 1963, to receive a prime crew assignment.[70] See was designated to command Gemini 9. Henceforth, each Gemini mission was commanded by a member of Armstrong's group, with a member of Scott's group as the pilot. Conrad would be Armstrong's backup this time, and Richard F. Gordon Jr. his pilot.[68][69] Armstrong became the first American civilian in space. (Valentina Tereshkova of the Soviet Union had become the first civilian—and first woman—nearly three years earlier aboard Vostok 6 when it launched on June 16, 1963.[71]) Armstrong would also be the last of his group to fly in space, as See died in a T-38 crash on February 28, 1966, that also took the life of crewmate Charles Bassett. They were replaced by the backup crew of Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan, while Jim Lovell and Buzz Aldrin moved up from the backup crew of Gemini 10 to become the backup for Gemini 9,[72] and would eventually fly Gemini 12.[73]Gemini 8 launched on March 16, 1966. It was the most complex mission yet, with a rendezvous and docking with an uncrewed Agena target vehicle, and the planned second American space walk (EVA) by Scott. The mission was planned to last 75 hours and 55 orbits. After the Agena lifted off at 10:00:00 EST,[74] the Titan II rocket carrying Armstrong and Scott ignited at 11:41:02 EST, putting them into an orbit from which they chased the Agena.[75] They achieved the first-ever docking between two spacecraft.[76] Contact with the crew was intermittent due to the lack of tracking stations covering their entire orbits. While out of contact with the ground, the docked spacecraft began to roll, and Armstrong attempted to correct this with the Gemini's Orbit Attitude and Maneuvering System (OAMS). Following the earlier advice of Mission Control, they undocked, but the roll increased dramatically until they were turning about once per second, indicating a problem with Gemini's attitude control. Armstrong engaged the Reentry Control System (RCS) and turned off the OAMS. Mission rules dictated that once this system was turned on, the spacecraft had to reenter at the next possible opportunity. It was later thought that damaged wiring caused one of the thrusters to stick in the on position.[77]Recovery of Gemini 8 from the western Pacific Ocean; Armstrong sitting to the rightA few people in the Astronaut Office, including Walter Cunningham, felt that Armstrong and Scott "had botched their first mission".[78] There was speculation that Armstrong could have salvaged the mission if he had turned on only one of the two RCS rings, saving the other for mission objectives. These criticisms were unfounded; no malfunction procedures had been written, and it was possible to turn on only both RCS rings, not one or the other.[79] Gene Kranz wrote, "The crew reacted as they were trained, and they reacted wrong because we trained them wrong." The mission planners and controllers had failed to realize that when two spacecraft were docked, they must be considered one spacecraft. Kranz considered this the mission's most important lesson.[80] Armstrong was depressed that the mission was cut short,[81] canceling most mission objectives and robbing Scott of his EVA. The Agena was later reused as a docking target by Gemini 10.[82] Armstrong and Scott received the NASA Exceptional Service Medal,[83][84] and the Air Force awarded Scott the Distinguished Flying Cross as well.[85] Scott was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and Armstrong received a $678 raise in pay to $21,653 a year (equivalent to $170,626 in 2019), making him NASA's highest-paid astronaut.[81]Gemini 11Main article: Gemini 11In Armstrong's final assignment in the Gemini program, he was the back-up Command Pilot for Gemini 11; this was announced two days after the landing of Gemini 8. Having trained for two flights, Armstrong was quite knowledgeable about the systems and took on a teaching role for the rookie backup Pilot, William Anders.[86] The launch was on September 12, 1966,[87] with Conrad and Gordon on board, who successfully completed the mission objectives, while Armstrong served as a capsule communicator (CAPCOM).[88]Following the flight, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Armstrong and his wife to take part in a 24-day goodwill tour of South America.[89] Also on the tour, which took in 11 countries and 14 major cities, were Dick Gordon, George Low, their wives, and other government officials. In Paraguay, Armstrong greeted dignitaries in their local language, Guarani; in Brazil he talked about the exploits of the Brazilian-born Alberto Santos-Dumont.[90]Apollo programOn January 27, 1967—the day of the Apollo 1 fire—Armstrong was in Washington, D.C. with Cooper, Gordon, Lovell and Scott Carpenter for the signing of the United Nations Outer Space Treaty. The astronauts chatted with the assembled dignitaries until 18:45, when Carpenter went to the airport, and the others returned to the Georgetown Inn, where they each found messages to phone the MSC. During these calls, they learned of the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in the fire. Armstrong and the group spent the rest of the night drinking scotch and discussing what had happened.[91]On April 5, 1967, the same day the Apollo 1 investigation released its final report, Armstrong and 17 other astronauts gathered for a meeting with Slayton. The first thing Slayton said was, "The guys who are going to fly the first lunar missions are the guys in this room."[92] According to Cernan, only Armstrong showed no reaction to the statement. To Armstrong it came as no surprise—the room was full of veterans of Project Gemini, the only people who could fly the lunar missions. Slayton talked about the planned missions and named Armstrong to the backup crew for Apollo 9, which at that stage was planned as a medium Earth orbit test of the combined lunar module and command and service module.