text:
Endophyte

An endophyte is an endosymbiont, often a bacterium or fungus, that lives within a plant for at least part of its life cycle without causing apparent disease. Endophytes are ubiquitous and have been found in all species of plants studied to date; however, most of the endophyte/plant relationships are not well understood. Some endophytes may enhance host growth and nutrient acquisition and improve the plant's ability to tolerate abiotic stresses, such as drought, and decrease biotic stresses by enhancing plant resistance to insects, pathogens and herbivores. Although endophytic bacteria and fungi are frequently studied, endophytic archaea are increasingly being considered for their role in plant growth promotion as part of the core microbiome of a plant.

History
Endophytes were first described by the German botanist Johann Heinrich Friedrich Link in 1809. They were thought to be plant parasitic fungi and they were later termed as "microzymas" by the French scientist Béchamp. There was a belief that plants were healthy under sterile conditions and it was not until 1887 that Victor Galippe discovered bacteria normally occurring inside plant tissues. Though, most of the endophytic studies reports the mutualistic relationship of bacteria and fungus, Das et al., (2019) reported about endophytic virome and their probable function in plant defense mechanisms.

Transmission
Endophytes may be transmitted either vertically (directly from parent to offspring) or horizontally (among individuals). Vertically transmitted fungal endophytes are typically considered clonal and transmit via fungal hyphae penetrating the embryo within the host's seeds, while reproduction of the fungi through asexual conidia or sexual spores leads to horizontal transmission, where endophytes may spread between plants in a population or community.

Symbiosis

Most endophyte-plant relationships are still not well understood. However, recently it was shown that endophytes are transmitted from one generation to another via seeds, in a process called vertical transmission. Endophytes and plants often engage in mutualism, with endophytes primarily aiding in the health and survival of the host plant with issues such as pathogens and disease, water stress, heat stress, nutrient availability and poor soil quality, salinity, and herbivory. In exchange the endophyte receives carbon for energy from the plant host. Plant-microbe interactions are not strictly mutualistic, as endophytic fungi can potentially become pathogens or saprotrophs, usually when the plant is stressed. Endophytes may become active and reproduce under specific environmental conditions or when their host plants are stressed or begin to senesce, thereby limiting the amount of carbon provided to the endophyte.

Endophytes may benefit host plants by preventing other pathogenic or parasitic organisms from colonizing them. Endophytes can extensively colonize plant tissues and competitively exclude other potential pathogens. Some fungal and bacterial endophytes have proven to increase plant growth and improve overall plant hardiness.

Studies have shown that endophytic fungi grow in a very intimate interaction with their host plant cells. Fungal hyphae have been seen growing either flattened or wedged against plant cells. This growth pattern indicates that fungal hyphae are substantially attached to the plant host's cell wall, but do not invade plant cells. Endophytic fungal hyphae appear to grow at the same rate as their host leaves, within the intercellular spaces of the plant tissue.

The presence of certain fungal endophytes in host meristems, leaves and reproductive structures has been shown to dramatically enhance the survival of their hosts. This enhanced survivability is largely attributed to endophytic production of secondary metabolites which protect against herbivory as well as increased uptake of nutrients. Studies have also shown that during experimental circumstances endophytes contribute significantly to plant growth and fitness under light-limited conditions, and plants appear to have increased reliance on their endophytic symbiont under these conditions.

There is evidence that plants and endophytes engage in communication with each other that can aid symbiosis. For example, plant chemical signals have been shown to activate gene expression in endophytes. One example of this plant-endosymbiont interaction occurs between dicotyledonous plants in the Convolvulaceae and clavicipitaceous fungi. When the fungus is in the plant it synthesizes ergoline alkaloids at a higher rate, compared to when it is grown apart from the plant. This supports the hypothesis that plant signaling is required in order to induce expression of endophytic secondary metabolites.

Effects on plant behavior
There are various behaviors that have been studied that resulted from endophyte symbiosis with plants. Through association with fungal endophytes, the root and shoot structures of Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) saplings in low-nutrient conditions have been shown to be elongated, as well as undergo overall biomass increases. The proposed mechanisms behind this include high inorganic phosphate solubilization ability by the fungi as well as organic phosphate mineralization, increased mycorrhizal associations through root colonization, and enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus uptake. Specific endophyte species can also stimulate root growth by increasing the flux of auxin to where the endophyte is.

Additionally, various reports on endophyte interactions have shown increased photosynthetic capacities of host plants as well as improved water relations. Improvements in water use efficiency were observed in higher concentrations and a further increase was seen in water deficit conditions. In addition, other various physiological pathways were activated upon endophytes interactions with host plants, enabling tighter water control and further water management, which are to be the main reasons behind improved water relations. Specifically, evidence points to endophytes producing ABA to affect stomatal conductance as well as microbial respiration and plants recycling.

However, the specific biochemical mechanisms behind these behavioral changes are still largely unknown and lower-level signal cascades have yet to be discovered. Furthermore, while the benefits of endophyte relations are well-studied, the costs of these relations are less well understood, such as the specific carbon costs, the system of endophyte governance, and the environmental conditions that facilitate a proper plant-endophyte relationship.

In an experiment investigating the interaction between Miscanthus sinensis and the plant endophyte Herbaspirillum frisingense, a roughly 20% increase in fresh biomass was observed in M. sinensis following inoculation with H. frisingense. However, unique to this experiment was the mode by which this was thought to happen. Inoculation saw an upregulation in the genes relevant to jasmonate and ethylene production in the plant roots, although the mechanism to this is still unknown. Specifically, H. frisingense was shown to upregulate ethylene receptors and repress ethylene response factors, overall leading to an increase in root growth. Additionally, H. frisingense is known to produce indoleacetic acid (IAA), and was also shown to manage IAA genes, indicating that there is an intricate balance maintained between ethylene and IAA by H. frisingense.

Diversity
Endophytic species are very diverse; only a small minority of existing endophytes have been characterized. Many endophytes are in the phyla Basidiomycota and Ascomycota. Endophytic fungi may be from Hypocreales and Xylariales of the Sordariomycetes (Pyrenomycetes) class or from the class of Loculoascomycetes. One group of fungal endophytes are the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi involving biotrophic Glomeromycota associated with various plant species. As often with other organisms associated with plants such as mycorrhizal fungus, endophytes gain carbon from their association with the plant host. Bacterial endophytes are polyphyletic, belonging to broad range of taxa, including α-Proteobacteria, β-Proteobacteria, γ-Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria.

One or more endophytic organisms are found in nearly every land plant. It is suggested that areas of high plant diversity such as tropical rainforests may also contain the highest diversity of endophytic organisms that possess novel and diverse chemical metabolites. It has been estimated that there could be approximately 1 million endophytic fungi that exist in the world.

A diazotrophic bacterium isolated in lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) in British Columbia, Canada, is Paenibacillus polymyxa, which may help its host by fixing nitrogen.

Classification
Endophytes include a wide variety of microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses. There are two different means of classifying endophytes.

Systemic and non-systemic
The first method divides endophytes into two categories: systemic (true) and nonsystemic (transient). These categories are based on the endophyte's genetics, biology, and mechanism of transmission from host to host. Systemic endophytes are defined as organisms that live within plant tissues for the entirety of its life cycle and participate in a symbiotic relationship without causing disease or harm to the plant at any point. Additionally, systemic endophytes concentrations and diversity do not change in a host with changing environmental conditions. Non-systemic or transient endophytes on the other hand vary in number and diversity within their plant hosts under changing environmental conditions. Non-systemic endophytes have also been shown to become pathogenic to their host plants under stressful or resource limited growing conditions. An example of this would be Colletotrichum fioriniae, which is an endophyte of many temperate broadleaved trees and shrubs, but can also be a pathogen on many fruits and some leaves.

