The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming

Given the high profile story today about the 49 NASA astronauts, engineers, and scientists who wrote a scathing letter to NASA director Charles Bolden, Jr. saying Jim Hansen and NASA GISS are exemplifying the “wrong stuff”, I thought I’d share this poster contributed by WUWT reader NickFromNYC:

About these ads

112 thoughts on “The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming

  1. The meme response to 4.6 BY of fluctuation: “But since 1960, it has been caused by man”. Nice of the planet to step aside and allow the puny fleas on her back to determine the thermal behaviour of the globe. How to gleick a planet. Arrogance to think that Man is that important in Earth History (think again), and the hubris of an elitist few to think that they alone hold the key to our salvation.

    Let’s hope that GISS sheds a couple of fleas.

  2. So, four brilliant, accomplished scientists/astronauts contradicting the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and Gleick (or take Trenberth if you think Gleick has fallen off the rolls).

    I’m sure we’ll see some real cry-baby tantrums and tweets in response to this–maybe the watermelons will try to pressure these astronauts into changing their minds. Or maybe the watermelons and theyr lackeys will finally admit their political “solutions” were never about the climate to begin with.

    If nothing else, it should provide abundant (and likely entertaining) feed for WUWT in the near future.

  3. Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    and not a “climate scientist” in the bunch…

    Of course. Would you send a “climate scientist” into orbit? They might come back with the perspective that man truly is an insignificant player in Earth’s grand panoply.

  4. Luther Wu

    You don’t have to be a “climate scientists” to understand that “climate science” has been hijacked and that the normal use of the the scientific method and the peer review process have been perverted in that process, both in order to serve the CAGW/CACC message and meme. A degree in the sciences or engineering is all that is required to understand what happened.

  5. from the statement.
    “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled”.

  6. hmmmm…..nope, wasn’t on TV news…however, if some Hollywood Celebrity had said something, top news!!!

  7. Luther Wu says:
    “and not a ‘climate scientist’ in the bunch…”

    Luther, I’ll take the opinions of this group of distinguished scientists, engineers and astronauts (some of those guys are all three) over the opinions of an astronomer (Hansen) a political science major (Gore) or a railroad engineer (Pachauri) any day of the week.

    Those who signed that letter include many people who played major roles in putting a man on the moon less than ten years after Kennedy set the goal in 1961. What have people like Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Gleick and Schmidt done that remotely compares to the scientific achievements of this group?

  8. If anyone still needs proof that Al Gore is a complete and utter d[*****]bag, that quote should be all you need….

    [Language. Robt]

  9. Cris says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    I like the poster. I still have my old Topps “Man on the Moon” trading cards someplace.

    Drinking glasses, commemorating the achievement; well most of them (they used to be part of a set … before I realized they would/could be worth something some day) …

    .

  10. Luthur Wu

    The 49 NASA luminaries that signed the letter are no doubt far more intellectually capable than you or I. They are scientists and engineers without peer that actually did something useful for humanity.

    You and your fellow disciples are blind to the fact that intelligent, reasoning and trained scientists and engineers are NOT in agreement with the AGW bible.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess.

  11. Gosh, whose word would you take? These guys or a guy who never graduated from anything in Australia like Barrie Harrop. Yeah, me too. My wife works in the McNair Bldg. at MIT for as long as her PI’s funding holds out. Brave guy killed by morons at Nasa.

  12. FYI…

    /
    The character on the preceding line is what is known as a “sarc tag”, indicating sarcasm.

    That is all.

  13. Luther Wu says: “and not a ‘climate scientist’ in the bunch…”
    Hanson is not a climate scientist. He’s an astronomer.

  14. Crikey! An Australian!

    Sadly, down here our government would take a mammalogists (who has been a spectacular failure in terms of climatic projections) word over a physicist from MIT.

  15. One minor nit pick on the poster, Burt Rutan is not the first private astronaut!

    He was the designer of the first private space ship (winner of the Ansari X Prize), and the first plane to circumnavigate the planet without refueling.
    Mike Melvill (Burt’s pilot for Space ship One) deserves the title of first private astronaut as the pilot of the first of 2 flights required to win that prize.

    Other than that minor quibble, great poster.

    I suspect you could add about 20 other faces with similar qualifications to that poster.

