This was a bit of a surprise, hat tip to Bucko36 – Anthony
In Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss
By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Cunningham writes:
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming
“[James] Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
BIO Note: Physicist Walter Cunningham, an award-winning NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings, the 1969 Haley Astronautics Award and named to Named to the International Space Hall of Fame. Cunningham is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He also worked as a scientist for the RAND Corporation prior to joining NASA. While with RAND, he worked on classified defense studies and problems of the earth’s magnetosphere. He has accumulated more than 4,500 hours of flying time, including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft and 263 hours in space.
For Complete bio see: http://www.waltercunningham.com/introduction.htm
Excerpts:
It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him. […] NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics. […] I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.
[…] The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels. Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
[…] The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
Full Text at link below:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Theres a movement afoot! And it’s good!
Bravo!
To those familiar with the topic of the numerous weaknesses in AGW, this finely written essay doesn’t contain any new information. It is, however, far more credible than any diatribe from a failed divinity school student. Congratulations to Mr. Cunningham for having the courage to speak out so eloquently.
Finally someone associated with NASA is willing to comment. I supplied software for the man in space project doing capsule reentry calculations. NASA at that time was focused on real tasks. Thanks Walter for speaking out and thanks to Anthony for getting the link.
This –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
needs fisking
OT, sorry, but no mention of the eclipse today?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/2008/index.html
The corona looked eerily quiet to me. Anybody else notice? or am I imagining things?
Cunningham might have been unlucky to be on the Apollo 7. Wally Schirra, the commander, was an old-school Test pilot with little interest in the scientific side. He also had a bad cold during the mission and Mission Control found him very uncooperative. It was said that Chris Kraft and the powers at NASA decreed that none of the crew would ever fly again, and they didn’t. The moon flights went to others, some of whom went there more than once.
Wow! Maybe this article should go in a front page add in the New York Times. I ain’t rich but I’ll pony up $100 to save the world.
I meant “full” page add. Egg on face.
Well, Cunningham has just forfeited any credibility. Obviously a tool of Big Oil and Big Business. Hansen may demand that he be put on trial. Al Gore won’t send him a Christmas Card.
And the media will ignore him. The Truth may not be disputed.
Sigh… (but a whole bunch of good folks will read about it here)
Once upon a time, I worked with real NASA scientists. Maybe some are still there and have ‘the right stuff’ to shut the crap down and get back to impartial science.
I sure hope so.
This is not the first paper by Mr, Cunningham. I am very impressed that he is willing to write again as the last time the alarmist were all over him with the usual claims that he isn’t a “climate scientist”. It appears that only if you are on the team are you a “climate scientist”.
I think Mr. Cunningham is right on the mark and that he will be one of the few at NASA studing climate that will not have egg on his face. I Posted the full article on Climatebrains.com earlier today and haven’t had a refutation as yet. This is a good sign that people are starting to look at the recent works and studies to form conclusions and the warmist are having more trouble keeping people under their thumbs. If this keeps up and the energy situation doesnt have a major change I look to have some very serious political fall outs later this year.
Congratulations to Mr. Cunningham, may he keep up the good work.
Bill Derryberry
The UAH daily data for July is all in at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt and the month of July 2008 is 0.0861 C cooler than July 2007. Going to a linear regression, and predicting the 12-month deltas for Hadley, GISS, UAH and RSS, I get…
* Hadley July 2007 anomaly was 0.406
Forecast 12-month delta -0.150
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.256
* GISS July 2007 anomaly was 0.53
Forecast 12-month delta -0.151
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.38
* UAH July 2007 anomaly was 0.255
Forecast 12-month delta -0.187
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.068
* RSS July 2007 anomaly was 0.363
Forecast 12-month delta -0.171
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.192
I realize that the numbers probably imply too much precision, but I’m just regurgitating what the spreadsheet said.
I knew there were publicly credible people out there who aren’t afraid to take a stand against the current craze.
Kudos to Walter Cunningham. I trust he will be an inspiration to other scientists more interested in the truth than afraid of false censure. Maybe the tide is turning.
Smokey says: “Kudos to Walter Cunningham. I trust he will be an inspiration to other scientists more interested in the truth than afraid of false censure.”