Clavicipitaceous and non-clavicipitaceous
The second method divides fungal endophytes into four groups based on taxonomy and six other criteria: host range, host tissues colonized, in planta colonization, in planta biodiversity, mode of transmission and fitness benefits. These four groups are divided into clavicipitaceous endophytes (Class 1) and non-clavicipitaceous endophytes (Class 2, 3, and 4).

Class 1 endophytes are all phylogenetically related and proliferate within cool and warm season grasses. They typically colonize plant shoots where they form a systemic intercellular infection. Class 1 endophytes are mainly transmitted from host to host by vertical transmission, in which maternal plants pass fungi on to their offspring through seeds. Class 1 endophytes can further be divided into Types I, II and III. Among these three types of clavicipitaceous endophytes are different interactions with their plant hosts. These interaction range from pathogenic to symbiotic and symptomatic to asymptomatic. Type III clavicipitaceous endophytes grow within their plant host without manifesting symptoms of disease or harming their host. Class 1 endophytes typically confer benefits on their plant host such as improving plant biomass, increasing drought tolerance and increasing the production of chemicals that are toxic and unappetizing to animals, thereby decreasing herbivory. These benefits can vary depending on the host and environmental conditions.

Non-clavicipitaceous endophytes represent a polyphyletic group of organisms. Non-clavicipitaceous endophytes are typically Ascomycota fungi. The ecological roles of these fungi are diverse and still poorly understood. These endophyte plant interactions are widespread and have been found in nearly all land plants and ecosystems. Many non-clavicipitaceous endophytes have the ability to switch between endophytic behavior and free-living lifestyles. Non-clavicipitaceous endophytes are divided into class 2, 3 and 4. Class 2 endophytes can grow in plant tissues both above and below ground. This class of non-clavicipitaceous endophytes has been the most extensively researched and has been shown to enhance fitness benefits of their plant host as a result of habitat-specific stresses such as pH, temperature and salinity. Class 3 endophytes are restricted to growth in above ground plant tissues and form in localized areas of plant tissue. Class 4 endophytes are restricted to plant tissues below ground and can colonize much more of the plant tissue. These classes of non-clavicipitaceous endophytes have not been as extensively studied to date.

Applications
Endophytes may have potential future applications in agriculture. Use of endophytes might potentially increase crop yields. Turfgrass seed of Festuca and Lolium perenne infected with fungal inoculants, Acremonium coenophialum and A. lolii, is commercially available for use in growing lawns which might require less pesticide use -the grasses are poisonous to cattle and more resistant to some insect damage. As of 1999 this is only available in the afore-mentioned lawn grasses, which are sold as 'low maintenance' cultivars. The fungi cause the grasses to contain toxic alkaloids. The products provide high resistance to foliar lawn pests such as billbugs, chinch bugs, sod webworms, fall army-worms and Argentine stem weevils, but offer little protection to pests of grass roots such as grubs. The endophytes can survive most pesticides and are even resistant to some fungicides, and are very suitable for use in Integrated Pest Management.

Biofuel
A 2008 experiment with an isolate of a fungus called NRRL 50072 found that this strain can produce a small amount of fuel-like hydrocarbon compounds which was promoted as "myco-diesel". It was hoped that perhaps in the future this might provide a possible source of biofuel. It was first misidentified as the endophyte Gliocladium roseum, but later research showed that it was in fact the saprophyte Ascocoryne sarcoides.

A strain of endophytic fungi which appeared to be closely related to Nigrograna mackinnonii which was isolated from a stem of the plant Guazuma ulmifolia collected in Ecuador was found to produce a variety of volatile organic compounds including terpenes and odd chain polyenes. The polyenes isolated from the fungus have properties that are sought in gasoline-surrogate biofuels.

Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is an environmentally sustainable process where plants potentially able to break down or sequester, or stimulate micro-organisms in the soil to break down or sequester, certain organic pollutants and inorganic pollutants such as nickel in degraded ecosystems. In this endophytes may possibly assist plants in converting pollutants into less biologically harmful forms; in one of the few experiments performed a plasmid called TOM from a strain of a bacterium in the Burkholderia genus known as G4 which can break down trichloroethylene (TCE) was transferred to endophytes of popular trees; although it did not help the plants remove more of this chemical than non-inoculated plants, the plants transpired less TCE into the air. In another experiment Burkholderia bacteria with both the TOM plasmid as well as nickel resistance genes was inoculated into yellow lupine; this increased the root mass of the plants, but the amounts of TCE transpired was not statistically significant. Despite these failures, such techniques might lead to some future improvements.

Two strains of the endophytic fungi Pestalotiopsis microspora isolated from stems of plants from the Ecuadorian rainforest were shown in laboratory experiments to be able to digest polyurethane plastic as the fungus's sole carbon source in anaerobic conditions, although many other non-endophytic fungi have demonstrated this ability, and most isolates of endophytic fungi in this experiment could perform this to some degree.

Drug discovery
Endophytes produce a wide variety of secondary metabolites that might be useful as lead compounds in drug discovery. Endophyte bioprospecting has already yielded compounds with antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, antiparasitic, cytotoxic, neuroprotective, antioxidant, insulin-mimetic, α-glucosidase inhibitory, and immunosuppressant properties. Manipulations of a plant's endosymbiots can affect plant development, growth and ultimately the quality and quantity of compounds harvested from the plant. Studies have shown endophytic fungi are able to produce secondary metabolites previously thought to be manufactured by their plant hosts. The presence of these metabolites in plants could be attributable to endophyte production alone, or to combined endophyte and plant production following transfer of the corresponding genes from endophyte to plant or vice versa.

A well known example of the discovery of chemicals derived from endophytic fungi is from the fungus Taxomyces andreanae isolated from the pacific yew Taxus brevifolia. T. andreanae produces paclitaxel, also known as taxol. This drug is important for the treatment of cancer. Other endophytes since have been discovered that also produce paclitaxel in other host species, but to date there has been no successful industrial source of paclitaxel created.

Endophytes have been discovered with various anti-tumor properties. Endophytic fungi produce many secondary compounds such as alkaloids, triterpenes and steroids which have been shown to have anti-tumor effects. The alkaloid beauvericin has been isolated from the fungus Fusarium oxysporum and has shown cytotoxicity against the tumor cells PC3, PANC-1, and A549. Two fusarubin derivatives: anhydrofusarubin and methyl ether of fusarubin were isolated from endophytic fungus Cladosporium sp. and have shown cytotoxicity against human leukemia (K-562). Three triterpenes were found in the endophyte Xylarialean sp., all three of these compounds displayed mild cytotoxic effects on tumor cells.

Some of the antimicrobial compounds produced by endophytic fungi are of interest in their effectiveness against pathogens which have developed resistances to antibiotics. Different fractions of Cladosporium sp. including secondary metabolite-methyl ether of fusarubin have shown antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and Bacillus megaterium. Several isolates from the ascomycota Pestalotiopsis sp. have been shown to have a broad range of antimicrobial effects, even against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Also, compounds from the marine fungus Nigrospora sp. have activity against strains of multi drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

An endophytic fungus of the genus Pseudomassaria has been found in the rainforest of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This fungus yields a metabolite that shows potential as an antidiabetic, also known as an insulin mimetic. This compound acts like insulin and has been shown to lower blood glucose levels in mouse model experiments.

