This week’s meeting features NASA scientist and meteorologist Tom Wysmuller.
DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I want to welcome you here today. We will have a couple of reports for you today, and Diane, who’s just led a particularly important intervention, and internationally important intervention that happened over in Bayonne, New Jersey; we’ll give you that report.
I simply want to say a few words, first about a discussion we were able to have with Lyn and Helga LaRouche just before this meeting. And what was emphasized to us was that we needed to make sure, that there would be a centralized focus, a unity of effect in what we do in this country, to secure the reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act that the President-elect Donald Trump, in either his Inaugural Address or an address immediately subsequent to that, should directly speak to the need to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
Now of course, we’re not merely referring to the measure Glass-Steagall, although Mr. LaRouche has been very clear that he is talking about an unaltered Glass-Steagall process. We’re talking about the spirit behind what Franklin Roosevelt did on March 4th, 1933, when, prior to any legislative session, he made it clear, the evening of the inauguration, that his intent was to close the banks of the United States the following Monday. And the bank holiday and the process that followed that, including his Fireside Chats, were the means by which the American people were mobilized to take back their government. That’s the same process that we are now engaged in.
And so everything that we do will go to that effect. But that effect is, that there will be an American Presidency, that in collaboration with the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese government under Xi Jinping, as well as the other governments of good will, will collaborate to create a new form of justice, of economic justice in specific worldwide. We’ve already seen that in its expression by the Chinese in the One Belt, One Road policy. We’ve already seen that in an expression by Vladimir Putin in the policy in Syria. And we’ve heard the intent of the president-elect Donald Trump to act with respect to Glass-Steagall and other measures in that same vein.
And so clearly we’re in a position, and we’re poised to do what we were requested to do by Lyn and Helga LaRouche, which is that all matters are unified around, in terms of our deployment and our outlook and our orientation, towards supporting and organizing for that new form of deal, if you will, a New American Deal for the World, that Donald Trump and his Presidency are capable of implementing.
So without saying more, I’d like to introduce Diane. Of course, Diane is a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and she has just, as I say, done something that I think you’re all going to find very, very important and very exciting: Diane.
DIANE SARE: I’ll just begin by a short report. We have come from Bayonne, New Jersey, where I guess God ordained that we were going to feel a real unity with Russia, so we had a blizzard and high winds on coast there.
But we wanted to do something today. Today is Christmas Day in the Eastern Orthodox calendar, and Russia has just suffered, really, a great loss, first with the assassination of their ambassador to Turkey, who was giving a lecture in an art museum; and then very shortly after, this horrible plane crash which occurred on our Christmas Day, in which you had several very promising, young journalists; of course the crew; a very well-known humanitarian doctor, named Dr. Elizaveta Glinka, who was taking care of children in the Donbass, and who was on her way to Syria to bring medical supplies to children there; and, you had the entirety of the Red Army Chorus, or the Alexandrov Ensemble, 64 members plus their director were all killed in this plane crash.
And this is a great loss. The chorus was founded in 1926 by Alexandrov, who then later, in 1942 composed the anthem of the then Soviet Union, which was first premiered in 1944.
I learned that apparently, it was Putin — they switched after the Wall came down and so on, the Russian Federation had a different anthem, but it didn’t have any words. And so, on Dec. 25th, I think it was the year 2000, Vladimir Putin had run a competition for who could write the words for this anthem, which if you heard, it’s a very beautiful anthem. And so, a poet wrote the words, the words were chosen, and it has become again the Anthem of the Russian Federation.
So we wanted to do something to express our support and solidarity with the people of Russia in this terrible loss. And what we did today was to hold a ceremony at the Tear-Drop Memorial in Bayonne, which was a gift from Russia, which was presented by Putin [at the 2005 groundbreaking]. It was in September 2006, former President bill Clinton presided at the ceremony, and it is a monument — you’ve seen pictures on the cover of our program — but it has this tear-drop in the center of it, with the idea that the world was crying with the people of the United States, when we lost 3,000 people on September 11th.
And since today is the Eastern Orthodox Christmas, and you all of these people who were going to celebrate the holidays with the Russian troops in Syria, who have done a brilliant job in liberating Syria from ISIS — and now they are not there, their voices have been silent — that it would be appropriate to present this gift.
Lieutenant Tony Giorgio of the New York Police Department Ceremonial Unit, had sent a message of condolence, because it turns out that in September 2011 there was a festival of military bands, and the Red Army Chorus and the New York Police Department Ceremonial Unit were going to perform together; they were going to do “God Bless America.” And the Alexandrov Ensemble said, “we will do this ourselves.” And what they did was, an extraordinary bass-baritone singer sang “God Bless America,” as a solo accompanied by the chorus, and a young boy presented the NYPD ensemble with a white rose. And I think this just made an extraordinary impression. The soloist who sang that was one of the people killed in the plane crash, so when you watch the video of this, it’s completely heartbreaking.
So the New York Police Department Ceremonial Unit joined us; Lt. Giorgio presided over the ceremony. They were a color guard, we had an honor guard from the Bayonne Fire Department; the Schiller Institute Chorus. We sang the Russian National Anthem and the American National Anthem, and then presentations were made by the First Deputy Permanent Representative from the Russian Mission to the UN; from Lt. Giorgio, from Capt. Don Haiber of the Bayonne Fire Department; from myself. And also very importantly, from Terry Strada, the chairwoman of 9-11 Families United for Justice Against Terror. And there was an invocation given by the chaplain of the Bayonne Police Department. And then we closed with a Christmas carol, since it is Christmas in the Eastern Orthodox calendar. And they laid the wreath, and the list of the names of the passengers on the monument.
So it was a quite remarkable and moving gathering. And I think there are very many people in the United States who, contrary to the stupid nonsense in our news media, and the absurd lie that somehow Russian hacking, for which they have no evidence occurred, determined the outcome of the election — it really does not impress any sane person! People know, as Mrs. LaRouche was stressing, that a friendship between the United States and Russia is the one of the most important prerequisites for addressing any problems on the planet and that President-elect Trump is committed to that. And in fact, today, President-elect Trump sent out a series of Tweets, which read as follows:
“Sent today at 10:02 a.m.” — goodness! Exactly as we were starting our ceremony! — he writes, “having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing not a bad thing. Only ‘stupid people’ or fools would think that it is bad. We have enough problems around the world” — this was a series of tweets because they only have 140 characters — so I’m on Tweet
2. “We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now, and” — Tweet
3 — “both countries will perhaps work together to solve some of the many, great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD.” In capital letters. [applause]
So, our job here is to secure the ability of the United States to participate in the Belt and Road, and as Dennis said, the first step in that of President-elect Trump must be the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and the enactment of LaRouche’s Four Laws, of which that is only the first. But the point of the first is not a banking law, and I think this is the challenge we face on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, that people think it’s a banking law. This is not a banking law!
