Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “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.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
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.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
When someone makes a claim you haven’t heard before, you should at least try to look for the answer before exposing your ignorance.
My ignorance? I was taught that when someone makes an assertion, it’s that person’s responsibility to back it up with evidence. Does that rule not apply at this website? I take offense at your statement that I am exposing my “ignorance,” and thought that this website frowned upon such ad hominem attacks. I’m simply asking for evidence. If you have information that the authors of the letter are referring to the information others provided in links which were cited in response to my original post, please provide it (I have a long familiarity with the source documentation provided in response to my original post and have many problems with them, but that’s a different subject). I want to know if anyone has direct knowledge of who the signatories to this letter are refrrring to when they made their assertion “hundreds of well-known climate scientists …declaring their disbelief… .” That is all.
Don’t expect even to see a news ticker story on this one.. It’s too big and too obvious that NASA has become another arm of the propoganda machine for the government.
Ironic due to the government practically neutering NASA over the last three years…
LOL, that photo of Jim Hansen getting himself arrested at the White House protesting an oil pipeline says it ALL….. He is a fanatical left-wing political activist, period. He learned early to dress up his political agitprop with a pseudo-scientific veneer, but the reason his output is so constantly flawed is that it is all designed to serve his political goals.
He doesn’t have to worry about China bringing the US economy to its knees. Obama and his cronies are doing a very good job of that already.
[snip. Labeling other commenters as “deniers” violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
The crux of the matter is that NASA, and GISS, needs the business of climate change. Their space exploration budget has been slashed. Satelites of all kinds have been deployed and many more are to come, to monitor various aspects of our climate, ice sheets, sea levels, etc. NASA must position itself well within the funding stream created by the global warming scare. NASA can’t afford to lose a fund raiser like Fudger Hansen. Until that global warming fundiing spigot is turned off, NASA will gladly wallow in climate hysteria.
Monty says:
April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am
“Where are these climate scientists who disagree with the consensus?”
Science does not advance by consensus.
Data does not have an opinion.
Computer model output is not measured data from nature.
Show me the data from nature that falsifies the null hypothesis on climate changes.
OR
Show me any directly measured data from nature that supports the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
I know that there is lots of actual data that specifically contradicts the predictions of the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
Got any supporting data?
Monty says: April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am
“It’s a bit like me (not a geologist) arguing against the consensus position re plate tectonics.”
More like: “It’s a bit like me (not a geologist) arguing against the consensus position of stable continents up until the 1950’s and suggesting something like plate tectonics”
The Consensus was Stable Continents. The Consensus was wrong.
Science does not advance by consensus.
Data does not have an opinion.
Idea: The cotenants are moving apart in the Atlantic.
Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?
Proponent: I have measured the mid-Atlantic rift and it is spreading; The Atlantic is getting wider and the Pacific is getting narrower.
Skeptic: OK.
Idea: Rising carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?
Proponent: It has been hiding in the deep ocean for 15 years and I can not find it.
Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?
[SNIP: Check the site policy. You can comment when you learn some manners. -REP]
Esteban says:
April 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm
See a major effort by Google to snuffle this one.
REPLY: Slashdot has already deleted the story I submitted to them, never had that happen before. – Anthony
____________________________________
Well that settle the question on whether or not there is censorship in the internet media, doesn’t it?
Why is it so difficult for you lot to find the names of the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who disagree with the consensus. It’s beginning to sound like these people don’t exist!
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does…
________________________________
Just start reading WUWT. You can start here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/
and here:
Potential Climatic Variables Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
Greenhouse Effect
CO2 heats the atmosphere by Tom Vonk, physicist: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
“The Greenhouse Effect” by Ben Herman and Roger Pielke Sr. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/the-greenhouse-effect-by-ben-herman-and-roger-pielke-sr/
“The Greenhouse Effect – Part II” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/“the-greenhouse-effect-–-part-ii”/
Or why “Climate Scientists” are interested in the “CAUSE” and not in science:
Over 250 noteworthy Climategate 2.0 emails: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/
Well these scientists and engineers do speak for me. I had a 40 year career as an Air Force officer assigned to NASA centers, Houston and Huntsville. Then with Aerospace contractors located at all three major NASA centers, including Cape Canaveral.
I have always believed in global warming; just as I have always believed that Gore invented the internet! LOL
For those who still believe that CO2 is a concern for our environment, plant a tree, a bush or a flower. Then lean over and breath the pure O2 that they are producing from that bad CO2. It will clear your head of the cobwebs created there by faulty thinking.
And NO! We will not read about any of this in the Lamestream Media!
Mike
It only takes one climate scientist and/or person in another discipline to expose the charade Monty. No need for hundreds. There are a number of them already smoking out the deceits as we type, so don’t worry too much about semantics at this point. Lastly, I am reminded that people like you dismissed people like us from afar for many years as crackpots not worthy of engaging. Now you post on sites like this with strident tones trying to derail discussion with side issues. I bet I could produce a good proxy and model of public opinion based on how many Monty’s there are nowadays.
Hi Tucker
You miss my point. The NASA letter talks about “hundreds of well-known climate scientists”, yet nobody has been able to tell me who they are. As a climate scientist myself, I’m intrigued. Can you tell me? Otherwise I think this is just another made-up skeptic statistic.
Thanks.
azyTeenager says:
April 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm
… What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust….
_____________________________________
You would need scientific evidence that that was the case. The science says CO2 is a minor bit player. WATER is the major Greenhouse gas and water is about 4% of the atmosphere and varies all over the place.
Graph of cosmic ray flux variation and cloud cover variation 1980 to 2003 from Dr. Nir J. Shaviv Cloud cover changes the albedo and therefore the solar insolation.