Agriculture
Among the many promising applications of endophytic microbes are those intended to increase agricultural use of endophytes to produce crops that grow faster and are more resistant and hardier than crops lacking endophytes. Epichloë endophytes are being widely used commercially in turf grasses to enhance the performance of the turf and its resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Piriformospora indica is an interesting endophytic fungus of the order Sebacinales, the fungus is capable of colonising roots and forming symbiotic relationship with many plants.

Endophytes appear to enhance the growth of their plant host symbionts. Endophytes also provide their hosts with an increased resilience to both abiotic and biotic stressors such as drought, poor soils and herbivory. The increased growth and resilience is likely caused by the endophytes ability to improve plant nutrition or secondary metabolite production, as in the case of Phoma eupatorii's inhibition of the phytopathogen Phytophthora infestans. Endophytes accomplish this by increasing the uptake of valuable land limited nutrients from the soil such as phosphorus and making other plant nutrients available to plants such as rock phosphate and atmospheric nitrogen which are normally trapped in forms that are inaccessible to plants.

Many endophytes protect plants from herbivory from both insects and animals by producing secondary metabolites that are either unappetizing or toxic to the herbivore. Increasingly there has been great importance placed on endophytes that protect valuable crops from invasive insects. One example of an endophyte-plant-insect interaction is located in the New Zealand grasslands, where endophytes, known as AR1 and AR37 are utilized to protect valuable ryegrass from the Argentine stem weevil but remain palatable to another important food source, livestock.

There are several endophytes that have been discovered that exhibit insecticidal properties. One such endophyte comes from the Nodulisporium sp. which was first harvested from the plant Bontia daphnoides. Indole diterpenes, known as nodulisporic acids, have been harvested from this endophyte which have effective insecticidal properties against the blowfly larvae.

There are many obstacles to successfully implementing the use of endophytes in agriculture. Despite the many known benefits that endophytes may confer to their plant hosts, conventional agricultural practices continue to take priority. Current agriculture relies heavily on fungicides and high levels of chemical fertilizers. The use of fungicides has a negative effect on endophytic fungi and fertilizers reduce a plant's dependence on its endophytic symbiont. Despite this, the interest and use of bio-insecticides and using endophytes to aid in plant growth is increasing as organic and sustainable agriculture is considered more important. As humans become more aware of the damage that synthetic insecticides cause to the environment and beneficial insects such as bees and butterflies biological insecticides may become more important to the agricultural industry.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Endophyte


text: User talk:62.68.63.8

title: User talk:62.68.63.8


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MegaWorks

Non-notable small computer software company, founded by a school student in 2001. Google comes up with speaker systems, not this company. TPK 08:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Looks like vanity.  Even if it weren't, it's not notable. Geogre 13:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Cutler 22:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andris 14:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Jean Mermoz

Jean Mermoz (9 December 1901 – 7 December 1936) was a French aviator, viewed as a hero by other pilots such as Saint-Exupéry, and in his native France, where many schools bear his name. In Brazil, he also is recognized as a pioneer aviator.

Career
In 1920 he met Max Delby, a teacher who helped him develop his career, and in April 1921 he flew as a pilot for the first time.

French Air Force
Mermoz joined the French Air Force in 1922, being assigned, as a pilot of the air force's 11th regiment, to duty in Syria. In 1924, he returned to France, having arguably been one of the most successful pilots in the Syrian operations. Mermoz relocated to Toulouse.

Latécoère

Mermoz went on to become an airmail pilot, with Latécoère's company, and almost failed his entry exam by performing dangerous stunts to impress the director. (The director, Didier Daurat had this famous quote: "We don't need acrobats here, we need bus drivers.") He then did a normal, flawless flight and was hired. It was there that Mermoz met Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. At the Compagnie Générale Aéropostale, Mermoz travelled to Morocco, Senegal and other African areas.

In 1926, one of Mermoz's flights ended with an accident, when his plane crashed in the Sahara. He was then taken hostage by a group of rebel Tuaregs, but was fortunately found later alive.

In 1927, Latécoère began building his own brand of planes to replace the aging World War I aircraft Breguet 14. The Latécoère 25, (or "Laté 25") and, later, the Latécoère 26 and Latécoère 28 proved to be efficient aircraft when flying from Morocco to Senegal, and Mermoz himself flew the types on those routes on multiple occasions.

But Africa was only the beginning. Latécoère's project was to create a direct airline between France and South America. By 1929, it had become evident that it would be economically viable for France to establish a commercial air route to South America, so Mermoz and others flew over the Andes. Despite Mermoz finding the flying conditions over the Andes to be tough, he became the project's main pilot, determined to reach the Pacific Ocean, and he was able, after multiple stops, to reach Santiago, Chile. During that time, to save time, he decided to fly during the night, using light beacons and flares as guides; and his fellow pilots, for once, were a bit reluctant to see him do it, because they knew it would be their turn next. For some time, as transatlantic flights were not yet possible, steamboats linked both halves of the "Line".

With a flight from Saint-Louis, Senegal, to Natal, Brazil, on 12–13 May 1930, the line was complete at last. the modified Laté 28 "Comte-de-la-Vaulx", however, did not prove reliable, and the pilot had to ditch at sea during the return flight. Mermoz, his two companions and the mail were rescued, but the plane sank during the attempt to tow it.

Air France
In 1933, Mermoz was appointed general inspector by Air France. That same year, he arrived in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he and Saint-Exupéry became important persons during the infancy of Aeroposta Argentina, which would later become Aerolíneas Argentinas. Mermoz and Saint-Exupéry flew many dangerous flights for the then new air company. They became regarded as two of the most important men in the history of Argentine commercial aviation. From 1934 to 1936, Mermoz would fly private expeditions on Latécoère 300 airplanes. He flew 24 expeditions with that type. In 1935, he also flew de Havilland DH.88 "Comet" airplanes.

Disappearance at sea

On 7 December 1936, on a planned flight from Dakar to Natal, Brazil, he turned back shortly after take-off to report a troublesome engine on his Latécoère 300 Croix-du-Sud (Southern Cross). After learning that he would have to wait for another one to be prepared, he took off again in the same plane after a quick repair, concerned that he would be late in delivering the mail. (His last words before boarding the plane were "Quick, let's not waste time anymore.")

Four hours later, the radio station received a short message, where Mermoz reported that he had to cut the power on the aft starboard engine. The message was interrupted abruptly. No further messages were received, and neither the Laté 300 nor the crew were ever recovered.

It is assumed that the engine they had tried to repair lost its propeller midflight, and being one of the aft engines, the loose propeller either badly damaged or cut the hull entirely, causing the plane to lose its tail and crash instantly. Henri Guillaumet, one of Mermoz's fellow pilots, had encountered the same problem a few months before, but as his own engine was on the forward side, airspeed had been sufficient to maintain the propeller in place until the landing.