The point is that mankind is creative. We are a unique species. We are the only species that can change our character as a matter of will. Frogs have been doing the same thing for many, many thousands, maybe millions of years. I don’t know how old they are as a species, but they’re pretty old. You do not see lions driving automobiles. And that’s probably a good thing. I’m glad that polar bears do not drive automobiles, since they’re the only creature that has stalked a human being for 50 miles in order to devour him.
So it is human beings which are unique. And the way you see that in physical economy, which is LaRouche’s contribution is that human beings have the capability to transform our requirements. So that if we are forced to rely on burning wood and scratching in the dirt for what we can eat, then it would take a very, very large land area to sustain a very small number of people. And probably those people would only live to be 30 years of age, if they were lucky.
But because we have a mind, because we can make discoveries with which we transform the universe, what happens is we discovered coal, which is a much more dense form of energy than burning wood. We discovered the atom, which no one has actually ever seen, but we were able to make a hypothesis about how matter is organized, and discover, with help of people like Albert Einstein, the great potential of energy locked within an atom and develop nuclear fission. We are on the cusp of developing nuclear fusion, where we can secure massive amounts of energy with absolutely miniscule amounts of fuel. When you are able to do that, it means that you have power over nature to convert materials that might have been seen as waste or useless, into precious resources. My friend Jason Ross talks about the fusion potential of plasma torches, where you can get such high temperatures that you can break complex molecules into their original components. Now, coming from New Jersey, I think this is a fantastic idea; because in New Jersey, we are the dump of the whole metropolitan area. We have gigantic landfills; and if we had a plasma torch system, we would be so rich. Because we could run that trash through the torch, and we could get all kinds of difficult to come by materials that might be used for all kinds of things.
So, it’s the nature of mankind, and I think it really hasn’t been the case since President Kennedy in this country where we had outlook that we could solve anything. For example, today if you tell an American, “We are going to eliminate poverty, there should be no poor people in the United States and no poor people on the planet. There should be no human being on the planet that doesn’t have access to clean drinking water and electricity.” If you said that, you know what people will say; “Oh, that’ll never happen; there’s always going to be poor people. Oh, that’s impossible.” They have all these — well, we didn’t used to think that way; but over a series of attacks on our nation — the assassination of Kennedy, the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the assassination of Malcolm X, the Vietnam War. Which was a war where we were measuring whether we were winning or not by the number of people we killed. The wars that were just wars, where we fought to win — any great commander, any great general would say the point is to win the war with the minimal loss of life. When you’re going into combat, the question is not how many people are you going to kill; but, is the cause so great that it is worth you giving your life — are you willing to die for that cause? If that cannot be answered, then there should not be a war. At this point, because of the development of nuclear weapons, we are in an era where we cannot use war anymore; we have to grow up. We are a species which can transform the Universe; it is absurd for human beings who have the capability of reason to think that we would have to resort to force and violence to solve any problem on the planet.
What has now emerged is, you have a group of nations — led by China and Russia — the BRICS process; also, the Eurasian Union process, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China’s Belt and Road, where you have 70-plus nations engaged in a commitment to elevating the standard of living, elevating the standard of culture, elevating the dynamic of mankind. The United States should join this. In the last 16 years, we have had two administrations whose sole mission has not only been to not join us, but to provoke war and conflict with the leading nations who are organizing for the betterment of mankind. So, we now have, as the result of the election — and the election is the result of a global revolution, which we saw with the Brexit vote; and we saw with the Italian vote. We’ve seen around the planet what happened with the Philippines with Duterte; that’s what’s happened in the United States. So, we have a great opportunity, and we have to take the manhole covers off of our heads, which make us think small about what is possible, and do what is possible.
This Glass-Steagall mobilization is a decisive first step, and we have many allies. The intent, as Dennis said, is that in Trump’s inaugural address or State of the Union address, that he should demand that Glass-Steagall is put in place along with a national banking system, a system of credit that goes into a science-driver program. The development of thermonuclear fusion in the United States, which we urgently need. I’m just going to read you — we are circulating this in Washington; there will be a leaflet on our website which everyone will be able to get access to. There is a group called “Our Revolution” out of northwest Ohio, which is calling every group imaginable; from the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, labor unions, businesses, everybody to mobilize. They wrote an open letter to Donald Trump and all members of Congress where they write:
“We the undersigned strongly feel the need for protecting our economy from another unnecessary market crash and recession like the one experienced in December of 2007. As you take office, the conditions for a collapse are too similar to those of 2007: rising asset values together with a lack of separation between FDIC insured banking and risk-investment brokering.
“We applaud [President Trump’s] campaign statement in Charlotte, North Carolina, … endorsing a call for ‘A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall,’ and reintroducing a modern day Glass-Steagall Act. We trust that you understand that stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity during your administration.
“To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that [President Trump] restate [his] support for a Glass-Steagall Act during [the] State of the Union address.
“Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with both the Republicans and the Democrats; since both party platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective platforms.
“Thank you for responding to the call from citizens, businesspersons, bankers and legislators as we move forward. [In urging that Glass-Steagall legislation be passed in both the House and the Senate of the U.s. Congress, and signed into law by incoming President Donald Trump, we are the undersigned:]”
This is a petition which will be available on the LaRouche PAC website as a leaflet form; and I understand that on the reverse of it will be a resolution from the Illinois legislature supporting LaRouche’s Four Laws, the whole program.
So, I think I will leave it at this point, and we can open up for discussion.
SPEED: What I want to do is to take a couple of questions to Diane; and then I see we have a certain person in the audience, who I think I’m going to bring up and ask to say a few words. I think he knows who he is. Questions first; we’ll take two, or three if there are three.
Q: Good afternoon. Earlier today, I was at the service over by the Teardrop Memorial; and I think I wasn’t the only one that, in listening to the presentations that were made, noticed the thread in the discussion of music. Particularly a person who myself and another one of the organizers had talked to — a captain in the Fire Department in Bayonne, who was instrumental in getting this event together. But in the discussion we had initially had with him around the 9/11 memorial concert series, he had noted to us that he loved to listen to Classical music; and there were other people there as well. A member of the New York City police department who knew very well the Alexandrov Ensemble. But, to get off a little bit, since the question was music, I wonder if you could also bring up, since we have just opened the discussion on Glass-Steagall, the question of how Glass-Steagall fits into that idea. In particular, in my own mind, the idea that having Glass-Steagall passed would be music to a lot of people’s ears.
