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:
From Peter on April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm:
How wonderful! You just accused someone of going around and getting signatures on an important document from old likely-senile people. Your mother would be so proud of you! Shall you now speculate on how many life insurance proceeds and estates Mr. Steward got signed over to himself at the same time?
Nate, any Dunning-Kreuger tendencies on the part of these guys are far overshadowed by the confirmation bias of the Climate Change Cult, and those who bankroll them with our tax dollars …
… being that this “climate crises” gives the bankrollers great emotional cover for remaking our society, to reflect their disdain for private enterprise and their desire to jam their socio-economic morality down all our throats …
… as if they are experts in every area of the lives of 300 million individual Americans.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that even one contradictory point of evidence denies a theory the status of “fact” … and the evidence of human-induced climate change that has been presented to date is chock-full of contradictions and ambiguities that irritate the common sense of those who will have to LIVE with the impositions upon their liberty that the alarmists seek to implement.
And also keep in mind that all the money and attention the Climate Change Cult soaks up, might be better used elsewhere to interdict PROVEN environmental threats … not to mention that the economic impacts of implementing the alarmist agenda can easily have a net negative effect upon the environment, as people’s attention becomes more acutely focused on their economic well-being.
Our prosperity frees us to think environmentally … OTOH, when people are wondering where their next meal is coming from, they are more likely to fillet Willy, than free him.
Nate says:
“The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less.”
Key says:
“Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science.”
Both of these statements seem to suggest that climate science doesn’t include paleoclimatology and that paleoclimatology isn’t part of geology.
Peter, I’d enjoy seeing you say that to an astronaut’s face.
Buzz Aldrin at 70. Noah Webster and many others did their best work after their seventh decade.
If Hansen has been part of a fraud, then he does not deserve a golden watch.
Smokey-
Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day. That’s the only time the drum stops, the whip is lowered and we get to release our oars. During said breaks Nate and other civil servants sometimes surf the Web. Nate’s home now. Hope that makes you tinkle, too.
Nate
Many believe that, if an endeavor has “non-profit” status, those involved are inherently more trustworthy and noble than those whose publicly-stated intention is to make a profit.
Greed and self-service, however, do not require the filing of a 1040 Schedule C or a NYSE listing as prerequisites … all it requires is for one to be dependent upon funding from those who have an agenda to push.
So alarmists, spare us the “industry spokesmen” canards … I’d say the gentlemen who signed this letter are less susceptible to the corrosive effects of greed, than those whose meal tickets are derived from global-warming “research” funding that will dry up unless it feeds the confirmation bias of those writing the checks.
And one other thing … spare us the appeals to “expert” authority.
One of the most corrosive influences upon what has made Western civilization work to date is, over the last century or so, the replacement of a healthy respect for the work of experts as we manage our own lives, testing expert opinion against common sense and making the decisions ourselves …
… with the blind worship of, and subordination to, those who possess expert credentials as if they are so omniscient and infallible that they are capable of managing our lives by remote control in excruciating detail.
Keep in mind, that we’re talking about managing 300 MILLION American lives. Compared to that, going to the moon was a mere exercise in LEGO(TM) building.
The biggest problem, IMO, we face as a nation is the continued outsourcing of individual decision-making authority, personal responsibility, and resources to a relative few who … merely because they possess certain credentials … are not only considered beyond challenge, but are now trusted to solve even the most individual-specific of problems FOR us from the top down.
As if they could. As if we had a government that was structurally capable of doing so.
Everything else … the economy, the debt, the spending, the health care mess … are all symptoms of this.
The alarmists need to fully understand Callahan’s Principle of Leadership …
… a man’s got to know his limitations.
joeldshore says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Pointman says: “Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter?” …There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?
———————————-
Not getting any of this, are you, joel? The real point of the letter is that it’s Alarmism that’s nothing more than a “few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions” and that NASA’s cowtowing to this pseudoscientific sham is destroying whatever reputation it still has. You may not like the message, but it’s quite clear and lest you’ve forgotten, it’s still up to you, theWarmie muppets, to present at least one sound piece of evidence.
Nate says:
April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
“Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day.”
In that case, remind your GISS co-workers that they’re gtiving you a bad name: Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are constantly posting on their RealClimatePropaganda blog 24/7. And of course, the execrable self-serving climate charlatan James Hansen is making NASA look like a lunatic asylum.