Sabotage of the "Southern Cross"
In 1941, the Investigative Commission of Anti-National Activities of the Parliament of Uruguay, after denunciations filed before the Deputy Tomas Brena and Julio Iturbide, arrives at the surprising conclusion of the last two airmail flights of Air France, and with result the death of Collenot first and Mermoz later, they were the result of sabotage of the Nazi Fifth Column (National German Socialist Workers Party operating in Uruguay). The air mail bags transported the technical and economic proposals for the bidding of the so-called Obra del Río Negro in Uruguay, the international tender carried out in three calls in 1936, for the construction of the Rincón del Bonete hydroelectric plant. The tender only receives Offers or proposals from the Siemens Bauunion and Philipp Holzmann AG consortium in Germany, and SKODA WORKS from Czechoslovakia. This and other tricks, such as false news and bribes, were used by Nazi Germany, to get rid of the other proposals under way, and force the bidding to be declared void.

The crew of Latécoère 300 Croix-du-Sud, F-AKGF, on that day were:
 * Jean Mermoz, Pilot
 * Alexandre Pichodou, Copilot
 * Henri Ezan, Navigator
 * Edgar Cruveilher, Radio Officer
 * Jean Lavidalie, Mechanic

An unreliable plane
Mermoz had grown dissatisfied with the quality of the planes he and his companions had to pilot. In the months before his demise, he had been vocal about the aircraft's poor quality in both design and material, and was quoted saying "Ask me to pilot anything, even a wheelbarrow, but at one condition: make sure it is solid". A similar plane, Laté 301 F-AOIK Ville-de-Buenos-Aires, had disappeared eight months before his own, causing the death, among others, of his mechanic and friend Collenot. The complicated Hispano-Suiza 12Ner engines thought to be the cause of both crashes were later decommissioned and replaced with older, more reliable ones. His message had been heard too late.

Tributes

 * France
 * An avenue in Lyon (Avenue Jean Mermoz) and a metro station (Mermoz-Pinel) on Line D are named in his honour.
 * In 1937 Mermoz was honoured by a series of two French postage stamps bearing his image.
 * A road in Paris (rue Jean Mermoz), between the Champs Elysées and rue Saint-Honoré has been named after him.
 * The pilot training school in Rungis is named Institut aéronautique Jean Mermoz.
 * The French city of Toulouse has a road (rue Jean Mermoz) and a subway station on Line A (Métro Mermoz) named in his honour. A large abstract steel sculpture commemorating Mermoz and the pilots of the Aéropostale was erected in the city's Jardin Royal park in 2001.
 * The French ocean liner Jean Mermoz built in 1955 was named after him.
 * South America
 * A French lycée in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is named after him. The Lycée Franco-Argentin Jean Mermoz, a bilingual school, is located in the intersection of Ramsay and Juramento streets in Belgrano neighbourhood.
 * A monument to Jean Mermoz exists in the proximity to Jorge Newbery Airpark in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
 * One of the ATR-72 airliners (CX-JCL) in the fleet of BQB Líneas Aéreas is named after Jean Mermoz.
 * Lycée franco-chilien "Alliance Française" Jean-Mermoz
 * A primary and middle school is named after Jean Mermoz in São Paulo, Brazil.
 * Aguja Mermoz (one of the subpeaks of the Cerro Fitz Roy/Chaltén Massif) is named after the pilot
 * Africa
 * Jean-Mermoz International School (Ivory Coast)
 * Lycée Français Jean-Mermoz (Senegal)
 * Avenue Jean Mermoz, Saint Louis, Senegal
 * Mermoz, a neighborhood of Dakar, Senegal

 * Middle East
 * Lycée Français Jean Mermoz, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

 * Other
 * His epic flights over the Andes and across the Atlantic were commemorated in a film (Mermoz) for which Arthur Honegger wrote the music score. Two orchestral suites drawn from the score were recorded in the 1990s on CD and issued on the DG and Marco Polo labels.

Writings

 * Mes vols (Flammarion, 1937) : an unfinished collection of memories (« My Flights ») published shortly after his death, along with short homages from his best-known friends and admirers.
 * Défricheur du ciel (Bernard Marck (ed.), Archipel, 2006) : edition of Mermoz's correspondence from 1921 to his death in 1936.

In popular culture
In 1956 writer Jean-Michel Charlier in conjunction with artist Victor Hubinon published the biographical graphic novel Mermoz about the exploits of Mermoz. It was reissued in 1990 with title Mermoz, chevalier du ciel.

The 1995 docudrama Wings of Courage by French director Jean-Jacques Annaud was an account of early airmail pilots including Mermoz (played by Val Kilmer), Henri Guillaumet (played by Craig Sheffer), Saint-Exupéry played by Tom Hulce. The movie was the world's first dramatic picture shot in the IMAX-format.

Mermoz was a major character in Antonio Iturbe’s 2017 Spanish language novel A cielo abierto which was translated into English and published in 2021 with the title The Prince of the Skies.

title: Jean Mermoz


text:
Talk:Sallie Baliunas

Untitled
" However, her viewpoint — that solar variation accounts for most of the recent climate change — is not widely accepted among climate scientists" removed for NPOV policy: Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn any view, cause or person., it is irrelevant how many people "accept" the conclusion or not (consensus). If there is a specific peer reviewed paper that scientifically refutes this view, cite that, otherwise it's just opinions (often political) and not science.

--- (William M. Connolley 08:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I'm not sure why Ed is shouting at me - I haven't cut anything out of this article (up to now). So, why did I chop what I chopped? Firstly, Ed provides no links to what he is talking about so we have to guess. So I'm guessing this is all part of the svensmark/friis-christensen type stuff. In which case the proposed mechanism is solaroutput/solarwind/cosmicrays/cloud/albedo/t. *Not* a brighter sun shining more sunlight down. But if you provide a link to their research, I suppose we could find out.

 * Sorry if I shouted. I hope the echoes have died down by now. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article:

 * They believe that solar variability is more strongly correlated with variations with air temperature than any other factor, even carbon dioxide levels.

 * Baliunas is a strong disbeliever in a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying:

 * : But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case.

 * However, her main argument for this is ...measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This was either untrue or misleading (see ) at the time, and is even less true now.

 * Baliunas earlier adopted a sceptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer, which earned its originators, Rowland and Molina, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue, presented to Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement), were broadly similar in form to those she presented at the same time, and has maintained subsequently.

This section on "arguments against" needs a rewrite to make it neutral. Right now, it reads as if Wikipedia is endorsing the view that Baliunas is wrong. This is against the NPOV policy: Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn any view, cause or person. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If B is wrong, it is quite in line for wiki to say so. In this case, B is quite definitely wrong and misleading. I've restored the cut, but reworded it mildly ("even more wrong now" might be considered a bit unfair).

 * Actually, that is incorrect. It is definitely NOT in line for the Wikipedia to say that a party to a controversy is wrong. It would be perfectly okay to say that a certain AUTHORITY considered that party to be wrong. Like another scientist, or a scientific body. Or a survey of scientists might show that a certain percentage disagree.

 * Note that Wikipedia does not say that evolution is a fact, only that 95% of scientists agree with it (and 99.8% of biologists). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If someone said "water is denser than lead" & the quote got onto a wiki page it would be quite in order to point out that this is wrong. I dispute your interpretation of NPOV. Facts are facts. In this case, the balloon record, which S is purporting to comment on, and the S+C version of the MSU record, both show that S is wrong. The records aren't in dispute (in this sense).