[93]The crew assignment was officially announced November 20, 1967.[94] For crewmates, Armstrong was assigned Lovell and Aldrin, from Gemini 12. After design and manufacturing delays of the lunar module (LM), Apollo 8 and 9 swapped prime and backup crews. Based on the normal crew rotation, Armstrong would command Apollo 11,[93] with one change: Mike Collins on the Apollo 8 crew began experiencing trouble with his legs. Doctors diagnosed the problem as a bony growth between his fifth and sixth vertebrae, requiring surgery.[95] Lovell took his place on the Apollo 8 crew, and, when Collins recovered, he joined Armstrong's crew.[96]Armstrong descends to the ground on a parachute after ejecting from Lunar Landing Research Vehicle 1.To give the astronauts practice piloting the LM on its descent, NASA commissioned Bell Aircraft to build two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV), later augmented with three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). Nicknamed the "Flying Bedsteads", they simulated the Moon's one-sixth gravity using a turbofan engine to support five-sixths of the craft's weight. On May 6, 1968, 100 feet (30 m) above the ground, Armstrong's controls started to degrade and the LLRV began rolling.[97] He ejected safely before the vehicle struck the ground and burst into flames. Later analysis suggested that if he had ejected half a second later, his parachute would not have opened in time. His only injury was from biting his tongue. The LLRV was completely destroyed.[98] Even though he was nearly killed, Armstrong maintained that without the LLRV and LLTV, the lunar landings would not have been successful, as they gave commanders essential experience in piloting the lunar landing craft.[99]In addition to the LLRV training, NASA began lunar landing simulator training after Apollo 10 was completed. Aldrin and Armstrong trained for a variety of scenarios that could develop during a real lunar landing.[100] They also received briefings from geologists at NASA.[101]Apollo 11Main article: Apollo 11The Apollo 11 crew: Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin.After Armstrong served as backup commander for Apollo 8, Slayton offered him the post of commander of Apollo 11 on December 23, 1968, as Apollo 8 orbited the Moon.[102] According to Armstrong's 2005 biography, Slayton told him that although the planned crew was Commander Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin, and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, he was offering Armstrong the chance to replace Aldrin with Jim Lovell. After thinking it over for a day, Armstrong told Slayton he would stick with Aldrin, as he had no difficulty working with him and thought Lovell deserved his own command. Replacing Aldrin with Lovell would have made Lovell the lunar module pilot, unofficially the lowest ranked member, and Armstrong could not justify placing Lovell, the commander of Gemini 12, in the number 3 position of the crew.[103] The crew of Apollo 11 was officially announced on January 9, 1969, as Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin, with Lovell, Anders, and Fred Haise as the backup crew.[104]According to Chris Kraft, a March 1969 meeting among Slayton, George Low, Bob Gilruth, and Kraft determined that Armstrong would be the first person on the Moon, in part because NASA management saw him as a person who did not have a large ego. A press conference on April 14, 1969, gave the design of the LM cabin as the reason for Armstrong's being first; the hatch opened inwards and to the right, making it difficult for the LM pilot, on the right-hand side, to exit first. At the time of their meeting, the four men did not know about the hatch consideration. The first knowledge of the meeting outside the small group came when Kraft wrote his book.[105][106] Methods of circumventing this difficulty existed, but it is not known if these were considered at the time. Slayton added, "Secondly, just on a pure protocol basis, I figured the commander ought to be the first guy out ... I changed it as soon as I found they had the time line that showed that. Bob Gilruth approved my decision."[107]Voyage to the MoonA Saturn V rocket launched Apollo 11 from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969, at 13:32:00 UTC (09:32:00 EDT local time).[108] Armstrong's wife Janet and two sons watched from a yacht moored on the Banana River.[109] During the launch, Armstrong's heart rate peaked at 110 beats per minute.[110] He found the first stage the loudest, much noisier than the Gemini 8 Titan II launch. The Apollo command module was relatively roomy compared with the Gemini spacecraft. None of the Apollo 11 crew suffered space sickness, as some members of previous crews had. Armstrong was especially glad about this, as he had been prone to motion sickness as a child and could experience nausea after long periods of aerobatics.[111]Armstrong in the lunar module after the completion of the EVAApollo 11's objective was to land safely on the Moon, rather than to touch down at a precise location. Three minutes into the lunar descent, Armstrong noted that craters were passing about two seconds too early, which meant the Lunar Module Eagle would probably touch down several miles (kilometres) beyond the planned landing zone.[112] As the Eagle's landing radar acquired the surface, several computer error alarms sounded. The first was a code 1202 alarm, and even with their extensive training, neither Armstrong nor Aldrin knew what this code meant. They promptly received word from CAPCOM Charles Duke in Houston that the alarms were not a concern; the 1202 and 1201 alarms were caused by executive overflows in the lunar module guidance computer. In 2007, Aldrin said the overflows were caused by his own counter-checklist choice of leaving the docking radar on during the landing process, causing the computer to process unnecessary radar data. When it did not have enough time to execute all tasks, the computer dropped the lower-priority ones, triggering the alarms. Aldrin said he decided to leave the radar on in case an abort was necessary when re-docking with the Apollo command module; he did not realize it would cause the processing overflows.