SARE: Well, it will be music; but it’ll also be a call to battle. Because I’m sure you remember that we found out that certain people in the City of London, in the British Empire, said that if the U.S. were to pass Glass-Steagall they would view that as an act of war. Because, of course, it brings down an entire financial parasite; a gigantic, bloated parasite which has been sucking the blood of the American people and our productivity for far too long. As I said, the real question is, how do we create conditions where real human beings are allowed to be creative? If we’re living in situations where there’s not enough food, not enough housing — New York City now has 73,500 homeless people. The number of homeless schoolchildren is becoming a terrible problem in the schools; not just for the children who are homeless. Obviously it is a terrible problem for them, but when you have children who have not eaten, who don’t know where they’re going to sleep, and you have a greater and greater proportion of them in the classrooms, the situation becomes very difficult. You can’t just develop your mind on an empty stomach; although I will say there are extraordinary people like Kepler, who was literally starving, who did his work during the 30 Years’ War. There have been extraordinary geniuses who were able to create; but if you want a culture of creativity and beauty, then there are certain basic needs of human beings that have to be met. Having a sane and regulated banking system is the first step to making that possible.
SPEED: I just want to also add to that. At the memorial today, when Diane spoke, she pointed out that a chorus is not the sum of the singers in it. In one sense, it’s a good metaphor for humanity; human beings individually die, but the human race is immortal. That is, if we’re not stupid enough to decide otherwise. The conception is that the idea of immortality, with respect to the idea of economy, is the central idea of economy. The central idea of economy is not get what you can now while you can, which is the way it’s practiced. It’s actually the opposite. It’s the idea of posterity; that’s why it’s in the Preamble, written by Gouverneur Morris for the Constitution. And that’s why, at least in our view, the Preamble is the core of the document. The notion of the General Welfare that is there, is there because if you have a general conception of the future, you have to have a conception of the General Welfare. That’s what Glass-Steagall is. It’s an expression of the concept of immortality. Not because the law says that, but because the action of making the law the law is that. That’s what Roosevelt, for example, did.
The reason this is a musical idea, is because the whole conception of mankind is that mankind is a musical proposition. What we did today, for example, with the ceremony, was to provide a living memorial for the singers that died and the musicians who died. Everyone who died, but particularly them. There are various songs in German lieder and others that point out this idea that a singer never dies; because as long as nature exists, a singer’s song is always expressed and celebrated by the Moon, by flowers, and by the beings of life. That’s the nature of music; it’s always a living thing. And it’s an immortal living thing that is propagated throughout the Universe as a whole. I’m only saying this because the thing that I think is important about what we did today, and it is historic what we did in every real sense. It wasn’t done merely for the musicians who died; it was done for the future. Glass-Steagall is the same idea; and we’re returning the United States to its real heritage, which is what it gave the world in the form of the Preamble clause of the Constitution. That you could actually organize humanity around the General Welfare principle; that wasn’t illegal — shouldn’t be. It wasn’t the divine right of kings; it wasn’t the rights of oligarchs. It wasn’t that some people had the right to live and others didn’t. No! It was a concept that there was an entire human race as a whole, which could be represented by the actions of each of us. It was a relationship between the maximum and the minimum; the macrocosm and the microcosm. This is actually best seen in the work of great scientists, as Diane already said about Kepler. That’s where you see that relationship pulled together. It’s no accident that Kepler is the one who wrote about the Harmony of the Worlds. It’s no accident that he had a conception of the Universe as a single, musical composition, if you will.
So, this is really what we’re doing in this idea of poets being the unacknowledged legislators in the world that Shelley talks about. This is all one concept, and it’s available to every citizen of the United States; and implicitly to every citizen of the world.
Do we have another question? We’ll just take this, and then you want to read that, and go ahead.
Q: I just wanted to say “Glass-Steagall” is established; it’s a functioning issue. My question is not a question, but a request. We have to educate the people as to why Glass-Steagall is an imperative issue and it’s justified. Because every 20 years, the monarchy starts to break down the Glass-Steagall through the years; because they’re still going to be existing, and they’re going to be trying to retrieve their initial system; this bubble, this global free trade. So, my question is that we have to educate the students from when they’re in high school through college, to participate in the Congressional issue of pushing Glass-Steagall. To sustain it, to recognize what the monarchy was all about and what they did. Why? So that after every 20 years, this doesn’t break down the Glass-Steagall.
So, I’m asking that in that span where Glass-Steagall is established and done, that it will sustain itself for many years. Because as time and generations go by, it’s the education of why Glass-Steagall is imperative.
SARE: I get the idea. I don’t agree with the premise of your question, because we’re not going to have to go through this every 20 years. Mankind is going to become better. So far, as depraved as we’ve become, we have not yet gone back to putting leeches on sick people to suck their blood out as a means of a medical cure. In other words, there are certain things that mankind actually can outgrow. Maybe some of the more challenging ones are oligarchism, are greed — where people are so small-minded that they think they should look after their own personal interests. But that is mortal; because all of us are going to die. So, if you’re only looking for your own personal interests, that is a very short-sighted approach to your existence. We are going to create a culture where human beings can locate their identity in the mission of mankind as a whole and their immortality. In such a culture, we are not going to be doing this every 20 years; and I think we should determine right now that we’re going to create a world where that is not the case. We’re not going to fight the same battles over and over again. Mankind is going to change and become a better species.
Q: [follow-up] I hope so!
SARE: I just have one thing I wanted to share, and then we’ll have our next speaker. This was a message from Senator Richard Black of Virginia, who people may know has travelled to Syria and knows very well on a personal basis the situation there. He writes: “A fond farewell to Russian heroes who died for the cause of peace on December 25, 2016.” This is from Senator Black. “I pray for the families of those Russians who perished last Christmas while flying to spread beauty to Syria, a land torn asunder by evil schemes of foreign powers. How appropriate that the renowned Alexandrov Ensemble is honored at this place by the Schiller Institute Chorus singing both the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ and the Russian national anthem at a wreath-laying for the victims of the air crash. The American and Russian choirs shared a dedication to restoring civility by appealing to the higher intellect. Their legacy will live on. The Teardrop 9/11 Memorial was a gift that Russia gave Americans to honor the 3000 Americans slain by al-Qaeda on 9/11. That monument was inscribed ‘To the struggle against world terrorism’. How fitting that we honor men and women who gave their lives in that struggle. Their gifts contributed greatly to peace and harmony among men. This event comes at an historic moment in Russian-American relations; an exciting time of joint commitment to civilization and religious freedom, and the restoration of world peace. I am grateful that Russia stepped forward militarily, carrying the burden of confronting world terrorism, while much of the world chose a darker path. Tomorrow’s American leadership gives hope that the world will step back from the provocative actions propelling us toward a world war that neither Americans nor Russians wanted. May God grant peace to the nations of the world, and may the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest forever with Him. Senator Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District.” [applause]
SPEED: I think the only efficient way to answer the question that was asked, is something that I think the next speaker is going to take up. It’s time to end the witch hunt against science; because the problem you have is that when you have a population that is characterized by various forms of superstition and myth-making, you can’t educate that population. See, if you have people who are committed to claiming to believe something that they already know can’t be true, you can’t educate that group of people. Now, we’ve had — as people are aware — something called originally global warming; then it became climate change, which is a very peculiar term because climate is always changing. But now, this is apparently a threat that the climate is always changing. And the fact that there are large numbers of people who apparently believe that because climate is changing there is a threat, tells you that if you try educating those people without disabusing them [of the fact] that what they think is absurd; those people cannot preserve a modern society. They cannot preserve great civilizations, great ideas; they cannot support great leaders. Can’t do it.