 * No, if it's as obvious a mistake as "water is denser than lead", then there is no need for Wikipedia to brand that statement a "mistake". It's common knowledge that lead (even more so than most metals) sinks in water. All of this was discussed in the first few years of Wikipedia's existence, and I'm not "interpreting" NPOV policy, but telling you what it is. Perhaps you would like to discuss this on the mailing list? (If so, let me know, because I'm currently unsubscribed; but you someone as esteemed as YOU, I would re-subscribe.)

 * About the balloon and satellite record, the dates of the statements are significant. If I recall correctly, SEPP, Daly, Christy, Lindzen, Baliunas, et al., began critiquing IPCC conclusions in 1996-1999. During that period Christy had reported a flat or slightly negative trend in atmospheric temperatures (with an error of +/- 0.05 per decade, or a half degree per century -- Centigrade, of course) -- as opposed to the IPCC predictions of a 2 degree per century rise (or higher) based on the enhanced greenhouse effect theory.

 * I wish someone would write an article, comprehensible to laymen, on the mechanisms which (the GCM's predict) lead CO2 emissions to cause higher atmospheric temperatures. The current global warming article is so long and convoluted that I can't make sense of it.

 * Baliunas says that hot and cold air on earth correlates better with sunspots than with CO2 emissions. If she's wrong, it should be easy to cite SOME AUTHORITY who (a) says so and (b) explains WHY she's wrong.

 * You're a very affable chap, and it's an honor to have a real scientist contributing to Wikipedia, but I wish you'd agree to conform your contributions to NPOV policy. We writers all must describe scientific disputes NOT as "he says so, but he's wrong" -- rather as "he says so, but another says not". Then describe the evidence and reasoning each gives, and let the reader decide.

 * Wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed journal submissions. There's a different refereeing process. The question here is never, "Does this article pass scientific muster?" but "Does this article present all points of view (POV) accurately?" ----user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

2004/12/01 iteration
(William M. Connolley 16:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've rv'd Eds version. For the same reason as before: the failure to distinguish facts from opinions. *no-one* (who knows anything about it) doubts that the satellite record shows warming. Even Spencer and Christie (owners of the record with the lowest T trend) admit it. Even Balliunas would admit that the record shows warming, if pressed. The point is that skeptics have a tendency to slip from "small warming" or even "insignificant warming" (which IMHO are dodgy, but could be justifiable) to "no warming", which is indefensible. Ed, you wrote: "but when corrected the trends still show much less warming than predicted by IPCC climate models" which I considered dodgy, but shows that even you accept they show warming.

 * In controversial matters, Wikipedia is not supposed to take a position endorsing one view as a "fact" and dismissing another view as "opinion". Please add to the article the NAME of a scientist who disagrees with Baliunas.

 * Spencer and Christie disagree. Its in their data record. You don't seem to appreciate that this is a matter of the data in the record, not opinion.

 * It would also be helpful to provide a timeline. When did Baliunas say "no warming has been found"? Was this five years ago, before the recent (and possibly temporary) upswing which S&C reported? (Around 5 years ago, there were 5 fewer years of satellite data, and S&C reported a flat or negative trend.)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Realising that there was little chance of you actually reading the reference provided to find out, I did so my self. The answer is, june 2001. The S+C trends were:

1998   0.0702235   1999    0.0579218   2000    0.0466267   2001    0.0551461

 * We should also mention the accuracy of measurements. Are these measurements exact to the hundredth of a degree? Or are the "trends" smaller than the error bars? (And who says so?) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Wooo, suddenly you're all interested in the accuracy! Splendid. You'd better start reading them up. Shall we put in a comment criticising SB for making sweeping broadbrush comments and failing to mention error bars?

Are the figures above in degrees Centigrade per decade? And how do they compare to IPCC climate model predictions? (0.2 to 0.8 degrees per decade)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Ed, please. Get off your bum and do some fact finding yourself. They're on the sat t rec page, of course. Because I put them there. You're being grossly lazy. And do tell where you got the 0.8 from.

I'd like to see the article (and other related articles) focus on three distinct quantities:
 * 1) Predicted warming
 * 2) Observed warming
 * 3) Margin of error

 * (William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Which article? The climate model article already points out that GCMs correctly hindcast the observed warming, and the GW article probably does too.

Also let's clarify some ideas: when researchers speak of "observed warming trends" or "essentially no warming occured", how does that compare to the margin of error?

 * (William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If you were in teh habit of reading IPCC rather than SEPP, you would know.

For example, if scientist A says that his climate model predicts 3.0 Centigrade warming per century, plus or minus 0.5 degrees, that translates to 0.3 degrees per decade +/- 0.05 degrees (i.e., between 0.25 degrees and 0.35 degrees per decade).

If the observed trend is 0.20 degrees +/- 0.1 degrees (0.1 to 0.3 degrees per decade), then what does that tell us? In other words, how probable is it (statistically) that the observations confirm or contradict the hypothesis?

What about 0.057 +/- 0.1 degrees per decade or 0.057 +/- 0.05 degrees per decade, the trend observed as of 1999? Compare that to the prediction of 0.3 degrees per decade. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Give me a ref for the 0.3 and I'll comment.

Rv: why
I just reverted 3 anon edits, because:

 * saying the satellite record shows slight warming is the sure sign of a skeptic who hasn't read the sat t rec page :-)
 * This view is accepted by a group of scientists, who disagree with the common belief is wrong - that group is disparate, not unified under the Baliunas banner

I also took out and in IPCC reports  (the actual ref occurs here ) because the IPCC cites lots of stuff - you can't try to imply support for B's position from this

William M. Connolley 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with this woman - has she done any research that isn't horribly flawed? If not, how's she still in a job - slept with the boss? Colour me curious. (not sure how to sign my name, but i'm not her boss, honest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

 * That's uncalled-for. She's an astronomer; by all accounts, a very good astronomer. But on the climate stuff she makes the sort of mistakes that are common for anyone operating far outside their field of expertise. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This article is complete nonsense. "In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years." Whatever one might think of their paper, it certainly did not say this! Paul Matthews 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right. From memory, the paper claimed that todays climate was non-exceptional in the last 2000 years. It was junk, of course William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pruning
I cut a section that was argumentative (CO2 satelite versus land stuff). Citing a quote and than saying "but that is wrong" is argumentation. It's also not well-written as it's not clear if the author is saying that she STILL has this point of view (contests the new evidence on satellites) or if she only held it at the time.TCO 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repruned this section. Mr. Quiggan has reverted this change without any discussion in talk, which shows poor wikiquette. This section is argumentative (very long section where a belief is ascribed and than an argument is made against that belief). For one thing the claim is made in present tense and it is unclear what Ms. Balunias's current position on sattelites versus land temps is (with the new values). Nor is it clear that she was unreasonable in her assumptions when the earlier false numbers were beleived true. Nor is it clear that sat/land temps are the only factor supporting her points.

In any case, this whole thing is a very long peice of text and not neutral. There are plenty of places to debate GW or to expose silliness of skeptics. It should be possible to write a neutral, factual article on anything. I could write an article about Karl Marx without having to say, "but he was wrong".

