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:
Monty says:
April 11, 2012 at 9:57 am
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.
_______________
Ah, Monty…
So , you’re a “climate scientist”?
Perhaps you can tell us exactly what a climate scientist is, since there seems to be some confusion about that point.
How about these well- known team players from the your alarmist world, are they “climate scientists”, too?
Here’s your list:
Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, James Hansen…
Oh, by the way, your posts in this thread are a what’s what of logical fallacies. Just thought you might like to know that we’re on to such blatant attempts to twist the truth.
Awaiting your response…
Regards,
L.
Hi Luther
Oh you can do this……a climate scientist is someone who studies the climate. Simple isn’t it!
There are no alarmists….just scientists who accept that climate sensitivity is around 2-4C and that 2100 temperatures will be around 3-4C higher than now. As a climate scientist that seems pretty alarming to me….is this being alarmist?
What a group of NASA engineers do or do not think about the climate is irrelevant until they start publishing relevant science in serious journals. Then they should be taken seriously.
Mike says:
“Harrison Schmitt who the letter defers to on the science is a former Republican senator and long time anti-environmentalist activists. He says it is all a communist plot: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” See Wikipedia.”
You forget to mention that Dr. Schmitt has a Ph.D from Harvard in Geology and taught as a university professor. Given that Wikipedia is noted as biased, it neglects to mention that the comments regarding communism were mainly regarding John Holdren. Along with Paul Ehrlich (who has never been right about just about anything) Holdren wrote such statements as:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives
These don’t seem like the writings of someone who believes in Democracy. They seem rather, shall we say, communistic?
Leo Morgan says:
April 11, 2012 at 4:51 am
Of course, much depends on your definition of ‘climate scientist’. Do you want to include railroad
engineer Pachuri? What about that PhD in Environmental Science, Phil Jones?
Personally I accept that Climate Science is a multidisciplinary field, involving geologists, statisticians, meteorologists, computer scientists, physicists and others. And I accept that when people in these fields comment on the errors of the climate modellers, then the commentators are acting as climate scientists. I further accept that they are generally more expert in these fields than the soi-disant ‘climate scientists’.
_________________________
Do not forget the guy before Pachuri, Robert Watson ( PhD in Chemistry) who was also the head of IPCC. He worked for the World Bank at the same time. Remember the World Bank?
Money talks especially when it is the World Bank.
Monty says:
April 11, 2012 at 9:12 am
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!
___________________________
And it seems you can not read.
Go back and look for the answer to your trolling in the already posted comments. I can not bother to.
Troll Monty,
Here is a list of 579 Atmospheric scientists, including 343 in Meteorology and 39 in Climatology. They are all climate scientists, no? Because they are paid to study the climate. Certainly they are climate scientists compared with corrupt grant sucking stooges like Michael Mann, Peter Gleick and Phil Jones.
Here are a hundred more. And here are 400 more from around the world. They are all on record as rejecting your catastrophic AGW nonsense.
Now that your bluff has been called, I challenge you to produce a list of hundreds of alarmist scientists who are on record as believing the CAGW nonsense you’re posting. Ball’s in your court, bub. Put up or shut up.
Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
Who would have thunk it eh?
Cheers Comrades
Hi Smokey
So how credible are these lists? Anyone doing any checking? Maybe it’s a job for Steve McIntyre. The NASA letter said there were ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists. Provide me with a list of ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists (ie all with PhDs in relevant subjects and all with credible publication records).
You can’t can you….despite all your bluster.
Monty- By your definition of a ‘climate scientist”, then I am a climate scientist, also.
Your posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything.
Monty says:
April 11, 2012 at 11:55 am
Hi Smokey
So how credible are these lists? Anyone doing any checking? Maybe it’s a job for Steve McIntyre. The NASA letter said there were ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists. Provide me with a list of ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists (ie all with PhDs in relevant subjects and all with credible publication records).
You can’t can you….despite all your bluster.
_________________________________
If you are so darn interested I am sure Dr Robinson can provide you with the information if you pay him for his time. You can write him at:
Dr Robinson
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
2251 Dick George Road,
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523
However I doubt if you really care or are willing to pay to get the information.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
When the 90% chance is based solely on100% inaccurate computer model predictions?