    Larry

  16. ‘You’re only a crackpot until you hit the jackpot.’
    – Werner Von Braun.
    ‘Gwan geeza kappay kaffay Jammay.’ (Go and get me a cup of coffee, James.)
    – Dick Emery.

  17. Well, they would say that wouldn’t they. They’re retired. Did very nicely going to the moon didn’t they. What about us A? Where are we gonig to get all that lovely jubbley lucra from eh? Where did all the moon’s water and atmosphere go A: Global Warming darlings!!!

    Sarc off/

  18. @Luther Wu…

    Jimbo Hansen is an astronomer.
    Gavin Schmidt is a mathemetician.

    They have no more claim to the mantle of “climate scientist” than Jack Schmitt (geologist) or Walter Cunningham (physicist). For that matter, NASA has no business engaging in earth and atmospheric science.

  19. Unfortunately I must differ with AW this one time that this is a: “one high profile story”, I see no evidence of ANY major significant news outlet covering this. I hope I am wrong. It is actually very sad. Maybe it will take off during the next few days or weeks, let us hope. There is no doubt a concerted effort by MSM, google etc to squash this as it could very well end most all major AGW research projects, AGW investments, Carbon Trading, Carbon taxes etc. There is no doubt that the scientific personalities here could have a massive influence on public opinion due to their role in public and scientific achievements. The signatories should have gone public, my view anyway.

  20. These guys are my generation’s pantheon of heroes. Too bad the folks running the show now did not share the same pantheon.

  21. Re: Climate “scientists”

    These people at GISS and elsewhere are only in climate science for the money and fame.
    And certainly there’s LOTS of money in the Climate Industry(tm) right now…YOUR money. Just like the GSA in Las Vegas, we have our climate heroes jetting off to Bali, Cancun, Copenhagen, and Durbin to make resolutions on how best to tax us nothing and tell us how to run our lives.

  22. …oops…meant to say “Just like the GSA in Las Vegas, we have our climate heroes jetting off to Bali, Cancun, Copenhagen, and Durbin to make resolutions on how best to tax us for no reason and to tell us how to run our lives.”

  23. Luther Wu says:
    “/
    The character on the preceding line is what is known as a “sarc tag”, indicating sarcasm.”

    Luther,

    “/” is a slash mark (google it and you will find wikipedia articles about Slash, the guitarist from Guns N’ Roses).

    “/sarc” indicates sarcasm. It’s good to know that you intended sarcasm, which quite often does not come over well on the internet or if you are Sheldon Cooper.

    That is all.

  24. Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    and not a “climate scientist” in the bunch…

    Sorry Luther but this is the same laughable talking point repeated ad nauseum by CAGW believers. There’s a reason why scientists publish their work to MLA, APA, CBE, and CMS standards – so ALL scientists and research professionals can read and understand the information. It is the climate scientist’s responsibility to make the information understandable to a broad scientific audience else the work is worthless and void of any meaningful content.

    What you offer as a criticism of the 49 scientists objecting to the quality of the science is, in reality, a criticism of climatologists who write worthless papers that other educated scientists can’t read.

  25. HankH says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm
    “…”
    _______________
    Hank, I would refer you to this post…
    _________________
    Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    FYI…

    /
    The character on the preceding line is what is known as a “sarc tag”, indicating sarcasm.

    That is all.

  26. Taphonomic says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    “…google it and you will find…”
    ___________________
    I have long since abandoned Google.
    Need I say why?

  27. Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    and not a “climate scientist” in the bunch…
    /
    >

    Appreciate the humor – what it means is you don’t need a climate scientist to know which way the wind blows.

  28. Becoming a Climate Scientist is a lot like becoming a computer virus expert. If you want to become one, just start calling yourself one.

    As for the people on the list. Any one that has gone throught what these people have (test pilots or sitting on top of tons of explosives, scrambling to get 13 home etc) is hardly going to be intimidated by the Hockey Team like so many others.

  29. Funny, the only one of those guys that I haven’t met is Walt Cunningham. I worked at Rotary Rocket with Phil and Brian, and Mike flew the Ez-Rocket that I helped build. Mojave is a strange small town, and I’ll take their opinions over the rent-seeking disaster freaks any time.

  30. Mann: Maths/Physics

    Hansen: Maths/Physics

    Jones: Environmental science

    Trenberth: Meteorology

    Schmidt: Maths

    See? Not a climate scientist among them..