If Mr. Qiuggan wants to compromise on a simple statement that she is a GW skeptic, that is fine. Debating her beleifs when the issues are still in controversy, and when her POV is not represented (or finding selected places where she (may) be in error) is not an encyclopedia article. It would be a fine editorial (maybe with even more depth and examples, on Crooked Timber, though.) If so, it will be an even better piece if explored to be more than just a collection of gotchas, but to be representative and evaluative of all her points. And I say this, with some general feeling that skeptics tend to overreach and be a bit silly when doing so.TCO 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The material was over-long but should be included in some form. Her present views are irrelevant to the fact that she made a sweeping pronouncement that "the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors" based primarily on data that were known at the time to be incorrect. By all accounts Baliunas is a good astronomer, but when discussing global warming she makes silly mistakes typical of someone operating far outside their area of specialization.  The fact that she makes these mistakes isn't our fault, and we have no obligation to cover for her (we do, of course, have an obligation to stick to the facts). Hiding such things would abdicate our duty to the reader. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If she has a STRONG history of making errors, than of course it's relevant, but citing one to judge her overall seems like gamesmanship in Wiki for sides of a battle that still rages, rather than encyclopedia-writing. Everyone makes errors. I still think this is better handled in an op-ed.

But, I can compromise to some smaller section (and it is really a compromise, since the whole thing is in my opinion non-encylopediac). Why don't you take a cut at putting the section back in and making it more omniscient (and shorter!)TCO 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I've shortened it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version at time of this post is can-live-withable. Well written as well.TCO 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More pruning
I cut some remarks about Singer et als opinions on ozone depletion. These guys may very well have had silly opinions on that, but that is not relevant in an article on Balunias. It's wandering to mention it. (And wandering to make a pointed point.)TCO 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke. I'm not sure what's funnier, this article supposedly about Sallie Baliunas (but which is basically about air time for those who disagree with her), or the author going on about how he's wrote a neutral article.

What would really interest me would be real figures (haha), gathered over time, and not ones cherry picked, that show the earth is actually warming.

I'm attempting to 'dispute the neutrality of the article'. Attempting to. I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm almost certainly posting in the wrong place. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicsinglez (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ozone pruning
I removed two lines re ozone and CFCs there was no verifiable source. Feel free to add it back in if you have the source, although its relevance is questionable. Theblog (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Retired
http://astronomy.fas.harvard.edu/astronomy-alumni

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sallie Baliunas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043839/http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227171156/http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf to http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014045518/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ooajhxkq?url=http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas to http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030225010718/http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm to http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009144009/http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm to http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed the word "denier"
People who dispute the connection between climate change and CO2 find the word "denier" offensive, many climate skeptics believe "climate denier" is an attempt to link the concept of disputing the consensus to "holocaust denial". Is it really necessary to use the term "denier"? By all means describe the views of other scientists of this position, but surely it does no harm to avoid using a term which the subject of the article might take to be a deliberate antagonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They find it offensive? So what? I find their existence offensive, but I don't expect them to do anything about it. They exist, I am offended, end of story.
 * And they? People call them deniers, they are offended, end of story? No, they keep whining that people recognize them for what they are.
 * They are still deniers. It is the correct term used for such people. It is the term used in reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Disappointed Hob. Is it the goal of Wikipedia to be deliberately provocative and offensive towards the subjects of Wikipedia posts, for the crime of holding an unfashionable scientific view? Is the penalty for having the wrong scientific theory to be smeared as being comparable to those who deny that NAZIs murdered millions of Jewish people?

 * There are a number of examples of academics or prominent journalists comparing or linking the idea of "climate denial" to "Holocaust denial":

 * ""The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist. The global warming deniers—the Koch brothers, for example—see only what they want to see.""

 * ""Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.""

 * ""Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.""

 * Regardless of the original intent or meaning, the term "denier" in the context of "climate denial" has become inextricably associated with the NAZI holocaust, thanks to its use by prominent journalists and academics. Its use in Wikipedia, against victims who are powerless to remove this label, whose crime is to hold an unfashionable scientific viewpoint, is just a form of bullying.

 * Eric Worrall (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While your sensitivity on this point is understandable since you identify yourself as an author on "a prominent climate skeptic website", a few comment pieces saying x is as bad as y doesn't mean the two are "inextricably associated". Climate change denial gives examples of academic and educational usage, and also cites John Timmer on exactly the argument you're making. . . dave souza, talk 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 * On 20 January 2020 Wiki5537821 changed "skeptic" to "denier" without explanation in the edit summary. It would be nice to see one. The reference later in the paragraph to a 2002 article, which should be linked to here rather than the current dead link, says things like "that exceedingly small positive trend is probably not the result of human activities", i.e. Ms Baliunas believed there is warming and "probably" is a skeptical remark not a denial. Hob Gadling has re-inserted "denier" without seeking consensus first, and so far doesn't have it -- although I'm not interested in the WP:LABEL aspect that Eric Worrall seems to be alluding to, I agree that the earlier wording was better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "capitalismmagazine" is a reliable source for scientific subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Boo hoo, poor anti-science loons, being compared with anti-history loons. See here: the section "no neutral POV" is pretty much the same as sections in Talk pages about climate change deniers. Like identical twins!
 * As I said, we say what reliable sources say, and they call it "denial". Denialism is a thing, and climate change denial is a big part of it. Don't blame Wikipedia for common usage. Wikipedia does not pander to fringe groups: we do not call evolution "just a theory" because creationists are offended if we don't, and we do not claim acupuncture is science because quacks are offended if we don't. Read WP:LUNATIC.
 * Climate change denial is not just "unfashionable". That is not how science works. It is indefensible. If you want to be treated like real scientists, behave like real scientists. Do not just steal e-mails, cherry-pick quotes, cherry-pick data, cherry-pick studies, cherry-pick scientists, accuse innocent scientists of fraud, harrass them with legal shenanigans, bribe politicians, and so on. All the despicable methods deniers use have earned them the word "denier". Instead, do real research, without any dirty tricks, and publish it in bona-fide scientific journals. (Of course, this will not work, since you are wrong and the data are against you, but it would be the honest way to do it, the way that does not get you called "denier".) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling someone denialist usually needs an RS, rather than just a (nearly two decade old) comment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, have sourced it to which on p. 22 describes S & B as "two scientists, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, well-known deniers who have worked for the George C. Marshall Institute and a number of other anti-science organizations." . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But, 1997? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch, checks book and it's 1997, have corrected myself. . . dave souza, talk 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr Powell (who says "I am not a climate researcher") says that Ms Baliunas is a "well-known denier" without saying where he got this and without saying specifically what she denies. It's just name-calling by an opponent of her views, which even if worthy of mentioning should have been attributed per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. So far on this thread I count two editors (Eric Worrall and I) who object to "denier", and two (Hob Gadling and Dave souza) who support "denier" or "denial" . I am not counting William M. Connolley because this. Not a consensus at this time. By the way, although I admit this does not discredit Mr Powell, his book errs by saying Galileo was found guilty of heresy, it was the lesser charge = vehement suspicion of heresy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when do we demand that the reliable sources give sources? Maybe we should also demand that the sources the reliable sources give should also demand sources, and so on?
 * And since when are decisions made by vote here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that James L. Powell is well qualified as a science educator and author of books on science history (post Galileo) in the academic press. The book comes with a good recommendation from Spencer Weart. It's not "just name calling", pages 101–103 describe Baliunas's contribution to climate change denial. He cites his sources in endnotes, as is normal. . . . dave souza, talk 14:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I have now been made aware of the Watts Up With That? article Climate Wars: Try Removing the Word “Denier” from a Wikipedia Entry where Eric Worrall says he started this as "an experiment". Oh. Then I shouldn't have taken it seriously. Unless others indicate support, I won't continue this particular argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTLAB probably applies... — Paleo Neonate  – 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Good faith well and truly burned through. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Broad Brush

 * I also have a problem with much of the use of the word "denier", but my objection is not the same as that of those who hold a certain political position and because of that don't agree with the scientific consensus. See WP:YWAB for my positions on this and related topics.