So, Tom Wysmuller is technically a meteorologist who was trained at NYU; and therefore we think of him as part of the Manhattan Project. He worked in NASA before, during, and after the Moon shot. But he’s really little bit more like a character named Van Helsing; I don’t know if people know who Van Helsing is. He’s the vampire killer. If you ever read the book, which you should read, it’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He sort of runs around trying to kill vampires. It’s scary to kill a vampire; because you’ve got to go to the lair of the vampire. You’ve got to go during the day; you’ve got to go to the castle, you have to go downstairs, open up the coffin. He’s lying there, but this is the same being can rip you apart and can turn into a bat and imitate a wolf and all these things. Can fly. But in that case at that moment during the day, if you put a stake to the heart of the vampire and pound hard, your problem is over. Well, a lot of people don’t want to do that. But Tom relishes doing this sort of stuff. So, I think he has a few words he’d like to say to us here today, since he’s here today. Tom, come up.
TOM WYSMULLER: I didn’t bring my stake with me, but I do have a little laser pointer which will have the same effect, I hope. Let me give you some background here. Last year, before the United Nations COP 21 conference in Paris, which was designed forever to cure climate change, I was invited — with the good graces of Dennis and Suzanne and a couple of other people — to systematically go to the UN missions here in New York City and speak to the people at the missions and give them advice on how to handle the COP 21. I think we succeeded and we failed. I’ll tell you how we did both.
We succeeded in this sense. I had prepared a four-page brochure on the truth on climate and sea level rise. In testing it, I found that people don’t like to read four pages; so then we decided to put together a one-page sheet. One side in English, the other side in French. We took that with us to these consulates. We left the four-pager there, too. And we talked to many of them; and the advice we gave was, look for your own country’s future. You need to look for the progress that your country can make; and make sure that you have a way out. Get what in union negotiations they used to call a “zipper clause”; so that you can unwind the agreement if it works against you. In that case, I think we succeeded; we succeeded quite well. In one case, one of the representatives left at the end of our session and went right to Paris to make sure that that was going to happen. The others did by telecommunication. So there, we had some success.
Where I think we failed is that I probably should have advised them not to sign the agreement at all. Because it’s based on fiction and it will not help their countries. I did not understand that at the time. This is 20/20 hindsight; 20/20 hindsight is wonderful. You can look back and become very brilliant. But we did succeed in educating the UN mission representatives; and part of that is what you’re going to see right now. What you’re going to see right now, by the way, is a presentation that I gave in Qingdao, China at the World Oceans Conference. Actually, I think with the help of the LaRouche organization, I got the invitation to speak there. They then decided to have me chair the oceanographic section of the World Oceans Conference.
What you’re seeing is a talk on sea-level rise; the logo of the World Congress of Oceans is on the top . I’m going to walk through this. I don’t have a sheet here, so I’m going to do this so-called “winging it”; but I’ve done this often. Next week, this same presentation is going to be given at Johnson Space Center to my ex-NASA colleagues who see me maybe too often. But, let me start.
Take a look here. Sea-level and CO2; is there a cause and effect? In other words, does a rise or fall in one increase or decrease the other? Can it work both ways? I’m going to try to answer that question for you; I’m going to give you hard data which will answer that question. Data is what makes people at NASA feel really good — you can look at it, you can measure it. Let’s see what we can do now. Let’s see if I can get the next slide.
SLIDE: Weather and CO2. Weather Events is what I really should have title it. Is there a cause and effect between CO2 and weather, and do we have strength, severity or frequency of weather events influenced by CO2? We’re going to talk about correlations. Correlation is when one thing goes in one direction and something else follows. Inverse correlation is when the opposite happens—when something rises, the other decreases or something decrease, the other rises. You’re going to see both of them here.
SLIDE: Let’s see what we can do here. This is what people said is the future for New York City. This happens to be the book jacket of a book threatening this kind of thing. This will never happen in your lifetime or any of your descendants’ lifetime, but it sells books and it gets people excited, and worried, and they do strange things when that happens. This is juxtaposition: On the left side, you see New York City as it looked at the time of Henry Hudson sailing up the Hudson in the Half Moon. All you had were trees. By the way, the sea level hasn’t changed very much. Four hundred years later, this is what Manhattan looks like—not too many trees, you’ve got a couple in Central Park up here. New York City has gotten larger. Manhattan Island used to be a little bit skinny tipped. We have put landfill around here. One of the problems is we didn’t build the landfill high enough. So when you’re at the South Street Seaport and you’re walking toward Broadway, you’re actually walking uphill; and finally when you cross Water Street (named Water Street because it was under water), then you’ll find your rising on what used to be the real island of Manhattan. It is one of the reasons Hurricane Sandy gave us so much trouble; it flooded areas that should have been a little bit higher.
SLIDE: Now this is a 2,000-year look at temperature and CO2. CO2 is the green line running across the center of the graphic and notice right around here—it shoots upward. The beginning of the Industrial Age, we’re putting more CO2 in the air. But look at the difference in temperature. We had a Medieval warm period where temperatures skyrocketed for hundreds of years., and then we had a Little Ice Age starting around 1500, where the Thames River was frozen all winter, the Dutch skated on the canals (if you look at the old Dutch Masters, you see lots of those); it was very, very cold. CO2 just runs along at 280 ppm, seemingly neither influencing the spike in temperature or the decline. And now here at this point—we have a rise in temperature and this blue arrow represents a subset, and the next slide shows you that subset to be the last 100 years or so.
SLIDE: Now here you see—temperature is rising here, but look at this: temperature is still falling as CO2 rises at the beginning of the 1800s; and then finally, the temperature and CO2 seem to rise in tandem. Does one cause the other? Does one correlate with the other? Well, they go back, we only have 4-1/2% correlation between CO2 and temperature—it’s almost nothing. Here we’ve got at least two-thirds. I’m not so sure you can put a cause and effect label on CO2 and temperature. Let’s try another one.
SLIDE: Now we’re going to talk a little bit about weather. Here are hurricanes. Meteorologists love hurricanes. They’re the great heat transfer mechanism from the tropics toward the poles. They create damage, of course, but they are fascinating to study. Is there a correlation between hurricanes and CO2? Let’s take a quick look.
Here we see hurricane strikes in the United States versus CO2. And if you remember, back here, CO2 was quite low and then CO2 goes up. What about hurricane strikes? Could I make the proposition that as CO2 increases (and you can see it increasing on the bottom here), that hurricanes are going to decrease? Should we put more CO2 in the atmosphere? Here, this is an inverse correlation. Inverse correlation also is not causation. But it’s interesting and we can learn something from it.