The case for Cosmic Ray influence on clouds is gaining weight in laboratory experiments too. Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-raycloud-seeding-hypothesis-is-converging-with-reality.html
The CAGW take is that CO2 acts to control water. The above shows that Cosmic Rays have a much better link to clouds than CO2 does since the CO2 link was hand wavy based on global climate models that is a computer program and not real science. NASA ~ Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature
If you want to talk Methane a much more “potent” green house gas then you had better talk about filling in swamps again. Swamps and marshes emit significant amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. Although less prevalent than carbon dioxide, methane traps 25 times more infrared radiation per molecule.
1972 is when the UN’s first Earth Summit occurred and the push to protect wetlands around the world happened. Prior to this time period people were filling in swamps and killing off the beaver who dammed up streams to form ponds and swamps. The history of draining and development of swampland dates back to the 1800′s. The city of Boston was built on swamp and coastal land that was filled in for example. Part of the zeal to fill in swamps was to destroy wetlands harboring disease-carrying mosquitoes. In the late 1800s, landowners were encouraged to drain or fill “water-logged” lands by the government.
If you look at the Global Temperature Graph you can see the filling in of wetlands from the late 1800s until the 1970s caused the temperature to start plummeting by 1945 and by protecting wetlands the temperature immediately started rising again in the 1970s. Now that we are back in a “natural balance” again the rise in temperature has stopped.
So you can certainly make the case that not continuing to fill in swamps and kill beaver is the cause of the present “Global Warming”
@Monty:
That statement was co-signed by more than 31,000 scientists and engineers, including more than 9,000 PhD’s.
The list of co-signers is here, in alphabetical order. Feel free to pick out the hundreds of names working in the climate field, because I’m not taking your homework assignments.
From Monty on April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am:
Ah Monty, posting in flagrant disregard of site policy. I shall assume the moderators are letting your comments through due to the humor value.
You were already given the link to the Global Warming Petition Project here, which states on the front page:
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
The text of the Petition is quite clear:
So the “catastrophic” part is soundly rejected.
You can review their qualifications easily. It’s a US-circulated petition, there are tabs to the lists of signers by state and by name.
There is also a 12-page review article, Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research, using 132 references. That should get you started.
But then you already loudly declared, which would include the Global Warming Petition Project in your screech (bold added):
All the links have sent me to denier sites listing a few engineers, geologists and physicists, none of whom (AFAIK) work in climate science.
Only takes a brief look at the Qualifications and how they directly and indirectly relate to climate science, and how there’s far many more than “a few”, to see who’s really doing the denying here.
Ah Monty, there’s hope for you yet. Just keep ignoring the Inconvenient Truths like Hansen and cronies, show your dedication to The Cause and your absolute willingness to stick to the narrative, and maybe someday somewhere some small college will reward you by naming a Hall in your honor.
OOPs my links for Graph of cosmic ray flux variation and cloud cover variation 1980 to 2003 from Dr. Nir J. Shaviv Cloud cover changes the albedo and therefore the solar insolation.
did not work.
Graph: http://sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig3.jpg
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv: http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Arno Arrak says: @ur momisugly April 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm
…They also control publication of scientific articles and are blocking any contrary reports from being published as Climategate proved. Proof that their claim is false comes from Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist who used to work for NASA. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010)….
________________________
For those interested in following up on that point.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global averageatmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness,” Energy & Environment, 21(4):243-262 (2010) @ur momisugly http://miskolczi.webs.com/
Blog with explanation of Mikskolczi’s theory: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1244
None of the signatories are climate scientists. They are just repeating right-wing talking points based on industry demands.
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“Still waiting for the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who don’t accept the consensus AGW position. ”
As typical of trolls, you misquoted the authors of the letter in order to create a strawman out of nothing. Now you explain to the other posters where the letter states that there are “hundreds of climate scientists who don’t accept the consensus AGW position?”
Let me help you out. The actual words are “hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts,”
In other words, the actual letter (not the one that exits in your imagination) describes scientists declaring their disbelief in “catastrophic forecasts.” There are only a few scientists holding these extreme beliefs – Hansen, Schmidt, Santer, Jones, Mann and other members of the “team”. Therefore, by elimination, the majority of climate scientists must hold the altogether more moderate view that CO2 will lead to some warming, but not catastrophic warming.
That’s all the authors are saying. As some posters have pointed out – a letter of the blindlingly obvious.
I suggest you make a list of all the ones that are NOT climate scientists. Tnen make a list (it does not have to be comprehensive) of who you consider to be climate science.
If you would like to save some time, just list those with a doctorate in Climate Science.
Hi Vince
Tell me what are ‘catastrophic forecasts’. Does 4C warming by 2100 count? Or 1-2m sea level rise? Just because lots of people (whose qualifications can’t be ascertained) have signed a letter proves nothing. Remember the Oregon Petition? Also a load of rubbish. When we have bona fide climate scientists (you know…with PhDs in a relevant science, peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals) saying that AGW isn’t happening then I might take a bit of notice. All you have here is a bunch of right-wingers pretending that there are “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who disagree with the consensus. There aren’t.
There are some obscure scientists writing rubbish in obscure journals (Energy and Environment etc) and a few crackpot physicists trying to make names for themselves….but that’s about it.
Johnnythelowery says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:30 pm
AGW Isn’t true yet. It might be but we don’t care. Because at his point in time it most certainly is not. NASA does have credibility which can dissappear once it becomes a cover for abuse. We’ve been abused and the architects of the climate of suppresion should go. Science has no place for such……Um….Goebells, Goering: quickly, what’s the bloody word i’m trying to think of here???
__________________
Lysenkoism Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [1898-1976]