  31. Brave of them to make a statement against the establishment, of course many of these folks risked their lives for mankind, this is confirms their bravery. It will really piss off the little bullies like hansen and mann(there is a misnomer)

  32. HankH says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Sorry Luther, I didn’t interpret the “/” as a “/sarc”.
    _______________________
    It’s not a problem, Hank. You made same great points, as did several others while taking me to task.
    Full version is definitely: /sarc or /sarc off.
    My failing was to think that an increasingly common shorthand version of just the ‘slash’ / as shorthand for /sarc was well known among bloggers.

    Apologies to all for being obtuse.

    [Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]

  33. Jimmy Haigh says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    Mann: Maths/Physics

    Hansen: Maths/Physics

    Jones: Environmental science

    Trenberth: Meteorology

    Schmidt: Maths

    See? Not a climate scientist among them..
    ______________________
    You are soooo on it.

  34. Johnnythelowery says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Beautiful tribute to a brave young adventurer. Thanks for the link.

  35. Luther Wu
    LOL! (I understood / or no /.)

    David Middleton
    I think Hansen abandoned astronomy for astrology long ago.

    Love this poster! Love the old NASA. Thanks, Anthony.

  36. Smokey says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Hank H,

    In HTML the slash [“/”] means ‘end’. Thus “/sarc” means sarcasm is ended. “/s” works as well.

    Smokey,

    More correctly, the “/” operator represents the logical “not” function; formally a ‘sarc’ statement would be followed at some point by the ‘/sarc’ statement turning off said sarc statement functionality (and thereby bracketing a section of text meant as sarcasm).

    The technical types reading this who have had to meet strict, formal documentation criteria for signal level definitions (as say, on a schematic diagram or in an interface spec) have no doubt used this documentation formalism; the adoption by ‘HTML’ standards committees would then be an extension of this concept. Other symbols (or symbolism) or added alpha-nomenclature either prepended or appended have also been used to indicate this ‘not’ (or low-‘true’) logic inversion function.

    The TI (Texas Instruments) Boolean System Description (acronym: “TIBSD”, a means of formally describing and documenting a digital logic circuit in textual format for subsequent software simulation of same) is where I saw the first formal implementation of this concept back in the late 70’s.

    .

  37. google: global warming astronauts nasa site:cnn.com
    About 4,280 results (0.10 seconds)

    No results found for “tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief” site:cnn.com.
    google

  38. google “tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief”
    About 194 results (0.04 seconds)

  39. I think this further proves that global warming “cause” (or opposition to it) is matter of faith.
    Even after over ten years of virtually no warming it’s matter of belief whether you think temperatures will continue up or down, models can or can’t be trusted, CO2 is or isn’t a problem, etc etc.
    I think the main argument for “skepticism” is that people are starting to see effects of global warming on their wallets. It’s normal for people to support “save this, save that” ideas as long as it doesn’t cost them anything but as soon as it crosses certain point they start to be interested in saving themselves rather than saving mankind.

  40. Does anyone know where John Glenn stands wrt agw? Somewhere I received the impression that he was a proponent of it.

  41. Jimmy Haigh says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Mann: Maths/Physics

    Hansen: Maths/Physics
    ===================================
    Given the events of today….. sea levels following in the great tradition of ever decreasing historical measurements……. and the lessons learned about the forward slash……..

    The pinheads and many others through Maths have ended, or turned off physics.

    Remember when all of the floods occurred because the sea levels were dropping? Turns out, that was all bullshit. The sea levels weren’t dropping that much….. but, who cares? It made for a great story then and we can dust it off again if the satellites ever get out of hand again.

  42. Interesting that the 49 are all FORMER astronauts. I suppose if current ones talked about the facts, they would lose their jobs.

  43. [Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]
    ============================================
    Just wanted you to know that wasn’t lost upon the masses. Well done!

  44. powerful stuff. These guys are real heroes: the best brains, the fittest, the most disciplined, the bravest there is. I’m showing this to my 7 yo daughter to counteract the “political consensus” rubbish she is being fed at school by our watermelon-hostage government

  45. What is the discipline of climate science anyway? When I were a lad we had: Meteorologists, glaciolologists, oceanographers, palaeoclimatologists, atmospheric phycisists and atmospheric chemists. What is it precisely that defines a climate scientist as such? Is it that they run computer models? Is it that they had the word climate in their thesis?
    I have a PhD in Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, but the topic was Urban air pollution – so I know a bit about meteorology, a bit of atmospheric chemistry, some atmospheric physics, some epidemiology and a smattering of human health. I know just enough to be quiet when a real meteorologist talks about meteorology or a MD talks about human health and so on, because these people know far more than me in their specific topics. But climate science – I have no idea what the discipline is and I suspect they are like me – they know a bit about a range of topics and maybe quite a lot about one.