Here’s a concept called accumulated cyclonic energy—it’s called ACE; you can Google it. What it does is—they measure low pressure systems, cyclones, and they measure them every six hours; they measure the central wind speed, they measure the pressure, they measure the tightness of the winds. And you can record that and find out what the energy is and then take a look, actually over the years since this concept was started, a good statistician would tell you, there is no trend, no real trend up or down. However, the last 15-20 years, as CO2 has gone up, there is a decided decrease in cyclonic energy. This tells you basically that hurricanes are actually getting weaker as CO2 goes up. Does one cause the other? Again, it’s inverse correlation. I don’t believe there is, by the way.
How about tornadoes? Tornadoes are really scary. We are now with satellites able to measure tornadoes very accurately. We can see tornadoes that we never would have seen; over rural areas where nobody lives, a tornado would strike down, lift up and we’d never know about them. Now we know about them. Take at the look at the tornado count versus CO2. Now CO2 going up. Every category of tornado—F5, F4, F3, F2 is either flat or declining, as CO2 goes up. How about tornado count versus temperature? People say because of global warming or warming in the atmosphere, tornadoes are going to get stronger. It doesn’t work that way. The trend is decidedly down.
How about precipitation? Rainfall? We’ve been told that we’re going to get more flooding. Well, this is a 100-year record of precipitation worldwide—it’s a nice graphic that Anthony Watts put together; but the fact is that precipitation over a period of increasing CO2 is flat. It’s basically linear, it hasn’t changed.
Here is one of the strangest things that EPA is trying to do. They’re saying we need to regulate aircraft emissions. Now, we can see here: This is France, this is England. This was taken on a very clear day and what you are seeing are the contrails on jet planes flying over Europe. And the EPA wants to regulate those emissions because they said they are harmful.
Well, it turns out (we’ve memorialized 9/11 today), after 9/11, for five days, no plane flew—on the entire planet! We grounded all aircraft because we were afraid of more bombs coming in different buildings. What was the result from a meteorological standpoint? It turns out that the nighttime temperatures were colder. The daytime temperatures were warmer. Why were they warmer? Well, these contrails reflect incoming sunlight. If you have been covering France here, there’s a lot of sunlight that does not reach the ground. If sunlight hits the ground, it converts to infrared and heats the atmosphere right above it, so the Earth is warmer, so the daytime highs were higher and the nighttime lows were lower. But why were they lower at night? Because you had no cloud cover, no contrails—the heat from the Earth could escape right into space— and it did. So you had a wider contrast in temperature on both sides.
Now, EPA is complaining that we have too many weather extremes. Why in heck would you ever regulate something that actually dampens the extremes? In other words, once the planes started flying again, the daytime highs were a little bit lower and the nighttime lows were a little bit higher. So, you actually dampen the effect of climate and EPA wants to regulate it. (OK, I’m rolling my eyes.)
SLIDE: This is the atmospheric temperatures in the world, not oceanic temperatures, but atmospheric temperatures. Basically, they have been in kind of a flat line. CO2 has still gone up during this period. This is recent, this is only like the last 20 years or so.
SLIDE: Here’s a look at sea level rise. I’m going to move from weather to sea level rise. At the end of the last Ice Age, we had miles and miles of ice locked up on land, meaning moisture that used to be in the oceans was now on land. New York City here had about 2 miles of ice over it. Long Island is the terminal moraine, basically the rubble that the last ice sheet left. The northern part of Long Island, if you’re familiar with the geography of Long Island is kind of lumpy. The southern part is flat as a pancake; that’s why you are able to build JFK Airport. It’s called an outwash plain. Why? Because when the glacier melts, the sand and the dirt in this terminal moraine got washed out and are flat; so, Long Island is actually a creation of the last Ice Age. All right? But ice started melting here about 20,000 years ago. We had basically a 7,000- year spike (I think I show that in the next slide); for 7,000 years the sea level raised at an enormous rate as the ice melted. When the last of the great continental ice sheets finally disappeared, that that was the Laurentide ice sheet that covered all of North America, things flattened out; so 8,000 years ago, there was no real big giant glacial ice to melt anymore. There are a couple mountain glaciers that are still melting and they’re raising the sea level a little bit. This is an enlargement of the last 8,000 years.
The IPCC projection claims that by end of the century, this spike is going to happen. Jim Hansen says we’re going to be up here. It’s not going to happen! You have to invent new laws of physics to create ice that doesn’t exist. People are saying, “Well, Antarctica is going to melt.” Well, it doesn’t even get above freezing down there. It’s very hard to melt ice when it is 32 degrees or lower. Greenland has some melt periods occasionally, and the edges of Greenland are falling into the sea; the center is building up. Stationed at the top of Greenland, there’s a meteorological station that’s built on stilts? Why? Because it snows so much that they have to jack it up every year. (I have pictures of that. I don’t have them in this presentation.)
By the way, if anybody has a question—when you want to see a picture of that ice station that’s on stilts, send me an email at email@example.com and I’ll send you a picture of that ice station on stilts. It’s fascinating. I should put it in this presentation.
SLIDE: Here’s how we measure sea level. This is a tide gauge. This happens to be at Fort Point, New Hampshire. And the tide gauge, by the way, is over here. It’s anchored to be bedrock, but it’s loosely tied to the pier so that the little floats inside the tide gauge can measure exactly what the tide is. Now, by the way, you have wide tidal variance in New Hampshire. It’s about 8-9 feet per day difference. What you do is take all the average and then you have an idea of what sea level is up there.
There’s a bias tide gauges. What’s a bias? Well, people put tide gauges, lots of them, where the land is sinking and they know the sea level is rising. In places like Norway, where the land is rising as part of the rebound—once you melt a little of the ice that sat on part of Norway, the land actually rises, because that weight gets taken off. So, that in Norway, what do you worry about sea level for? It’s falling at 10 mm a year, you know. It doesn’t happen that way folks. So, the places where you have land rising right here and land subsiding is here, so here, it looks like the sea level is going up and these are places in the world. But the average is actually around here, so that’s where where the bias is.
Here’s another graphic that shows it. And aagin, if you take an average here, you’re going to say, “Oh, sea level is rising and it’s rising a lot.” Because you have more tide getting in. So, average is not a good way to measure it. What you do is you look at places on Earth that are what I call “tectonically inert”—they don’t go up, they don’t go down. If you have a tide gauge there, then you have an accurate measure of what sea level really is doing. This is called isostasy. Imagine this big chunk of ice here 2 miles high, it presses out on the ground—and by the way, ice is really heavy. If I have a cubic meter of ice like this, I could hold it in my hand — I’m not going to ask you how much it weighs. I’ll take guesses, but I’m running a little bit late here. That’s 2,000 pounds. 1 ton. If you melt it, it’s 2,240 pounds because water is more dense than ice—that’s why ice floats, but ice is heavy and imagine taking these 1 meter blocks and stacking them 2 miles high, it presses down on the Earth. Here’s the bedrock, here’s what’s called the asthenosphere, and you see the deformation is underneath the center of the ice. And here, you have some bulges, because this is what land does, when you press down, it works like a seesaw.