[113]Armstrong lands the Lunar Module Eagle on the Moon, July 20, 1969When Armstrong noticed they were heading toward a landing area that seemed unsafe, he took manual control of the LM and attempted to find a safer area. This took longer than expected, and longer than most simulations had taken.[114] For this reason, Mission Control was concerned that the LM was running low on fuel.[115] On landing, Aldrin and Armstrong believed they had 40 seconds of fuel left, including the 20 seconds' worth which had to be saved in the event of an abort.[116] During training, Armstrong had, on several occasions, landed with fewer than 15 seconds of fuel; he was also confident the LM could survive a fall of up to 50 feet (15 m). Post-mission analysis showed that at touchdown there were 45 to 50 seconds of propellant burn time left.[117]The landing on the surface of the Moon occurred several seconds after 20:17:40 UTC on July 20, 1969.[118] One of three 67-inch (170 cm) probes attached to three of the LM's four legs made contact with the surface, a panel light in the LM illuminated, and Aldrin called out, "Contact light." Armstrong shut the engine off and said, "Shutdown." As the LM settled onto the surface, Aldrin said, "Okay, engine stop"; then they both called out some post-landing checklist items. After a 10-second pause, Duke acknowledged the landing with, "We copy you down, Eagle." Armstrong announced the landing to Mission Control and the world with the words, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." Aldrin and Armstrong celebrated with a brisk handshake and pat on the back. They then returned to the checklist of contingency tasks, should an emergency liftoff become necessary.[119][120][121] After Armstrong confirmed touch down, Duke re-acknowledged, adding a comment about the flight crew's relief: "Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot."[116] During the landing, Armstrong's heart rate ranged from 100 to 150 beats per minute.[122]First Moon walkSee also: Apollo 11—Lunar surface operationsArmstrong describes the lunar surfaceFile:Frase de Neil Armstrong.oggΕλληνικά: Η περίφημη φράση του Νηλ Άρμστρονγκ κατά το πρώτο του βήμα στην επιφάνεια της Σελήνης, στις 21 Ιουλίου 1969, ακριβώς εξίμισι ώρες μετά την προσεδάφιση: Ένα μικρό βήμα για ένα άνθρωπο, ένα βήμα γίγαντα για την ανθρωπότητα. English: Famous speech from Neil Armstrong : At 2:56 UTC on , Armstrong made his descent to the Moon 's surface and spoke his famous line "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" exactly six and a half hours after landing . Русский: Знаменитая фраза Нила Армстронга , сказанная при его схождении на поверхность Луны (21 июля 1969): «Это один маленький шаг для человека, но гигантский скачок для всего человечества».https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frase_de_Neil_Armstrong.oggMENU0:00Problems playing this file? See media help.The flight plan called for a crew rest period before leaving the module, but Armstrong asked for this be moved to earlier in the evening, Houston time. When he and Aldrin were ready to go outside, Eagle was depressurized, the hatch was opened, and Armstrong made his way down the ladder.[123] At the bottom of the ladder Armstrong said, "I'm going to step off the LM [lunar module] now". He turned and set his left boot on the lunar surface at 02:56 UTC July 21, 1969,[124] then said, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."[125] The exact timing of Armstrong's first step on the Moon is unclear.[126]Armstrong prepared his famous epigram on his own.[127] In a post-flight press conference, he said that he chose the words "just prior to leaving the LM."[128] In a 1983 interview in Esquire magazine, he explained to George Plimpton: "I always knew there was a good chance of being able to return to Earth, but I thought the chances of a successful touch down on the moon surface were about even money—fifty–fifty ... Most people don't realize how difficult the mission was. So it didn't seem to me there was much point in thinking of something to say if we'd have to abort landing."[127] In 2012, his brother Dean Armstrong said that Neil showed him a draft of the line months before the launch.[129] Historian Andrew Chaikin, who interviewed Armstrong in 1988 for his book A Man on the Moon, disputed that Armstrong claimed to have conceived the line during the mission.[130]Recordings of Armstrong's transmission do not provide evidence for the indefinite article "a" before "man", though NASA and Armstrong insisted for years that static obscured it. Armstrong stated he would never make such a mistake, but after repeated listenings to recordings, he eventually conceded he must have dropped the "a".[125] He later said he "would hope that history would grant me leeway for dropping the syllable and understand that it was certainly intended, even if it was not said—although it might actually have been".[131] There have since been claims and counter-claims about whether acoustic analysis of the recording reveals the presence of the missing "a";[125][132] Peter Shann Ford, an Australian computer programmer, conducted a digital audio analysis and claims that Armstrong did say "a man", but the "a" was inaudible due to the limitations of communications technology of the time.[125][133][134] Ford and James R. Hansen, Armstrong's authorized biographer, presented these findings to Armstrong and NASA representatives, who conducted their own analysis.[135] Armstrong found Ford's analysis "persuasive."[136][137] Linguists David Beaver and Mark Liberman wrote of their skepticism of Ford's claims on the blog Language Log.