Want to invest in some great beach front property in Arizona? Call 1-800-TOO-WARM
Troll Monty,
It’s bluster if I couldn’t produce names. But I did, and more than you asked for.
Speaking of bluster, I challenged you to produce a list of scientists who are on record as believing in your catastrophic AGW nonsense. You can’t produce it, can you, blusterboi?
And of course the lists I provided are credible. The 400 names were read into the official Minutes of the U.S. Senate. The jerkwad alarmist contingent scrutinized those names very closely, hoping to find someone, anyone, who didn’t qualify. But they came up empty-handed. And the OISM Petition Project has been gone over with a fine toothed comb. Every one of the 31,000+ names now on it are legitimate and verified. Furthermore, those scientists could not just email in their co-signed petition. They had to print it out and send it by U.S. mail, with their original signature and contact information. The signers were then verified.
The fact is that the great majority of scientists know that the CAGW nonsense is completely grant driven. Nothing unusual is happening. If you disagree, and you believe that the majority of scientists buy into the same nonsense you believe, then it should be very easy to put together a list of names verifying that. But you can’t, can you?
At this point, nothing except a verifiable list of CAGW true believers along with their credentials will make your comments credible. So put up or shut up. Anything else is impotent bluster.
[snip. You’re saying the same thing over and over; threadbombing. I suggest you read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
[snip]
Then you have already lost unless you can prove that each and every one of those 31k people have never studied climate. We await your proof they never have.
For my Ph.D. dissertation research, which involved air pollution modeling, I had to learn enough micro- and mesoscale meteorology and atmospheric chemistry to fully understand what I was doing. That being said, I would never critique an experienced, qualified, and credentialed climate scientist’s work. That work is done at the macro scale, both spatially and temporally, and I simply don’t know enough about it to offer meaningful and valid criticism.
I’d be even more reticent to critique the work astronauts, mission controllers, and spacecraft engineers; all areas where I have no expertise.
The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less. Even the guy who calls himself a meteorologist is not, in fact, a meteorologist. He has an undergraduate degree in sociology and political science from NYU, where he dabbled in meteorology.
This is yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. These people have embarrassed themselves, not the Agency.
A current Civil Service NASA scientist
(but not a climatologist)
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov
DirkH says: “I thought you wanted to imply that Venus’ hot atmosphere were proof of CO2 induced warming…”
I wouldn never do that, because the albido of Venusian clouds is so great that the reflected sunlight on that planet make it the third brightest object in the sky much of the time, after the sun and moon (at apparent mag ~4, if I recall). That does not leave a lot of sunlight to melt lead at the surface of Venus, no matter how much co2 you add. Not in my view.
Nate says:
“The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less.”
Nate knows no more about climatology than the average long-term reader of this site, and probably less.
Nate signs himself as: A current Civil Service NASA scientist
Isn’t it nice to know that NASA personnel are free to read blogs and post comments during their work day? As a taxpayer that sends a little tingle up my leg. How wonderful for Nate that he gets to screw off on my dime.
[/sarc]
Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science. Oh well, that’s irrelevant.
Key says:
“Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science.”
And how, exactly, would you know that?
Are any of the people who signed this thing under the age of 75?
Certainly none of the astronauts here has been on a space mission since Skylab.. four decades ago! This list doesn’t exactly ring of sharp young engineering minds. It sounds like Mr. H. Leighton Steward found these guys drooling in their retirement homes.
I’d rather he be fired with prejudice. I’m certain all his speaking engagements will finance his retirement just fine, I’d rather not see him collect a pension while I will never see a dime of social security.
Peter, Peter peter…
You and Nate are young guns – full of yourselves. Take a hint. Some of us old farts still have some brains – ya might want to quit talking and listen occasionally.
AOL has picked up the story and has it on line – haven’t looked at the comments, but will report back.
Also thanks to those who responded to my history – glad I gave you a foundation to work from.
Mike Bentley
Peter vomited: April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
“It sounds like Mr. H. Leighton Steward found these guys drooling in their retirement homes”
—
Peter, this is the style of non-fact that forms the foundation of all the computer models that support the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
What you need to do is write a computer program that outputs your statement and then ask 89 other climate scientists what the program has produced as output. If 87 of them can read then you will get a 98% consensus.
“Thar she blows, Man the wiki, Ready the Ad hominem, Fire at will”