Here are the tectonics in the Baltic. The Baltic is the ocean here, and here’s Denmark, here’s Holland down here, here’s the central part of Norway. You had an 800-meter rise, because when the ice melted, the land rebounded. Down here in Holland, you had a 170 meter drop: That’s the other side of the seesaw. In between here is the zero-line. This is the part that is tectonically inert, which doesn’t change. What I do is try to measure it, in Wismar, Germany, right here at the Mecklenburg bend of the Baltic, and here you see the lines, the “iso-tec” lines, I call them, where they are tectonically inert—these you still have uplifts here and below you have the zero-line and below you have actually sinking.
This is Wismar, Germany, relatively tectonically inert, and a very steady linear rise in sea level. Here’s CO2 going up like a rocket. So you have a 38% increase in CO2 since 1880; do you see any acceleration, whatsoever, in the data that this tectonically inert tide gauge shows? I can’t see it. If somebody can see it, raise your hand, please, and show me.
Let’s go a little more local here. New York City. Now, New York City, you notice has a steeper rise—still linear, by the way. So, if there is acceleration in the New York City Battery gauge, I don’t see it. Why is New York City steeper? Why? We’re measuring this in the Battery. Manhattan Island has literally megatons of skyscrapers, big heavy steel/concrete structures on Manhattan Island. Most of them have water towers on top, and you know how heavy water is. And this is pressing down on the bedrock. The bedrock doesn’t deform, but the bedrock rests on the asthenosphere, so New York City is slowly, but linearly sinking. CO2 has no influence on that acceleration.
Why don’t we look a little bit closer to New York City? Here you have two places: New Rochelle is 15 miles from New York City. This tide gauge, New Rochelle, not a lot of rise here. Port Jefferson, a little farther out, I think it’s 45 miles out, of the city; also, (it’s the same ocean, by the way), but these places aren’t sinking. So the locals don’t see a massive sea level rise. Here a way to look at them altogether. Here’s the Battery, New York City. Here you see New Rochelle, and here’s Port Jeff. Same ocean. Here you have a rise, still linear—CO2 is not affecting it; but it’s linear and so are these.
This comes from the National Climate Assessment. This is something that President Obama and some of his cohorts put together. And they’re saying by the end of the century, we’re going to have 6 feet or more of sea level rise if CO2 rises. And it’s kind of a little bit lower, if it doesn’t. Again, new laws of physics have to happen, for the next 85 years, for sea levels to skyrocket by feet; when the best we can do over the last century or two centuries is measure it in inches. It just won’t happen.
This is propaganda that is being put out, given to schools, your kids are learning about it. And some of them, unfortunately, who do not have a good mathematical or science background, are believing it. You’re being exposed to something a little bit better.
So, how about the Paris proposals to reduce CO2? Can they have any effect on sea level rise? Here’s CO2 going up, here’s temperature going up. This is sea level at Wismar—there is no acceleration measured there. We can’t see what they call “signal,” in the sea level rise, that is attributed to CO2. None whatsoever. Like I say here, we don’t have an instrument that can measure the result.
This is what New York City’s real future is about: Abundant energy, no sea level rise, and people behaving like normal human beings.
Here’s the conclusion, but there is going to be more after the conclusion. All right?
Sea level rise and CO2. Is there a cause and effect? I answered this one in red: You can kind of figure out what the answer is. Does a rise and fall in one cause increase or decrease the other? Absolutely not! How about weather? Is there a cause and effect? It’s not quite what you might think. Why? Because I showed you a number of inverse correlations. And yet correlation is not causation. The fact that two things happen together does not mean that one thing causes the other.
This is something that you maybe want to be concerned about. This is solar activity. What you see here is the number of sunspots. We have an 11- and 22-year sunspot cycle. And what happens at the end of the 22 years is the Sun’s magnetic field flips, reverses itself; and for the next 22 years, it goes up and down. The problem is we’ve seen a marked decrease in sunspots. Take a look here: We had one day of no sunspots. Here we had another one or two; here four or five. You notice the number of sunspots is decreasing. During the Maunder Minimum, by the way, which was at the height of the Little Ice Age, there were no sunspots on the Sun. China used to hire people, give them a glass bowl and have them look at the setting Sun and count the spots. If you’ve ever seen woodcuts of Chinese people in the 1600s-1700s being totally blind; this was a career you did not want to do for a long time, and yet the Chinese kept meticulous records of sunspots. And for 160 years, there were none. Zero!
We are getting down there. What’s worse, the interval between the maximum and minimum, seems to be increasing. Instead of 11 and 22, we may have 11-1/2 and 23, stretching out. I don’t know. My colleague, Willie Soon is a solar expert. He doesn’t know the answer either, but he’s studying this and he writes papers on this.
Let’s take a look at some recent data. This is quite recent. During July 2016—remember, I showed on a graphic we had some days with very few sunspots? Take a look at this stretch here of zero sunspots—and this is before the minimum! In other words, this was taken here, at this in the graphic. And yet we’ve shot down to zero a couple times. That’s really frightening, frightening to me anyway. It’s going to be happening more and more, as we approach the next minimum, and it’s still two or three years away! I’m concerned about that.
This is what we do at NASA. We measure our measurements. We take hard data. We calibrate it, we validate it. And this is the sign that you see when you make a presentation at Johnson Space Center, everybody gets to see it. It’s “In God We Trust, Everybody Else Bring Data.” [laughter] They want information. So, I told the people at the World Oceans Conference, you need to have this as your motto, too; so, I put that logo on top of the same slide.
That’s my talk and I’m willing to answer questions. Don’t throw too many snowballs. [applause]
SPEED: We can take questions in a general sense. If there is anything specifically for Tom, then I think people should ask now.
Q: We would like to know, what are sunspots? There’s some kind of massive activity going on in the Sun, which causes sunspots, which affects the weather here at home.
WYSMULLER: That’s a great question. Sunspots are actually storms on the Sun, solar storms. They drag up huge swaths of particles, and spray them toward Earth, meaning Earth gets more energy when there are sunspots. And these particles are added to the solar winds and actually affect energy output. Now, we get about one-millionth of the total output of the Sun. The Sun is this giant sphere; it radiates in all directions. Now Earth subtends a tiny angle on the way. And we still get enough energy from the Sun to make our days hot, create wind circulation patterns in the planet. Add sunspots to it and we get more of that. Solar storms can be very severe. They can affect the power grid. With no sunspots, we actually get less energy from the Sun. They look dark, because they are a lower temperature than the surface of the Sun. The Sun is around 11,000 degrees and the sunspots may be half that temperature, so they look dark. The picture you saw of the Sun I had there, you can see the effects, the blooming effects of those sunspots; and when you have sunspots, we get more energy.
Q: I notice on your graphs the sea level is going up at a steady rate. I wonder why that’s happening?