[138] A 2016 peer-reviewed study again concluded Armstrong had included the article.[139] NASA's transcript continues to show the "a" in parentheses.[140]When Armstrong made his proclamation, Voice of America was rebroadcast live by the BBC and many other stations worldwide. An estimated 530 million people viewed the event,[141] 20 percent out of a world population of approximately 3.6 billion.[142][143]Q: Did you misspeak?A: There isn't any way of knowing.Q: Several sources say you did.A: I mean, there isn't any way of my knowing. When I listen to the tape, I can't hear the 'a', but that doesn't mean it wasn't there, because that was the fastest VOX ever built. There was no mike-switch — it was a voice-operated key or VOX. In a helmet you find you lose a lot of syllables. Sometimes a short syllable like 'a' might not be transmitted. However, when I listen to it, I can't hear it. But the 'a' is implied, so I'm happy if they just put it in parentheses.Omni, June 1982, p. 126Armstrong on the MoonAbout 19 minutes after Armstrong's first step, Aldrin joined him on the surface, becoming the second human to walk on the Moon. They began their tasks of investigating how easily a person could operate on the lunar surface. Armstrong unveiled a plaque commemorating the flight, and with Aldrin, planted the flag of the United States. Although Armstrong had wanted the flag to be draped on the flagpole,[144] it was decided to use a metal rod to hold it horizontally.[145] However, the rod did not fully extend, leaving the flag with a slightly wavy appearance, as if there were a breeze.[146] Shortly after the flag planting, President Richard Nixon spoke to them by telephone from his office. He spoke for about a minute, after which Armstrong responded for about thirty seconds.[147] In the Apollo 11 photographic record, there are only five images of Armstrong partly shown or reflected. The mission was planned to the minute, with the majority of photographic tasks performed by Armstrong with the single Hasselblad camera.[148]After helping to set up the Early Apollo Scientific Experiment Package, Armstrong went for a walk to what is now known as East Crater, 65 yards (59 m) east of the LM, the greatest distance traveled from the LM on the mission. His final task was to remind Aldrin to leave a small package of memorial items to Soviet cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Vladimir Komarov, and Apollo 1 astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee.[149] The Apollo 11 EVA lasted two and a half hours.[150] Each of the subsequent five landings was allotted a progressively longer EVA period; the crew of Apollo 17 spent over 22 hours exploring the lunar surface.[150] In a 2010 interview, Armstrong explained that NASA limited their Moon walk because they were unsure how the space suits would cope with the Moon's extremely high temperature.[151]Return to EarthThe Apollo 11 crew and President Nixon during the post-mission quarantine periodAfter they re-entered the LM, the hatch was closed and sealed. While preparing for liftoff, Armstrong and Aldrin discovered that, in their bulky space suits, they had broken the ignition switch for the ascent engine; using part of a pen, they pushed in the circuit breaker to start the launch sequence.[152] The Eagle then continued to its rendezvous in lunar orbit, where it docked with Columbia, the command and service module. The three astronauts returned to Earth and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, to be picked up by the USS Hornet.[153]After being released from an 18-day quarantine to ensure that they had not picked up any infections or diseases from the Moon, the crew was feted across the United States and around the world as part of a 38-day "Giant Leap" tour.[154]New York City ticker tape parade, August 13, 1969The tour began on August 13, when the three astronauts spoke and rode in ticker-tape parades in their honor in New York and Chicago, with an estimated six million attendees.[155][156] On the same evening an official state dinner was held in Los Angeles to celebrate the flight, attended by members of Congress, 44 governors, the Chief Justice of the United States, and ambassadors from 83 nations. President Nixon and Vice President Agnew presented each astronaut with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.[155][157]After the tour Armstrong took part in Bob Hope's 1969 USO show, primarily to Vietnam.[158] In May 1970, Armstrong traveled to the Soviet Union to present a talk at the 13th annual conference of the International Committee on Space Research; after arriving in Leningrad from Poland, he traveled to Moscow where he met Premier Alexei Kosygin. Armstrong was the first westerner to see the supersonic Tupolev Tu-144 and was given a tour of the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, which he described as "a bit Victorian in nature".[159] At the end of the day, he was surprised to view a delayed video of the launch of Soyuz 9 as it had not occurred to Armstrong that the mission was taking place, even though Valentina Tereshkova had been his host and her husband, Andriyan Nikolayev, was on board.[160]Life after ApolloValentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space, presenting a badge to Neil Armstrong, Star City, USSR, June 1970TeachingShortly after Apollo 11, Armstrong announced that he did not plan to fly in space again.[161] He was appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics for the Office of Advanced Research and Technology at ARPA, served in the position for a year, then resigned from it and NASA in 1971.[162] He accepted a teaching position in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati,[163] having chosen Cincinnati over other universities, including his alma mater Purdue, because Cincinnati had a small aerospace department,[164] and said he hoped the faculty there would not be annoyed that he came straight into a professorship with only a USC master's degree.