 * My problem is that the term "Climate change denier" is a broad brush for painting people who hold any of the following views, and that we can find multiple reliable sources that call people who hold each of the following views "deniers":
 * The scientists are all lying. It is a huge conspiracy. I read it on Infowars so I know it's true.
 * Climate change? What climate change? I haven't bothered to read anything by a scientist, but I don't believe it.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, just as it always has. Nothing unusual about the last few centuries.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, and that's a good thing. It's ice ages that are bad.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I am not convinced that the change will be as large as is predicted.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but think that methane has a higher effect and CO2 has a lower effect than claimed.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but not that decreasing CO2 emissions is the answer. I believe that we can reverse it through geoengineering.
 * I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I don't believe that increasing the size and power of the federal government is the solution. The polluters will just buy off the politicians as they always do.
 * I believe everything the climatologists say about climate change. I accept all of the climate models and simulations. My problem is with the economic predictions that get tacked on. We have an awful track record on economic predictions.
 * I believe all of it. Climate, economy, proposed solutions, I accept them all. I also believe that it is too late. We are doomed.
 * I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having western countries reduce CO2 emissions while letting China increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
 * I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the US reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
 * I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having California reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
 * I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the City of San Francisco reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
 * I am a scientist. As scientist are in the habit of doing, I question one small part of established science and am doing research into a new theory. I realize that the orthodoxy is usually right, but that's how we do things in science. Alas, I picked an area where any and all opinions that are not in perfect lockstep with the scientific orthodoxy are called "climate change denial"

You can call me a climate change denier now, because the entries about San Francisco and economic models make a lot of sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A climate change denier is someone who believes some random bullshit at odds with science, for the purpose of having a pretend reason to be against doing something about global warming. This covers most of your variants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Be more specific, which is why I think it's better to discuss climate change denial rather than "denier". As that article shows, it's unwarranted doubt, particularly associated with organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science. The subject of this article has contributed notably to that campaigning, hence the Soon and Baliunas controversy where, with oil industry funding, they recycled other people's research and misrepresented it to support an old discredited "theory", with results that were used by the GW Bush administration as support for overruling the EPA and editing an EPA report contrary to the science evaluated by the EPA. Beliefs are only relevant to the extent that misrepresentation of science for CC denial is fostered by ideology. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sallie Baliunas


text: Category:James Bond

title: Category:James Bond


text:
Bo Gritz

James Gordon "Bo" Gritz (born January 18, 1939) is a retired United States Army Special Forces officer who served during the Vietnam War. Following his military career, Gritz became involved in various failed attempts to rescue prisoners of war (POWs) associated with the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue.

In the realm of politics, Gritz ran for the United States presidency in 1992 as a candidate of the Populist Party, advocating an isolationist platform encapsulated in his manifesto, "The Bill of Gritz". His campaign was characterized by the slogan "God, Guns, and Gritz".

Gritz's life has been marked by controversy, including questions regarding his military awards, his involvement in high-profile standoffs with federal authorities, and his involvement with the Christian Patriot movement and other right-wing militia groups.

Gritz was born in Enid, Oklahoma, and currently resides in Sandy Valley, Nevada. He is the father of four children.

Early life and education
Gritz was born on January 18, 1939, in Enid, Oklahoma. His father was a serviceman in the Army Air Force during World War II and tragically lost his life in action. In the wake of his father's death, Gritz was raised by his maternal grandparents.

Gritz's early education was marked by a significant event when he was expelled from his local high school for reasons not specified. This setback, however, did not deter him from pursuing his education. He subsequently attended the Fork Union Military Academy in Virginia, a prestigious military school known for its rigorous academic and physical programs. Gritz successfully graduated from the academy, setting the stage for his future military career.

Military career
Gritz began his military career when he enlisted in the Army on August 20, 1957. He quickly ascended the ranks, attending Officer Candidate School (OCS) and achieving the rank of captain in 1963, followed by a promotion to major in 1967.

During the Vietnam War, Gritz commanded detachment "B-36" of the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne). This detachment was a mixed American and Cambodian-Vietnamese MIKE Force composed predominantly of local mercenaries. They operated in the III Corps area of southern South Vietnam near the Cambodian border. Among his successful missions was the retrieval of the black box from a downed Lockheed U-2 spy plane in enemy territory in Cambodia in December 1966.

After six years in Vietnam, Gritz served in a variety of assignments, including commanding Special Forces in Latin America from 1975 to 1977, serving as a Desk Officer for the Middle East, and acting as Chief of Congressional Relations for the Defense Security Agency (International Security Affairs) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1977 to 1979. He retired in 1979 at the rank of lieutenant colonel. Following his formal retirement, Gritz claims, with video evidence, to have trained the Afghan mujahideen in America on behalf of the government.

General William Westmoreland, in his memoir A Soldier Reports, cites Gritz as "The" American Soldier. Gritz received numerous military awards during his service, although some of these have been called into question. A memo regarding his awards and award recommendations during his time in Vietnam seems to indicate that Gritz was personally involved with the recommendation of some of his medals, including the Legion of Merit, and that some of his award recommendations cited the same missions and incidents, effectively awarding Gritz multiple medals for the same missions, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Air Medal and Army Commendation Medal.

POW/MIA activism
In the early 1980s, Gritz became involved in the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, undertaking a series of private missions into Southeast Asia. His goal was to locate U.S. prisoners of war who, according to some beliefs, had been detained since the Vietnam War by the communist governments of Laos and Vietnam, specifically in areas such as Nhommarath.

Gritz's missions were initially supported by elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1981, and later financed by high-profile donors like Clint Eastwood and Ross Perot. Operating primarily out of Thailand, Gritz used aliases such as "Richard Patrick Clark" to evade detection. Despite his efforts, Gritz was unable to provide any concrete evidence of the existence of the POWs when he testified as a witness before the House committee headed by Stephen Solarz in 1983.

Gritz's activities were heavily publicized and controversial, with critics deeming them haphazard and poorly executed. For instance, some commentators pointed out that supposedly secret missions involved women openly selling commemorative POW-rescue T-shirts in border towns. In his book Inside Delta Force, CSM Eric L. Haney, a former Delta Force operator, claims that the unit was twice told to prepare for a mission involving the rescue of American POWs from Vietnam. However, both times the missions were scrubbed, according to Haney, when Gritz suddenly appeared in the spotlight, drawing too much attention to the issue and making the missions too difficult to accomplish.

In 1983, Gritz and four of his associates were tried and convicted in Thailand of illegally importing radio equipment during their "Operation Lazarus Omega". One of them, a former Navy SEAL David Scott Weekly also known as "Doctor Death", was also later convicted in America of smuggling explosives. Thai authorities expressed concern that Vietnamese forces in Laos would retaliate against them for cross-border armed intrusions and threatened to jail Gritz for 20 years. Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach called Gritz's actions "a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of Laos that everyone should denounce."

In 1986, Gritz traveled to Burma (now Myanmar) to interview drug kingpin Khun Sa about potential locations of U.S. POWs. He returned with a videotaped interview in which Khun Sa named several officials in the Reagan administration as allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking in Southeast Asia. Among those named was Richard Armitage, who later served as Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term as president. During this time, Gritz established contacts with the Christic Institute, a progressive group that was then pursuing a lawsuit against the U.S. government over charges of drug trafficking in both Southeast Asia and Central America.

