Harrison H. “Jack” Schmitt

Credentials

Ph.D., Geology, Harvard University, 1964. [1]

B.S., California Institute of Technology (Caltech), 1957.[1]

Background

Dr. Harrison Hagan “Jack” Schmitt is a geologist who worked as a scientist-astronaut with NASA from 1965 to 1975. He is noted as being the last of the Apollo astronauts to arrive and set foot on the Moon. [1]

After resigning from NASA, Schmitt was elected to serve as a senator for New Mexico where he served one term from 1977 to 1982. From 1994 to 1998, Harrison Schmitt was chairman and president of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policyow serves as a chairman emeritus. [33]

Schmitt was picked by New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez to direct the state’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department in January, 2011. [2] Harrison Schmitt is a self-proclaimed climate denier, and a former Director at the Heartland Institute as well as of the contrarian Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. [27]

Apart from denying the existence of man-made global warming, the Annapolis Center has spent considerable effort calling into question the link between air pollution and asthma, the impacts of mercury pollution, and the dangers of pesticide residue on food.

Since 1998, ExxonMobil has given $973,500 to the Annapolis Center. In 2004, at the Center's annual dinner, it honored Senator James Inhofe for his work in “promoting science-based public policy.”

While Harrison Schmitt served as chairman and president of the Annapolis Center, he was affiliated with Sallie Baliunas. Baliunas was a member of the Annapolis Center's Science and Economic Advisory Council.

According to ExxonSecrets, Baliunas is the “central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.” Baliunas has also been affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Stance on Climate Change

October, 2016

“Fear of excessive warming from more CO2 in the atmosphere, including that released from human activity, has caused some people to advocate substantial and expensive reductions in CO2 emissions. But observations, such as those on our CO2 Coalition website, show that increased CO2 levels over the next century will cause modest and beneficial warming—perhaps as much as one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)—and that this will be an even larger benefit to agriculture than it is now. The costs of emissions regulations, which will be paid by everyone, will be punishingly high and will provide no benefits to most people anywhere in the world.” — Harrison H. Schmitt and Rodney W. Nichols, The Wall Street Journal. [31]

February, 2009

Dr. Schmitt does not agree with the theory that human activity is responsible for global warming. He states that “human experience, geological data and history, and current cooling argue otherwise.” Schmitt is so ardent in this belief that in 2009 he resigned from the Planetary Society. [3]

In his letter of resignation, Schmitt told the Planetary society that “'consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”

Key Quotes

October, 2016

“[A] myth persists that is both unscientific and immoral to perpetuate: that the beneficial gas carbon dioxide ranks among hazardous pollutants. It does not.” [31]

May, 2013

“We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [26]

February, 2011

“Several indisputable facts appear evident in geological and climate science that make me a true 'denier' of human-caused global warming.” [27]

January, 2011

“[T]he great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” [5] “In Antarctica, it looks like the total volume (of ice) is increasing and if that's true, that's probably why you're getting increased ice moving away from the center of the continent and therefore these big icebergs and stuff are breaking off.” [5]

February, 2009

“I don't think the human effect [of climate change] is significant compared to the natural effect.” [4]

Key Deeds

October 15, 2018

Schmitt, featured on an Apollo Plus 50 Panel at the Science Writers Conference, was confronted in a Q&A session regarding his views on climate change. Astrophysicist Adam Becker outlined the exchange on Twitter. [42]

In the Q&A, Nicholas St. Fleur quoted Schmitt from a recent article on moon landing deniers where Schmitt had said “If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them.” Fleur asked Schmitt if he saw any irony in that statement, given Schmitt's views on climate change. [42]

“I see no irony at all,” Schmitt responded. “I'm a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change. It has gone through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?” At this point, several people in the audience yelled “yes” and laughed. Schmitt continued, “In my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. […] “ [42]

Betsy Mason, a journalist and geologist, came up to the mic and said that Schmitt should reconsider speaking for all geologists on that topic. [42]

February 23, 2017

Harrison Schmitt was a signatory of a petition (PDF) organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC). [40]

“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter. [40]

DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever. [41]

October 31, 2016

Rodney W. Nichols and Harrison H. Schmitt of the Co2 Coalition co-published an article in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Phony War Against CO2.” [31]

Nichols and Schmitt argue that “a myth persists that is both unscientific and immoral to perpetuate: that the beneficial gas carbon dioxide ranks among hazardous pollutants. It does not.” The two then link to the CO2 Coalition's website:

“[O]bservations, such as those on our CO2 Coalition website, show that increased CO2 levels over the next century will cause modest and beneficial warming—perhaps as much as one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)—and that this will be an even larger benefit to agriculture than it is now. The costs of emissions regulations, which will be paid by everyone, will be punishingly high and will provide no benefits to most people anywhere in the world.”