[165] He began his master's degree while stationed at Edwards years before, and completed it after Apollo 11 by presenting a report on various aspects of Apollo, instead of a thesis on the simulation of hypersonic flight.[166]At Cincinnati, Armstrong was University Professor of Aerospace Engineering. He took a heavy teaching load, taught core classes, and created two graduate-level classes: aircraft design and experimental flight mechanics. He was considered a good teacher, and a tough grader. His research activities during this time did not involve his work at NASA, as he did not want to give the appearance of favoritism; he later regretted the decision. After teaching for eight years, Armstrong resigned in 1980. When the university changed from an independent municipal university to a state school, bureaucracy increased. He did not want to be a part of the faculty collective bargaining group, so he decided to teach half-time. According to Armstrong, he had the same amount of work but received half his salary. In 1979, less than 10% of his income came from his university salary. Employees at the university did not know why he left.[166]NASA commissionsIn 1970, after an explosion aboard Apollo 13 aborted its lunar landing, Armstrong was part of Edgar Cortright's investigation of the mission. He produced a detailed chronology of the flight. He determined that a 28-volt thermostat switch in an oxygen tank, which was supposed to have been replaced with a 65-volt version, led to the explosion. Cortright's report recommended the entire tank be redesigned at a cost of $40 million. Many NASA managers, including Armstrong, opposed the recommendation, since only the thermostat switch had caused the problem. They lost the argument and the tanks were redesigned.[167]In 1986, President Ronald Reagan asked Armstrong to join the Rogers Commission investigating the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Armstrong was made vice chairman of the commission, and held private interviews with contacts he had developed over the years to help determine the cause of the disaster. He helped limit the committee's recommendations to nine, believing that if there were too many, NASA would not act on them.[168]Michael Collins, President George W. Bush, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin during celebrations of the 35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, July 21, 2004Armstrong was appointed to a fourteen-member commission by President Reagan to develop a plan for American civilian spaceflight in the 21st century. The commission was chaired by former NASA administrator Dr. Thomas O. Paine, with whom Armstrong had worked during the Apollo program. The group published a book titled Pioneering the Space Frontier: The Report on the National Commission on Space, recommending a permanent lunar base by 2006, and sending people to Mars by 2015. The recommendations were largely ignored, overshadowed by the Challenger disaster.[169]Armstrong and his wife attended the memorial service for the victims of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, at the invitation of President George W. Bush.[170]Business activitiesAfter Armstrong retired from NASA in 1971, he acted as a spokesman for several businesses. The first company to successfully approach him was Chrysler, for whom he appeared in advertising starting in January 1979. Armstrong thought they had a strong engineering division, and they were in financial difficulty. He later acted as a spokesman for other American companies, including General Time Corporation and the Bankers Association of America.[171] He acted as a spokesman for only American companies.[172]In addition to his duties as a spokesman, he also served on the board of directors of several companies. The first company board Armstrong joined was Gates Learjet, chairing their technical committee. He flew their new and experimental jets and even set a climb and altitude record for business jets. Armstrong became a member of Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company's board in 1973. They were interested in nuclear power and wanted to increase the company's technical competence. He served on the board of Taft Broadcasting, also based in Cincinnati. Armstrong joined Thiokol's board in 1989, after he was vice-chair of the Rogers Commission; the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed due to a problem with the Thiokol-manufactured solid rocket boosters. When Armstrong left the University of Cincinnati, he became the chairman of Cardwell International Ltd., a company that manufactured drilling rigs. He served on additional aerospace boards, first United Airlines in 1978, and later Eaton Corporation in 1980. He was asked to chair the board of directors for a subsidiary of Eaton, AIL Systems. He chaired the board through the company's 2000 merger with EDO Corporation, until his retirement in 2002.[173] [174]North Pole expeditionIn 1985, professional expedition leader Mike Dunn organized a trip to take men he deemed the "greatest explorers" to the North Pole. The group included Armstrong, Edmund Hillary, Hillary's son Peter, Steve Fossett, and Patrick Morrow. They arrived at the Pole on April 6, 1985. Armstrong said he was curious to see what it looked like from the ground, as he had seen it only from the Moon.[175] He did not inform the media of the trip, preferring to keep it private.[176]Public profileArmstrong in 1999Armstrong's family described him as a "reluctant American hero".[177][178][179] He kept a low profile later in his life, leading to the belief that he was a recluse.[180][181] Recalling Armstrong's humility, John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth, told CNN: "[Armstrong] didn't feel that he should be out huckstering himself. He was a humble person, and that's the way he remained after his lunar flight, as well as before."