Political involvement and conspiracy research
In the 1988 election, Gritz was the candidate for Vice President of the United States on the Populist Party ticket. Initially, unbeknownst to him, he was presented as the running mate of former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke. Gritz withdrew early in the race and publicly distanced himself from Duke, opting instead to run for a Nevada Congressional seat. He was subsequently replaced by Floyd Parker on some ballots. Gritz has stated that he accepted the party's nomination under the impression that he would be the running mate of James Traficant. After meeting Duke, Gritz described him as "a brash, untraveled, overly opinionated, bigoted young man" and declared, "I will not support anyone that I know to hate any class of Americans."

In 1989, Gritz established the Center for Action, which focused on various issues, primarily conspiracy theories. He attempted to build bridges among conspiracy theorists and unite activists from both the left and the right, organizing a conference in Las Vegas called "Freedom Call '90". Speakers at the conference included 1980 October Surprise theory researcher Barbara Honegger, Bill Davis of the Christic Institute, far-right writer Eustace Mullins, and others.

This shift in focus proved to be almost as controversial as his earlier missions searching for POWs. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Gritz opposed the war and linked it to a conspiracy theory alleging plans to implement a one-world government, known as the "New World Order". He appeared on Pacifica Radio stations in California as a guest several times, and for a short period, he was sought after as a speaker to left-wing and anti-war audiences. However, during this period, he also became closely associated with the Christian Patriot movement on the right, and spoke at conferences sponsored by Christian Identity pastor Pete Peters. When these associations became known to those on the left, especially after the publication of a report by the Los Angeles-based group People Against Racist Terror labeling Gritz a "front man for fascism", left-wing audiences lost interest in Gritz, and the Christic Institute and Pacifica Radio ended any further association. He has since distanced himself from the movement.

In the 1992 election, after failing to secure the U.S. Taxpayers' Party's nomination, Gritz ran for President of the United States, again under the Populist Party banner. His campaign slogan was "God, Guns and Gritz", and he published a political manifesto titled "The Bill of Gritz" (a play on his last name rhyming with "rights"). He advocated for staunch opposition to what he termed "global government" and the "New World Order", called for an end to all foreign aid, and proposed the abolition of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System. During the campaign, Gritz openly declared the United States to be a "Christian Nation", asserting that the country's legal statutes "should reflect unashamed acceptance of Almighty God and His Laws." He received 106,152 votes nationwide, constituting 0.14 percent of the popular vote. In Utah, he received 3.84 percent of the vote and in Idaho he received 2.13 percent of the vote. In Duchesne County and Oneida County, Idaho, his support exceeded ten percent, while in Franklin County, Idaho, Gritz received over twelve percent of the votes, falling just 23 votes short of pushing Bill Clinton into fourth place – a feat not achieved by a major party nominee in any county nationwide since 1916. As part of his campaign, Gritz proposed an idea to pay off the National debt by minting a coin at the Treasury and sending it to the Federal Reserve, a concept that predates the 2012 trillion-dollar coin idea. Among other proposals, the "Bill of Gritz" called for the complete closure of the border with Mexico, and the dissolution of the Federal Reserve.

Religious and militia affiliations
In 1984, Gritz and his wife Claudia joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Amid allegations of infidelity, Gritz's stake president declined to renew his temple recommend until Gritz provided proof of federal income tax payment. Consequently, Gritz resigned from the LDS Church. In 1999, Gritz and his then fourth wife Judy Kirsch became associated with the Church of Israel, a group with origins in the Latter Day Saint movement that later became involved with the Christian Identity movement. Gritz himself, too, became an adherent of what the SPLC described as a "relatively mild version" of Christian Identity; he has since distanced himself from the movement.

In 1994, Gritz, former Arizona State Senator Jerry Gillespie, and other partners established a 200-acre survivalist community and paramilitary training center in Kamiah, Idaho, called Almost Heaven. Gritz left Almost Heaven in late 1998 after a suicide attempt. Almost Heaven was falling apart already before his departure, in part due to conflicts with local authorities and residents as well as between Gritz and an internal radical faction; the community was near defunct by 2003. Influenced by the Church of Israel's ideology, Gritz then relocated to Nevada and rebranded his Center for Action as the Fellowship of Eternal Warriors, a group of "warrior-priests" opposing what Gritz defined as the forces of evil.

Gritz has used his influence within the Christian Patriot movement to mediate between legal authorities and far-right activists. In 1992, he mediated during the Ruby Ridge crisis involving fellow veteran Randy Weaver. In 1996, Gritz unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate an end to the standoff involving the Montana Freemen, an anti-government White separatist militia group. After unsuccessful negotiations, Gritz left in frustration, predicting that the FBI would arrest the Freemen.

Later activities
In 1998, Gritz led an unsuccessful search for the Centennial Olympic Park bomber, Eric Rudolph, with the aim of persuading him to surrender to law enforcement. In 2005, he became an active protester in the Terri Schiavo case. On 19 March 2005, following the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, Gritz was arrested for trespassing after attempting to enter the hospice where she was residing. Starting in 2014, Gritz hosted a radio show on Americanvoiceradio.com titled Freedom Call.

Writings
Gritz has authored three books. His first, A Nation Betrayed, published in 1989, contains allegations of drug trafficking and a POW coverup, based on his interview with Khun Sa. His second book, Called To Serve, published in 1992, expands on the previous book, covering a wide range of conspiracy theories, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy and allegations of a conspiracy to establish a new world order. His third book, My Brother's Keeper, was published in 2003.

In fiction and documentaries
The character of John "Hannibal" Smith from the 1980s television series The A-Team was loosely based on Gritz, as were some of Chuck Norris' film characters. Gritz also reportedly partially inspired several other characters, including Colonel Kurtz in the 1978 film Apocalypse Now, and John Rambo, the protagonist of the Rambo franchise. Gritz played the character of Lt. Col. Steel, a highly fictionalized version of himself, in the 1990 film Rescue Force.

Gritz was portrayed by Bob Gunton in the 1996 CBS television film The Siege at Ruby Ridge, and by Vic Browder in the first episode of the 2018 television miniseries WACO. In 1983, actor William Shatner purchased the entertainment rights to Gritz's life story.

Gritz's community, Almost Heaven, was featured in the episode "Survivalists" of Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends in 1998. The 2017 documentary Erase and Forget saw filmmaker Andrea Luka Zimmerman follow Gritz for over a decade, including re-enactments of scenes from his life.

Books

 * Spycraft (c.1984-90)..
 * A Nation Betrayed. (1988); Sandy Valley, Nev.: Lazarus Pub. Co. (1989). ISBN 978-0962223808..
 * Called to Serve. Sandy Valley, Nev.: Lazarus Pub. Co. (May 1991). Autobiography. ISBN 978-0916095383..
 * My Brother's Keeper. Sandy Valley, Nev.: Lazarus Pub. Co. (2003)..

Contributions

 * Foreword to Shadows on the Wall, by Stan Krasnoff. Australia: Allen & Unwin (2003). ISBN 978-1865088877..

Public speaking

 * "A Nation Betrayed." A public lecture in the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption (Jun. 1, 1990).

Filmography

 * Millennium Factor: The Truth About Y2K (1999). Written and directed by Les Rayburn.

title: Bo Gritz