I hate to tell you but I kinda doubt it when he is just regurgitating misleading talking points like “human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].” That’s the kind of stuff that may fly well with the non-scientific community but almost any scientist who knows, or has it explained to him, how that misleading figure was arrived at is going to be completely horrified that such arguments are being trotted out as credible arguments and is probably going to think that if this is the best that even someone like Cunningham can come up with, his case is pretty damn weak!
Going to the moon doesn’t mean you’re right.
This sentence alone: “The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.”
is indefensible.
To quote Max Planck (via Atmoz)
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.
Also, any chance you’ll be relaying [Tamino’s] take down of Spencer’s misunderstanding of forcings and equilibrium timescales?
Are you interested in promulgating internally inconsistent rejections of mainstream climate science no matter how much they disagree with one other just to give the appearance of doubt, or giving a fair presentation of the issues?
REPLY: If it were anyone else but Tamino, sure, but he’s a persona non grata around here. He won’t link to my blog except to do a drive by hit(he’s stated that policy publicly) so I don’t plan on returning the favor. Tamino also ducked McIntyre, when he took Tamino to task in clear disproving of assertions Tamino made on tree ring proxies, even after prodding. He’s not considered a much of a fair player at CA either.
So if you have anything else on the subject, not written by Tamino, feel free to show it. And I’ll go one better. You can even make a guest post yourself, but you’ll have to use your real name, since I don’t allow guest posts by phantoms.
As far as you not liking what Michell saiid, take it up with him. I won’t change the post simply because you have an opinion on it -Anthony
[…] Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss Watts Up With That? – 01 August, 2008 01 August, […]
I cannot see how Mr Cunningham’s adventures in space are relevant. If being an astronaut were a relevant factor I’m sure Dr James Hansen’s lack of experience in a large rocket would have been brought out by now. What is relevant is the substance of his argument.
Over the last few days I have ventured to RealClimate more regularly than in the past to look at articles on a variety of subjects. One point which shines through many of the articles (and editorial responses to comments) is a presumption that everything was in balance before the industrial revolution.
That is a truism if one defines “in balance” as “unaffected by industrialisation”.
But if one defines “in balance” as “stable” it is palpably untrue. All sorts of changes to the climate have occurred historically, severe heating, mild heating, severe cooling, mild cooling and everything in between.
Mr Cunningham makes many of the points I find persuasive in the debate because he does not start from the position that everything was exactly as it should be in 1750 and any variance from 1750 must be unacceptable. But, if I might say so, I did not read anything in his article that I have not read many times before.
Thingsbreak,
Tamino’s conceit isn’t peer reviewed or published.
He is also generally spinning faster than a politician. Other than that, he does not accept criticism and has few FACTS. It is getting so bad that they are now starting to dispute IPCC AR4 published detail and creating their own world.
So, is there anything else you would like to say that might mitigate some of this??
By the way, Atmoz’s quote is exactly correct. The AGWers will die off and leave us to the next Political Catastrophe.
Cunningham isn’t a tool of the oil business – he’s “in” the oil business. Check his bio beyond the glam days of NASA and you might notice he’s hooked up to offshore oil production.
“The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.”
is this the best he can do?
there is nothing new in that article and much of what he says is obviously false. extremely weak article.
Would someone please have this guy talk to our California AG Jerry Brown. Please???
Anthony, you do know this: “The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that.” is just plain wrong don’t you?
Thingsbreak says , ” This sentence alone: “The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.” is indefensible. ”
I must confess, I also found Cunningham’s attribution of CO2 rise, and falling global temperature, as a correlation indefensible.
Perhaps being aware of the scope and degree of the media brainwashing perpetrated on the public, Mr. Cunningham indulged the fib in order to avoid fatal cognitive dissonance in unsuspecting tree huggers.
That could be it.
Cunningham, while he doesn’t come straight out and say so, has zeroed in on the real problem.
The problem isn’t that AGW is politically motivated junk science. The problem is that it is United Nations sponsored politically motivated junk science.
Large numbers of people who think their national politicians are mostly crooks, think the UN is the font for all that is good and right in the world. Even admitting that AGW isn’t such a big problem (never mind it isn’t real) would force them to admit that the UN has perpetrated a gigantic fraud.
Cunningham is right. The way out of this is for a prestigous institution to redo the IPCC reports but sticking to the science and NASA would be a good candidate.