[182] Armstrong turned down most requests for interviews and public appearances. Michael Collins said in his book Carrying the Fire that when Armstrong moved to a dairy farm to become a college professor, it was like he "retreated to his castle and pulled up the drawbridge". Armstrong found this amusing, and said, "... those of us that live out in the hinterlands think that people that live inside the Beltway are the ones that have the problems."[183]Andrew Chaikin says in A Man on the Moon that Armstrong kept a low profile but was not a recluse, citing his participation in interviews, advertisements for Chrysler, and hosting a cable television series.[184] Between 1991 and 1993, he hosted First Flights with Neil Armstrong, an aviation history documentary series on A&E.[183] In 2010, Armstrong voiced the character of Dr. Jack Morrow in Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey,[185] an animated educational sci-fi adventure film initiated by JPL/NASA through a grant from Jet Propulsion Lab.[186]Armstrong guarded the use of his name, image, and famous quote. When it was launched in 1981, MTV wanted to use his quote in its station identification, with the American flag replaced with the MTV logo, but he refused the use of his voice and likeness.[187] He sued Hallmark Cards in 1994, when they used his name, and a recording of the "one small step" quote, in a Christmas ornament without his permission. The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which Armstrong donated to Purdue.[188][189]For many years, he wrote letters congratulating new Eagle Scouts on their accomplishment, but decided to quit the practice in the 1990s because he felt the letters should be written by people who knew the scout. (In 2003, he received 950 congratulation requests.) This contributed to the myth of his reclusiveness.[190] Armstrong used to autograph everything except first day covers. Around 1993, he found out his signatures were being sold online, and that most of them were forgeries, and stopped giving autographs.[181]Personal lifeArmstrong speaking in February 2012 on the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's first spaceflightSome former astronauts, including Glenn and Harrison Schmitt, sought political careers after leaving NASA. Armstrong was approached by groups from both the Democratic and Republican parties, but declined the offers. He supported states' rights and opposed the U.S. acting as the "world's policeman".[191]When Armstrong applied at a local Methodist church to lead a Boy Scout troop in the late 1950s, he gave his religious affiliation as "deist".[192] His mother later said that his religious views caused her grief and distress in later life, as she was more religious.[193] Upon his return from the Moon, Armstrong gave a speech in front of the U.S. Congress in which he thanked them for giving him the opportunity to see some of the "grandest views of the Creator".[194][195] In the early 1980s, he was the subject of a hoax claiming that he converted to Islam after hearing the call to prayer while walking on the Moon. Indonesian singer Suhaemi wrote a song called "Gema Suara Adzan di Bulan" ("The Resonant Sound of the Call to Prayer on the Moon") which described Armstrong's supposed conversion, and the song was widely discussed by Jakarta news outlets in 1983.[196] Similar hoax stories were seen in Egypt and Malaysia. In March 1983, the U.S. State Department responded by issuing a message to embassies and consulates in Muslim countries saying that Armstrong had not converted to Islam.[197] The hoax surfaced occasionally for the next three decades. Part of the confusion arose from the similarity between the names of the country of Lebanon, which has a majority Muslim population, and Armstrong's longtime residence in Lebanon, Ohio.[197]In 1972, Armstrong visited the Scottish town of Langholm, the traditional seat of Clan Armstrong. He was made the first freeman of the burgh, and happily declared the town his home.[198] To entertain the crowd, the Justice of the Peace read from an unrepealed archaic 400-year-old law that required him to hang any Armstrong found in the town.[199]Armstrong flew light aircraft for pleasure. He enjoyed gliders and before the moon flight had earned a gold badge with two diamonds from the International Gliding Commission. He continued to fly engineless aircraft well into his 70's.[200]While working on his farm in November 1978, Armstrong jumped off the back of his grain truck and caught his wedding ring in its wheel, tearing the tip off his left ring finger. He collected the severed tip, packed it in ice, and had surgeons reattach it at the Jewish Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky.[201] In February 1991, he suffered a mild heart attack while skiing with friends at Aspen, Colorado.[202]Armstrong and his first wife, Janet, separated in 1990 and divorced in 1994 after 38 years of marriage.[203][204] He met his second wife, Carol Held Knight, at a golf tournament in 1992, when they were seated together at breakfast. She said little to Armstrong, but he called her two weeks later to ask what she was doing. She replied that she was cutting down a cherry tree, and he arrived at her house 35 minutes later to help. They were married in Ohio on June 12, 1994, and had a second ceremony at San Ysidro Ranch in California. They lived in Indian Hill, Ohio.[205][206] Through his marriage to Carol, he was the father-in-law of future New York Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen.In May 2005, Armstrong became involved in a legal dispute with Mark Sizemore, his barber of 20 years. After cutting Armstrong's hair, Sizemore sold some of it to a collector for $3,000 without Armstrong's knowledge.[207] Armstrong threatened legal action against Sizemore unless he returned the hair or donated the proceeds to a charity of Armstrong's choosing. Sizemore, unable to retrieve the hair, donated the proceeds to charity.