WYSMULLER: You guys have good questions. Again, those sunspots, solar energy. Remember, I said the atmospheric temperature has leveled out.
The atmosphere has flatlined for the last 18-19 years. The ocean temperatures have not. The ocean temperatures are rising slightly, but they are rising. When you heat the oceans, you increase the molecular motion in the ocean, which means, the space between the molecules get a little bit larger. So the totality on Earth is that sea level will rise if you warm the oceans.
There’s another thing that oceans do and when the molecular motion increases, they kick out the heavier dissolved carbon dioxide molecules and that adds CO2 to the air. There’s other things that add CO2 to the air. The ocean warming is the greater source of a sea level rise, and the few mountain glaciers that are still melting— and there are a couple. But they melt and they regrow. For instance, California, this week, is regrowing its glaciers in the High Sierras; they are getting pounded with snow. That snow is going to stay there, it will irrigate the San Fernando Valley and other places, and that’s a good thing. So you have ebb and flow with ice on land. But the ocean is basically thermal expansion—and destruction of methane. Methane also dissolves into carbon dioxide and water, when methane gets attacked by oxygen; that also adds to CO2. Plus, we’re adding CO2. And it warms the planet a little bit and the oceans get warmer, too. Long answer to a short question, but it’s a good question.
Q: My question is, there’s a lot of talk out there about an upcoming axis shift. Does an axis shift (we’ve had this in ancient history of humanity); how is the Sun affecting that or does it or do other planetary entities affect that? How is this all coming into the picture?
WYSMULLER: The answer to all of your questions is yes. And you asked a couple of questions. There is something called the “precession of the equinoxes.” The precession of the equinoxes is the wobbling of the Earth’s axis. At this point in our summertime, the Pacific Ocean is largely pointing toward the Sun and the oceans don’t warm as much as the land does. They absorb all the sunlight hitting it—that is why when you fly over an ocean, it looks dark. It’s a dark surface and it absorbs sunlight. But the opposite is true. We’re closest to the Sun now, in our winter. We are farthest in the summer, which means the oceans will absorb, on balance, with the precession the way it is right now, less sunlight than it would if it was opposite. When the Earth precesses 26,000 years later, the opposite happens, and we have greater absorption, when we are closer to the Sun, and lesser absorption when we are farther from the Sun. So, then you have ice ages that can get accelerated. It doesn’t mean you’re always going to have an ice age there, but it means if there is one, it’s going to get worse. So, that is the tilting in the axis that you are talking about.
Other planets do have an influence on our orbit. When Jupiter is close, it slightly pulls us toward Jupiter, but the influence is far, far less than the Sun. The Sun has the greatest attraction, and keeps us in relatively—it’s an elliptical orbit, but if you look at it down from space, it looks like a circle; just a slight ellipse. The difference in our distance from the Sun varies from 91 million miles to about 94 million miles. Our average is at somewhere like 93.
Q: My question is the tsunamis, and does that have any affect, does that have any correlation with the Sun, and that sort of thing?
WYSMULLER: Tsunamis are basically earthquake driven. If there is a lineup of the Moon at perigee, which is when the Moon is closest to the Earth, and the Sun, if it is close, you have slightly more stresses on the crust of the Earth; there is stronger likelihood in this zone that you will have more earthquakes. But it’s a slight correlation. When you do have a shifting of the plates, if the shifting is up and down—vertical)—that can generate a huge tsunami. If you’re in the middle of the ocean, you don’t even see it pass. The ocean rises slightly and then falls; but if you are near land, the sum total of that uplift then gets accelerated, heightened, and have a wave that comes in at a very high rate. Fortunately, we had cameras these days, and we actually take pictures of tsunamis. We have great pictures of the tsunami that hit Thailand. We have pictures of the Fukushima tsunami. But they are the up and down motion of an earthquake usually over deep ocean.
Now, if you have side slipping, which you also have in earthquakes, no tsunami is generated at all. The ocean can’t measure it, doesn’t feel it. We can measure it on seismometer which measures the strength of earthquakes, but a tsunami itself doesn’t happen. But vertical motion in our plates creates large tsunamis. In the old days, the Indians used to call them “ghost waves”; when they would be on the Seattle coast, and there would be an earthquake in Japan, and this “ghost wave” would come in. They wouldn’t know what caused it. They had no seismographs then. So, that is the legend of ghost waves; they’re actually tsunamis.
Q: Our Basement team with the LaRouche movement, and Mr. LaRouche, has brought that the effects of the Galaxy on our weather here on Earth has been largely simply ignored, because the Solar System goes over the plane of the Galaxy where it’s wide open to all the cosmic rays, and there’s a correlation with Ice Ages, I believe. So perhaps the King Canutes are going to legislate that away, too. Your comments?
WYSMULLER: The Sun as a star moves around the Galaxy, but undulates up and down. At one point or other it rises above the plane of the Galaxy and other times it sinks below, and sometimes it’s in the plane. When you have more cosmic rays reaching the Earth, and that will happen when there’s more exposure to the cosmic rays, when you’re out of the plane slightly — there’s a scientist, I think he’s Danish, by the name of [hendrik] Svensmark, who theorized, and I think the theory makes a lot of sense, that the cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere provide nuclei for water vapor to condense on. And when that happens you have more cloud cover. When you have more cloud cover, you increase the planet’s albedo. Albedo is reflectivity; when you have a cloud over open ocean, that black, dark ocean doesn’t absorb all that sunlight any more! In fact, it’s worse, because the sunlight hitting the cloud tops bounces off at wavelengths that CO2 cannot redirect and intercept. So you have a double whammy.
If you have snow on the ground and ice cover, you also have sunlight hitting that snow and ice, bouncing off at wavelengths that CO2 doesn’t see. What CO2 sees and what other greenhouse gases see, is, longer wave radiation, and that’s created when sunlight hits open ground, converts to infrared, which is long wave, and then gets redirected a couple of times back and forth, and helps to warm the atmosphere.
So moving in and out of the galactic plane, increasing and decreasing the cosmic rays, does have influence on our weather over time. These are long-period fluctuations.
Ice ages, by the way, also occur at about 140,000-year intervals. And those are long-period; and again, you add all these factors together and you end up creating differences in climate. Climates are long-term variations, and we measure them by temperature and things like that, but the long term is what people kind of forget. And what you’re seeing when Manhattan is supposed to be flooded, are short-term predictions of what really are long-, long-term events.
SPEED: Tom, just the following: You said you’re going to be giving this presentation at NASA, and obviously, there is now, with the new, incoming administration, various ideas about what might be done, vis-à-vis the space program. One of the things that we’ve also talked about is, the idea of addressing weather, Earth weather, not just from the standpoint of weather modification, but this notion that there is an entire, if you will, “machine,” surrounding the planet; a weather machine, rivers in the sky and so forth. One of the things that comes up, for example, taking the drought in California as an example, is, are there ways that we now have, to move toward — and people have talked about ionization, they’ve talked about other kinds of techniques — that that kind of capability is something that is actually usable, or deployable? And to what degree is anybody, at least among your colleagues in NASA even looking at this sort of thing at this point?