Six scientists analyzed Nichols' and Schmitt's article at Climate Feedback, noting that rather than referring to published scientific research to support their views, the two authors rely heavily on information published by the CO2 Coalition to argue that CO2 emissions are beneficial. Overall feedback from the reviewers is reposted below: [32]

William Anderegg, Associate Professor, University of Utah:

“The opinion article makes sweeping assertions that are not in line with the scientific understanding. The conclusions on CO2 uniformly benefiting agriculture are simply misleading—yes, CO2 can help plants but higher temperatures and more drought and pests with climate change also hurt plants.” Timothy Osborn, Professor of Climate Science, University of East Anglia:

“The article presents a biased view by understating the degree and impacts of global warming while overstating or simplifying the benefits of CO2 fertilisation.” James Renwick, Professor, Victoria University of Wellington:

“The article is full of half-truths, untruths, and red herrings. Casting increased CO2 as a benefit to humankind, without considering the impacts and risks associated with a changing climate, is dangerous and irresponsible.” Lauren Simkins, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Rice University:

“The lack of distinction between the role of solid particulates and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes many of the authors’ claims false and misleading. The article does not present a complete or accurate discussion of climate change, its causes, and its societal influence. The authors state that readers should ‘check the facts’ regarding climate change, but have presented us with little scientific support for their own claims.” Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:

“This has nothing to do with science.”

May 8, 2013

Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer co-author an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.” [26] The authors submit that no chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the “single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.” [26] The conclusion of the article states that, “The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [26]

May 21 - 23, 2012

Harrison Schmitt was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). [39]

He spoke on the NASA letter writer's panel along with Leighton Steward, Harold Doiron, Thomas Wysmuller and Walter Cunningham.

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations. [34]

At the conclusion of the conference, Heartland's president Joe Bast said Institute has no plans for future ICCCs. This could be in part due to the defections of corporate sponsors following Heartland's unsuccessful Unabomber billboard campaign and the unintended release of their confidential documents.

March 28, 2012

Schmitt was one of 49 former NASA scientists to sign an open letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to cease their “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change.” [20]

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated,” The letter stated.

SkepticalScience published a critique on the claims made in the letter, which was also republished in The Guardian. [21], [22]

January 27, 2012

Schmitt signed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The piece begins, stating “There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.” [6]

Sixteen other “scientists” are listed as signatories including Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Jan Breslow, Roger Cohen, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, and Henk Tennekes.

It has received criticism from numerous sources (see here [7], here, [8], and here [9] for example.)

Media Transparency also examined Op-Ed and concluded that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who said that the WSJ was guilty of a “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.” [10]

SkepticalScience also did a comprehensive examination of the sixteen signatories and connected many to fossil fuel interests, and noted that many of the scientists did not have experience directly relating to climate science. [11]

June 30 - July 1, 2011

Harrison Schmitt was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6). [35]

His speech, titled “Sharpening the Scientific Debate” can be viewed below.

The conference's theme was “restoring the scientific method.” [29] See the video of his presentation here. [12]

Research done by DesmogBlog found that 17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, have collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife family foundations, Koch Industries family foundations, or ExxonMobil and its foundation.

May, 2010

Harrison Schmitt was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC4). His speech was titled “Constitutional Constraints on Regulation Related to Climate and Energy.” [13]

The conference's theme was “Reconsidering the Science and Economics,” and its purpose was “the same as it was for the first three events: to build momentum and public awareness of the global warming 'realism' movement.”

June, 2009

Harrison Schmitt was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC3). [36] He spoke on Panel 1: “Science Panel” with Willie Soon, Anthony Watts, and Fred Singer.

The conference's theme was “that global warming is not a crisis.” [28]

March 8-9, 2009

Harrison Schmitt was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's Second International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2) where he gave a presentation titled “Climate Facts that Really Are Facts.“ [14]

The conference’s theme was “Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis” to reflect Heartland's belief that that “scientific debate is not over,” and it was designed to “call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming.”

DeSmogBlog researched the funding behind the conference and found that sponsor organizations had collectively received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations.

2009

Harrison sent a “white paper” to NASA titled “Observations Necessary for Useful Global Climate Models” (PDF). [37]



Skeptical Science debunked his paper, and reported that Harrison used a “Impressive number of skeptic arguments.” [15]

The paper points to research by fellow climate change skeptics Syun Akasofu, and David Douglass.



According to Schmitt, “Given what we actually know about climate, as well as the remaining uncertainties, Americans should think long and hard before giving up liberties and incomes to politicians and bureaucrats who just want to 'do something' to satisfy a particular special interest.” He describes climate change legislation as a “long-term political agenda to gather power at the expense of liberty.”

Schmitt's arguments were backed by Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute. [38]

Affiliations

Publications

According to Google Scholar, Harrison H. Schmitt has not published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate change. A “HH Schmitt” has co-published papers on lunar dust and moon exploration.

Resources