[208][209]Illness and deathPhotograph of Armstrong as a boy at his family memorial service in Indian Hill, Ohio, near Cincinnati, on August 31, 2012Armstrong underwent bypass surgery on August 7, 2012, to relieve coronary artery disease.[210] Although he was reportedly recovering well,[211] he developed complications in the hospital and died on August 25, in Cincinnati, Ohio, aged 82.[212][213] The White House released a statement in which President Obama described Armstrong as "among the greatest of American heroes—not just of his time, but of all time".[214][215] It went on to say that Armstrong had carried the aspirations of the United States' citizens and had delivered "a moment of human achievement that will never be forgotten."[216]Armstrong's burial at sea on September 14, 2012Armstrong's family released a statement describing him as a "reluctant American hero [who had] served his nation proudly, as a navy fighter pilot, test pilot, and astronaut ... While we mourn the loss of a very good man, we also celebrate his remarkable life and hope that it serves as an example to young people around the world to work hard to make their dreams come true, to be willing to explore and push the limits, and to selflessly serve a cause greater than themselves. For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."[217] It prompted many responses, including the Twitter hashtag "#WinkAtTheMoon".[218]Buzz Aldrin called Armstrong "a true American hero and the best pilot I ever knew", and said he was disappointed that they would not be able to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing together in 2019.[219][220] Michael Collins said, "He was the best, and I will miss him terribly."[221][222] NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said, "As long as there are history books, Neil Armstrong will be included in them, remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own".[223][224]External videoMemorial service for Armstrong, Washington National Cathedral, September 13, 2012, C-SPANA tribute was held for Armstrong on September 13, at Washington National Cathedral, whose Space Window depicts the Apollo 11 mission and holds a sliver of Moon rock amid its stained-glass panels.[225] In attendance were Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmates, Collins and Aldrin; Gene Cernan, the Apollo 17 mission commander and last man to walk on the Moon; and former senator and astronaut John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. In his eulogy, Charles Bolden praised Armstrong's "courage, grace, and humility". Cernan recalled Armstrong's low-fuel approach to the Moon: "When the gauge says empty, we all know there's a gallon or two left in the tank!" Diana Krall sang the song "Fly Me to the Moon". Collins led prayers. David Scott spoke, possibly for the first time, about an incident during their Gemini 8 mission: minutes before the hatch was to be sealed, a small chip of dried glue fell into the latch of his harness and prevented it from being buckled, threatening to abort the mission. Armstrong then called on Conrad to solve the problem, which he did, and the mission proceeded. "That happened because Neil Armstrong was a team player—he always worked on behalf of the team."[225] Congressman Bill Johnson from Armstrong's home state of Ohio led calls for President Barack Obama to authorize a state funeral in Washington D.C. Throughout his lifetime, Armstrong shunned publicity and rarely gave interviews. Mindful that Armstrong would have objected to a state funeral, his family opted to have a private funeral in Cincinnati.[226] On September 14, Armstrong's cremated remains were scattered in the Atlantic Ocean from the USS Philippine Sea.[227] Flags were flown at half-staff on the day of Armstrong's funeral.[228]In July 2019, after observations of the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing, The New York Times reported on details of a medical malpractice suit Armstrong's family had filed against Mercy Health–Fairfield Hospital, where he died. When Armstrong appeared to be recovering from his bypass surgery, nurses removed the wires connected to his temporary pacemaker. He began to bleed internally and his blood pressure dropped. Doctors took him to the hospital's catheterization laboratory, and only later began operating. Two of the three physicians who reviewed the medical files during the lawsuit called this a serious error, saying surgery should have begun immediately; experts the Times talked to, while qualifying their judgement by noting that they were unable to review the specific records in the case, said that taking a patient in those circumstances to the operating room generally gave them the highest chance of survival.[229]The family ultimately settled for $6 million in 2014. Letters included with the 93 pages of documents sent to the Times by an unknown individual[230] show that his sons intimated to the hospital, through their lawyers, that they might discuss what happened to their father publicly at the 45th anniversary observances in 2014. The hospital, fearing the bad publicity that would result from being accused of negligently causing the death of a revered figure such as Armstrong, agreed to pay as long as the family never spoke about the suit or the settlement.[229] Armstrong's wife, Carol, was not a party to the lawsuit. She reportedly felt that her husband would have been opposed to taking legal action.[231]LegacyArmstrong gives an acceptance speech after being inducted into the Naval Aviation Hall of Honor at the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FloridaWhen Pete Conrad of Apollo 12 became the third man to walk on the Moon, on November 19, 1969, his first words referenced Armstrong. The shorter of the two, when Conrad stepped from the LM onto the surface he proclaimed "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me."