WYSMULLER: The truth is that we would love to be able to model the atmosphere with precision. But we’re talking about taking the interaction of molecule upon molecule, at a microscopic level, and then trying to model that. And we don’t have the computing power that can do that.
So what they do, is they take large aggregates of data, and try to get these models to produce and reproduce, and there’s a technique called “hind-casting”; where they take a model, and instead of forecasting in the future, they see, well, how well did it predict the weather that led up to where the model started? And they can’t even do that right! Because they’re measuring things on too great a scale, from what’s really impacting the weather. Large trends, once in a while a model can hit it right. And you do get some good information out of it.
But what they’ve done in this case, they take some models and they try to determine public policy based on them. Well, about 93 of the 97 or 98 models that the IPCC uses are all off on the high side. Three of them hit it. And even one of them is — nothing, no model predicted the flat line in temperature that we’ve had for the last 20 years. And if you can’t do that close line prediction, how’re you going to do it longer?
Now, what NASA, and this is my own editorial, OK? What NASA should be doing, is providing data from its satellites to competent research institutions but not making predictions on their own. And supposedly that is what NASA does. They don’t make predictions — but lately they’ve been doing that — and provide the data to do it right.
The other thing I think NASA should do is go back to its basic mission, which was space exploration. A number of astronauts and colleagues of mine, want to go to Mars, in one way or another. My own personal preference, and I’ll give you the quick rundown: is to plan a manned mission to Phobos. Phobos is the large inner moon of Mars. It’s moves around the planet three times in one day, very fast — eight hours, it’s back again! If you land someone on Phobos, when you get close to it, you don’t have to do engine braking that much — why? Because you’re catching up to that fast-moving moon. So you don’t need as much fuel. So you land on the moon, and you do some fascinating geology on the moon, study Mars; when you want to go back to Earth, you take off from the other side of the planet! You get a boost from that fast-moving moon, so you don’t need that much fuel.
Right now we don’t have the ability to send someone onto the planet and back up. When we launch something from Earth, we have gantry towers, we have large fuel depots, we don’t have that; Mars is not like the Moon — there’s gravity on Mars, and it pulls people and spacecraft down. The reason for going to Mars is not just because you want to go to Mars: It’s to develop a technology that gets you there! And that technology is spread all over the planet! If you look around, every job on this planet has been affected, one way or the other, by the Moon landings! Now, you think about it — medical technology, computer technology, cell phones and things like that, I always mention, even in the ditch-digger has a titanium coating on his shovel that didn’t exist before the Moon landings. So we have spread that throughout the entire planet! That’s why you want to go to Mars, because you need more technology, you have to develop it, and you spread it through the whole planet.
People used to say, “well, you spend $20 billion to get to the Moon.” We didn’t spend it on the Moon! We spent it on Earth! And on Earth is where we developed that technology, and spread out for the benefit of all mankind!
So, OK, editorial over. [applause]
SPEED: So Diane’s going to come up. I think we’re pretty much at the conclusion, unless there are other questions. I just want to mention one thing, which is that, the idea of Lyn’s Four Laws, the economics policy that he’s outlined, which is his way of capturing the core of Alexander Hamilton’s four reports, are a way to try to get the citizens to begin to discuss, once again, the concept of scientific discovery, and the concept of that as that’s specifically referenced in the Fourth Law, — Diane talked about the thermonuclear fusion element — because what we’re talking about is a new platform from which an economic policy is actually going to be derived. We’re not really talking about “infrastructure,” or trying to repair something on the planet Earth. We’re looking at a situation where we’ve got a new capability if we choose to think in terms of it. And if you look at Russia, China, India, Japan, and the United States, just those countries in terms of space, and space capabilities, the idea of integrating the entire globe, every country in the globe, into the space program, and making that space program, immediately in our view focusing on the idea of mining the Moon for helium-3, as part of a thermonuclear fusion project, but thinking about a Solar System-wide capability that more or less returns to the original missions of JFK.
Yes, this will be different. And we’re talking about this as a galactic approach, but I think what’s important in terms of the next phase, that we’re about to go into, I think some people know we’re going to be doing a few things; next week here, there’ll be a conference, and Helga LaRouche will address us, and also Ben Wang, who’s a researcher and mainly he’s an expert on Chinese art. But the concept that we have is that there’s a new cultural platform that has to be brought into being so that we can get back to the idea of scientific discovery, as the birthright of every person on the planet. In other words, the concept is going to be, that we’re not just going to talk about people have the right to food, clothing and shelter; no, we’re going to say that people have the right to creativity.
And to the schools of creative and scientific discovery. That doesn’t mean just a good education. It means having the ability to know the kinds of thing that Tom has been indicating, the kind of thing that Chinese students are able to get in the classroom when astronauts goes up and there’s a 60 million person classroom created — which happened some years back. That’s what we’re talking about. Bypassing, in other words, all the lies and degradations if you will, of a non-scientific world, in favor of allowing students to have this power. This is the sort of thing that these laws represent.
And so, while they have a legislative form, and there will be particular pieces of it, it’s not the case that this stuff is so obvious. The important point is that this is the initiative, or the character of the initiative that we’re taking, and that’s what we mean by Lyn’s economic policies. And we’re inviting everybody to study those, and to involve yourself in our getting these laws passed.
So I just wanted to say that.
SARE: I really want to thank you, Tom, for that presentation, because I think it’s really important, as Dennis said, that Americans have somehow become extremely unscientific. But when you are confronted with actual science, then it sparks the curiosity, and I definitely think, not only should we get to Mars and us being on Mars would allow us to solve many problems here on Earth, but I think it’s a natural curiosity and drive of mankind, as Kennedy said, and Krafft Ehricke expressed, that Earth, perhaps, should just be the base of mankind, and ultimately maybe we can inhabit other planets, or in all of these other galaxies that we’re exploring, which would definitely be an exciting prospect.
So I just want to remind everyone here, that it is now about two weeks until the inauguration of the new Presidency; that we have a very intense focus in the United States to get Glass-Steagall onto the new President’s desk, to be signed into law, as the first step of bringing about LaRouche’s Four Laws and allowing us to have an economic system which will liberate us from being an Earth-bound species. And will also allow us to liberate our minds from being somewhere down below the gutter, to somewhere in the Solar System.
So we have a great deal of work to do, for people who are not in the room, you should take the material, the petition that’s on the website, begin circulating it immediately. For everyone here, we have The Hamiltonian newspaper: We urgently need to be in a position where we’re getting out 5,000 and 10,000 copies of that on a regular basis, every time it comes out. So I would urge everybody to activate yourself as much as possible, and particularly, in this transition period, everything is not locked in; the potential is great, but it is up to us to seize it.