  46. Could the USA have put men on the Moon using Hansen’s Post Normal Science maths? Hardly likely!

    Had Watermelon calculating skills been used, there wouldn’t be any astronauts left alive to admire.

  47. Cases in point
    Hansen – PhD in Physics and Astronomy
    Mann – PhD in Geology and Geophysics
    Schmidt – PhD in Mathematics
    Trenberth – PhD in Meteorology
    Gleick – PhD modeling the impacts of climate change on the hydrologic cycle.

    So all apart from the last one have core disciplines in topics other than climate science and the latter is a modeller.

  48. Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    [Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]

    @Robt A cute acute comment! You are hereby officially promoted to the Noble Order of Smartasses! Welcome …
    ;)

  49. Lance says: “hmmmm…..nope, wasn’t on TV news…however, if some Hollywood Celebrity had said something, top news!!!”

    Yeah, if Lindsay Lohan came out as a Warmist, it would be all over the front page of the LA Times. Hey, I like that idea.

  50. RockyRoad says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    So, four brilliant, accomplished scientists/astronauts contradicting the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and Gleick…maybe the watermelons will try to pressure these astronauts into changing their minds.

    They might try to defame them, but I doubt any of the Usual Suspects have the intestinal fortitude to try pressure.

    Or maybe the watermelons and theyr lackeys will finally admit their political “solutions” were never about the climate to begin with.

    There’s less chance of that happening than there is of Buzz Aldrin going back to the moon — tomorrow.

  51. Luther: I found the / perfectly clear, even past my bedtime. We have a few shell-shocked people here who’ve been in this war for a long time.

  52. Haha! I love the Al Gore quote at the top – aptly in green – comparing sceptics to those who believe the moon landing was faked! Wonderful. I wonder how long before we see the usual “Deni@lists!” namecalling in the alarmist community? Or claims that the astronauts are in the pay of Big Oil? More likely most of them will remain silent and just hope it goes away.

  53. How history repeats itself.
    Having some old school rocket boys stand up to this propaganda, makes this whole global warming scare look even more like a retro “free world versus communism” fight.
    The science of global warming has a grain of truth that has been brazenly exploited. That they have gotten this far with such a weak idea is amazing.
    However, one or two well chosen dismissals and the warmist diatribe will die down substantially. GISS looks like a good starting point. Go get them Rocket boys!

  54. BTW, Louis, I thought your comment was obviously ironic; but there are always the Ughnobell Order of the Thick and Humorless about, who need labels. ;)

  55. Goldie says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:28 pm
    Cases in point
    Hansen…Mann…Schmidt…Trenberth…Gleick…So all apart from the last one have core disciplines in topics other than climate science and the latter is a modeller.

    I wouldn’t mention those folks in conjunction with the word “discipline” unless it was on the receiving end — in the sense of “Time out, children”…

  56. dp says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:50 pm
    Johnnythelowery says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Beautiful tribute to a brave young adventurer. Thanks for the link.
    ———————————————————————————–
    It’s a Brit band. Probably writing the song over a pint in a rainy pub in Newcastle and came up with ‘Love is like a Russian Satellite’ and ran with it. Then years later Some Russian guy came along and mixed (rather well) images and clips of Yuri and uploaded it to Youtube. I agree with you and i’m going to set about making one for our boys. Cheers—- johnnnny

  57. A bombshell?

    Nope, just the opinions of four pepole. Neither proves or refutes man made GW.

  58. Actually there is a climate scientist. Most geologists have a good understanding of these issues. Geologists have a good idea of thermodynamics, techniques for extracting data from auxillary minerals, and at the very least, all can read and understand graphs relating to fluctiations in the earths past. The sedimentary record in particular is loaded with catastrophic episodes. Floods or earthquakes deposit sands in quiescent areas, the bedload in rivers usually represents maximum flooding events for example. Most geology programs now have some sort of courses directly related to these topics as well. Understanding the fossil record necessitates a general understanding of fluctating ecological niches with various factors through time.