[232]Armstrong received many honors and awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom (with distinction) from President Nixon,[155][233] the Cullum Geographical Medal from the American Geographical Society,[234] and the Collier Trophy from the National Aeronautic Association (1969);[235] the NASA Distinguished Service Medal[236] and the Dr. Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy (1970);[237] the Sylvanus Thayer Award by the United States Military Academy (1971);[238] the Congressional Space Medal of Honor from President Jimmy Carter (1978);[83] the Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy from the National Aeronautic Association (2001);[239] and a Congressional Gold Medal (2011).[240]Armstrong and his Apollo 11 crewmates were the 1999 recipients of the Langley Gold Medal from the Smithsonian Institution.[241] On April 18, 2006, he received NASA's Ambassador of Exploration Award.[242] The Space Foundation named Armstrong as a recipient of its 2013 General James E. Hill Lifetime Space Achievement Award.[243] Armstrong was also inducted into the Aerospace Walk of Honor,[244][245] the International Space Hall of Fame,[246] National Aviation Hall of Fame, and the United States Astronaut Hall of Fame.[247][248] He was awarded his Naval Astronaut badge in a ceremony on board the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower on March 10, 2010, in a ceremony attended by Lovell and Cernan.[249]President Barack Obama poses with the Apollo 11 crew on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, July 20, 2009: Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Neil ArmstrongThe lunar crater Armstrong, 31 miles (50 km) from the Apollo 11 landing site, and asteroid 6469 Armstrong are named in his honor.[250] There are more than a dozen elementary, middle and high schools named for Armstrong in the United States,[251] and many places around the world have streets, buildings, schools, and other places named for him and/or Apollo.[252] The Armstrong Air and Space Museum, in Armstrong's hometown of Wapakoneta,[253] and the Neil Armstrong Airport in New Knoxville, Ohio, are named after him.[254]Purdue University announced in October 2004 that its new engineering building would be named Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering;[255] the building was dedicated on October 27, 2007, during a ceremony at which Armstrong was joined by fourteen other Purdue astronauts.[256] The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center was renamed the NASA Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center in 2014.[257] In September 2012, the U.S. Navy announced that the first Armstrong-class vessel would be named RV Neil Armstrong. Delivered to the Navy on September 23, 2015, it is a modern oceanographic research platform supporting a wide range of activities by academic groups.[258] In 2019, the College of Engineering at Purdue University celebrated the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's walk on the Moon by launching the Neil Armstrong Distinguished Visiting Fellows Program, which brings highly accomplished scholars and practitioners to the college to catalyze collaborations with faculty and students.[259]External videoPresentation by James Hansen on First Man, November 9, 2005, C-SPANArmstrong's authorized biography, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, was published in 2005. For many years, he turned down biography offers from authors such as Stephen Ambrose and James A. Michener, but agreed to work with James R. Hansen after reading one of Hansen's other biographies.[260] He recalled his initial concerns about the Apollo 11 mission, when he had believed there was only a 50% chance of landing on the Moon. "I was elated, ecstatic and extremely surprised that we were successful".[261] A film adaptation of the book, starring Ryan Gosling and directed by Damien Chazelle, was released in October 2018.[262]In July 2018, Armstrong's sons put his collection of memorabilia up for sale, including his Boy Scout cap, and various flags and medals flown on his space missions. A series of auctions was held on November 1 to 3, 2018, that realized $5,276,320. As of July 2019, the auction sales have totaled $16.7 million.[231] Two fragments of wood from the propeller and four pieces of fabric from the wing of the 1903 Wright Flyer that Armstrong took to the Moon fetched between $112,500 and $275,000 each.[263][264] Armstrong's wife, Carol, has not put any of his memorabilia up for sale.[231]Armstrong donated his papers to Purdue. Along with posthumous donations by his widow Carol, the collection consists of over 450 boxes of material. In May 2019, she donated two 25-by-24-inch (640 by 610 mm) pieces of fabric from the Wright Flyer, along with his correspondence related to them.[265]Ohio 50 State quarter, depicting Armstrong and the Wright brothers' Wright Flyer IIIIn a 2010 Space Foundation survey, Armstrong was ranked as the#1 most popular space hero;[266] and in 2013, Flying magazine ranked him #1 on its list of 51 Heroes of Aviation.[267] The press often asked Armstrong for his views on the future of spaceflight. In 2005, he said that a human mission to Mars would be easier than the lunar challenge of the 1960s. In 2010, he made a rare public criticism of the decision to cancel the Ares I launch vehicle and the Constellation Moon landing program.[268] In an open letter also signed by fellow Apollo veterans Lovell and Cernan, he noted, "For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature".[269] On November 18, 2010, aged 80, he said in a speech during the Science & Technology Summit in the Hague, Netherlands, that he would offer his services as commander on a mission to Mars if he were asked.[270]The planetarium at Altoona Area High School in Altoona, Pennsylvania is named after Neil Armstrong and is home to a Space Race museum.[271]Armstrong was named the class exemplar for the Class of 2019 at the U.S. Air Force Academy. [272]