  59. Kasuha says:
    April 10, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    I think this further proves that global warming “cause” (or opposition to it) is matter of faith….

    I think the main argument for “skepticism” is that people are starting to see effects of global warming on their wallets….
    _____________________________________
    The main argument of most long time skeptics is that Climate Scientology plays fast and loose with the scientific method. Climate Scientology has more in common with L. Ron hubbard’s Scientology than with real science.

    As one Science Fiction writer at a Boston S.F. convention in 1972 noted, “I knew L. Ron when he was just a small time crook” ~ L. Sprague de Camp, when approached by a Scientology Missionary on the streets outside of Boskone-9

    The same could certainly be said of Climate Scientology.

    Religion is a real moneymaker as any cult leader will tell you. Climate Scientology is a cult that has caught the fancy of politicians who see it as a really big money maker and a method for getting the Sheeple to accept the implementation of Agenda 21.

    Unlike real science you can not separate Climate Scientology from the goals of the “CAUSE”

    “I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

  60. Here we have these 5 American heroes, who put more than thier career or reputation on the line, but their LIVES on the line – placing their lives in the sound and rigourous designs, engineering, and scientific methods to execute their missions; something they would not do blindly, but with proper vetting and critical examination. Their proven ability to judge the scientific merits of any hypothesis is way beyond reproach, espcially when compared to the likes of Hansen, Mann, Gore and Gleick.

  61. Unfortunately, Sally Ride is not among these heroes. I attended one of her lectures back in 2009/2010 (can’t quite remember which) and she spouted off all kinds of CAGW/CACC non-sense and even included the infamous 98 Mann “Hockey Stick” graph as proof! She also showed a picture taken from the shuttle that showed the atmosphere from the edge and wailed about how thin and fragile it must be. (From the picture alone, it seemed to be microns thin.)

    There were microphones in the aisle for questions at the end, but they were loaded up with school children asking all of the wrong questions, except for one: Doesn’t the space shuttle contribute to “green house” gases? Of course, she had a ready response on hand: they produce their own hydrogen without creating “carbon” (not sure how that works) and NASA buys carbon offsets so the space shuttle is supposedly completely “carbon free”. Of course, now they only emit naphthalene.

    What a disgrace.

  62. The editor of the Sunday Seattle Times told me years ago that the proper name for the “slash” was *virgule*.

    My contribution to continuing education!

  63. I love this site!

    The discourse over “ to / or not to / THAT is the question” is so deliciously ahhh….
    …..Nerdey?
    …..Engineerish?

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  64. Dead wrong. It’s ‘Back Slash’ of ‘Forward Slash’. The difference being fatal to computers!!! Right???

  65. As a former shift leader in the HQ of one of the worlds largest computer services company, i can say you are all dead wrong. It’s ‘Back Slash’ or ‘Forward Slash’. The difference if you get it wrong being fatal to computer programs.

  66. “Climate science” is currently a pejorative term to true empirical scientists. It is just about as ‘scientific’ as ‘Christian Science,’ ‘Creation Science,’ or ‘Political Science.’
    In fact it shares much in common with these.

  67. REAL OSes use /.

    There. That’ll keep y’all busy until some of those climatologistsclimate modelers come by to troll, again.

  68. Hugo Van Dofrenzeim says:
    April 11, 2012 at 5:35 am

    Actually there is a climate scientist. Most geologists have a good understanding of these issues. Geologists have a good idea of thermodynamics, techniques for extracting data from auxillary minerals, and at the very least, all can read and understand graphs relating to fluctiations in the earths past. The sedimentary record in particular is loaded with catastrophic episodes. Floods or earthquakes deposit sands in quiescent areas, the bedload in rivers usually represents maximum flooding events for example. Most geology programs now have some sort of courses directly related to these topics as well. Understanding the fossil record necessitates a general understanding of fluctating ecological niches with various factors through time.

    Exactly, Hugo.

    And that’s why Mann had to resort to trees to get his share of the CAGW grant gravy train. Oops.

    (As a geologist, I can speak for many thousands of other geologists–we don’t claim Mann. He fell off the science wagon years ago and pursued filthy lucre instead. Shame on him; shame!)

  69. I had to reblog this myself. This one along with the picture, kudos to nickfromNYC, just makes this worth the time. Thanks to Anthony and everyone at WUWT for all their hard work and time, because its times like these which makes me think that the truth in science will someday come out.

  70. is any of the signatories someone who currently works at NASA?…..I do not believe so. No change at the source of the bad science.

  71. Luther Wu says:
    “I have long since abandoned Google.
    Need I say why?”

    Sure. Feel free. You could also explain why you think a symbol for a guitarist indicates sarcasm.

  72. Taphonomic says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
    “…”
    _____________
    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..”
    –Wm. Shakespeare- Hamlet: Act1, Scene 5

    “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
    ― Winston S. Churchill

  73. Many pilots (Airbus and Boeing) are in agreement with NASA astronauts. NASA astronauts are the elites of course. They have expressed their own opinion. Yes this was good news. But no scientific evidence. Scientific reasons must be sought elsewhere. This open letter from the astronauts, is like writing a petition.

  74. [Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]

    Made me laugh.

    Luther: Seen enough of your comments to know it was sarc.

    Slartibartfast: Don’t get me started. Worked multiple OS & remembering which one I was on was a real pain!

    DaveE.

  75. Luther Wu says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    ……..
    Apologies to all for being obtuse.

    [Well, technically, your frontslash would be acute comment…. Only a backslash is obtuse. Robt]

    Robt

    it is even better if you know that we used to call — / — an OBLIQUE stoke (in the days before PCs; / was oblique stroke and \ was backslash …but obtuse stroke is so much more descriptive ….)

  76. NASA has achieved bringing man to and back from the Moon by applying rigorous scientific / engineering / operational processes, as well as related top level standards that have been designed for that purpose. These processes and standards of course include models’ engineering, verification and validation.

    As ridiculous as it may appear, none of the GISS climate modelers has ever applied any of these processes and standards. And as a matter of fact, none of these nice climate models has ever been formally validated. Climate models are only “inter-validated” but inter-validation is definitely not the state of the art for models’ validation, especially for such complex models. A rigorous model’s validation process requires a confrontation between model’s outputs (for various runs with different sets of inputs / border conditions) and tests’ data (obtained with same inputs / border conditions).

    Actually the very inconvenient truth is that none of the climate models would be able to pass any V&V process since their outputs are daily rebutted by observed climate data :
    (a) None of these models is able to reproduce the observed cooling trends over [1880 – 1910] and [1940 – 1970] periods
    (b) None of these models is able to reproduce the observed warming trend of 0.15°C/decade over [1910 – 1930] period, that is actually equivalent to the one observed over recent [1970 – 1998] period.
    Models only reproduce a warming trend of 0.06°C/decade that is almost 3 times lower than observed one.
    (c) None of these models has been able to forecast the pause observed since 1998 neither the slight cooling observed since 2002: all of them have predicted a warming of 0.25°C minimum over the past 15 years.

    It is actually unbelievable that NASA could have authorized and even supported such a poor scientific process that indeed constitutes a fraud with respect to its own processes and standards. By letting GISS fraudulent scientists publishing their unsubstantiated results and furiously advocating their (unproven) AGW dogma, NASA has put its own reputation at risk of public ridicule and distrust.

  77. Luther Wu says:
    ““There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..”
    –Wm. Shakespeare- Hamlet: Act1, Scene 5″

    That’s only Quartos true. The Folio is our.

  78. the earth started out HOT… It cooled
    It has gone through many warming and cooling phases since then.
    The last MAJOR warming phase was the one that melted the glaciers, that here in New England, extended out 300 miles into the Atlantic. The same glaciers that gave us all these rounded boulders and rocks.
    When THAT warming occurred, man had not even tamed fire (If man was here at all) Who do ‘they’ blame THAT one on?

  79. Steve says:
    April 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    the earth started out HOT… It cooled
    It has gone through many warming and cooling phases since then.
    The last MAJOR warming phase was the one that melted the glaciers, that here in New England, extended out 300 miles into the Atlantic. The same glaciers that gave us all these rounded boulders and rocks.
    When THAT warming occurred, man had not even tamed fire (If man was here at all) Who do ‘they’ blame THAT one on?
    ___________________________________
    Milankovitch

  80. @ Goldie “What is it precisely that defines a climate scientist as such?”

    one of the 97% of course ;-)

    If you do not bow down to the AGW priests (Gore, Hansen et al), you are not considered a climate scientist.

    (never did understand why that 97% wasn’t 100%……….. puzzled)

Comments are closed.