Who in their right mind would want to be associated with such thoroughly corrupt individuals? If you don’t think they’re making the rest of you look bad, then you’ve got your blinkers on.
These are some heavy hitters. Nasa has not been doing much lately though.
This brings to my mind a fundamental issue I have with all the US Government Warmista nonsense:
Isn’t the proper agency to be concerned about “climate change” AKA GLOBAL WARMING, NOAA, not NASA?
Isn’t the proper agency to be concerned about rocketry development NASA’s GODDARD Institute, GISS, named after the famous EXPERIMENTOR?
But NOOOOOO … NASA is now all about Muslim accomadation, and nothing about space exploration.
Problem is, if NASA finally gets the message, when funding stops, but not with this government, then Hansen is out and GAVIN will likely replace him. The only way to avoid this political problem is to close down GISS and open up the Goddard Institute of Space Rocketry….. and do something useful.
DirkH says:
April 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Please explain why Mars is so cold. It has 95% CO2 in the atmosphere.
What killed all the dinosaurs that created such an outpouring of the dreaded CO2?
Hi Smokey.
I perused your list of ‘650 international scientists’ who disagree with the concensus, courtesy of Mike Morano. Seems a small number in the scheme of things. And I came across the name of Alan Titchmarsh (Morano mis-spells Alan’s surname). Now you may not know the name over there, however Alan is a thoroughly decent human being and something of a national treasure in the UK, his main claim to prominence being his stint as the presenter of the BBC’s weekly ‘Gardener’s World’ slot. When he is not advising on getting your early potatoes in, Alan writes popular novels and memoirs (E.g. ‘Trowel and Error’ geddit?) and lately his career has blossomed into the daytime TV chat space.
Alan has several honorary degrees however I was previously was unaware of his contributions or publications in the field of climate science. Can you enlighten us?
http://www.alantitchmarsh.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Titchmarsh
Have I made an error? Is there another Alan Titchmarsh who is actually an ‘international scientist’? Or is Morano equating celebrity TV gardeners with scientists in his desperation?
Wise up, dude. You’ve been had.
From Nate on April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm:
Uh-oh! Sounds like someone has a crush on Smokey! That is soooo cute!
I hope Nate is not embarrassed by Nate’s affection being revealed. Nate’s pretending that Nate is upset with Smokey is so precious, I hope Nate keeps up Nate’s playful banter. Nate should realize how cute Nate’s pretend anger is to watch, Nate should be proud of Nate for Nate’s clever wordplay!
And the collective number of peer reviewed science articles on climate from these guys is……still waiting?
I personally know a couple of the guys who signed this letter, and I appreciate their effort to send this letter.
Smokey sez-
Nate says:
April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
“Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day.”
In that case, remind your GISS co-workers that they’re gtiving you a bad name: Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are constantly posting on their RealClimatePropaganda blog 24/7. And of course, the execrable self-serving climate charlatan James Hansen is making NASA look like a lunatic asylum.
Who in their right mind would want to be associated with such thoroughly corrupt individuals? If you don’t think they’re making the rest of you look bad, then you’ve got your blinkers on.
Smokey-
Scientific discourse does not usually involve a lot of hatred. Controversy and debate, sure, but out-and-out loathing occurs only rarely. Out of the exactly two GISS staff members that I’ve met and talked to over the years, the emotionally laden adjectives “execrable,” “self-serving,” “lunatic,” and “corrupt” did not cross my mind. Nor have they since. In fact, both were quite personable and polite, as well as professional and very knowledgeable. Both were engaging to converse with, and one in particular was actually rather humorous at times. Both were fun and interesting people to talk to. In summary- No, they don’t make me, or any of us at NASA look bad.
As for my blinkers being on, even though I’m a pot-bellied, graying, fifty-something, I still don’t drive down the freeway with my turn signals flashing interminably. I’m not that old yet. At least I have something to look forward to.
Nate
BTW, you may want to have a gander at NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Abdalti’s response to the subject at hand. It’s located here- http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679 . It’s both restrained and logical.
Nate says:
“Scientific discourse does not usually involve a lot of hatred. Controversy and debate, sure, but out-and-out loathing occurs only rarely.”
Apparently you have never read the Climategate I and Climategate II emails. Because they are jam-packed with hatred, loathing, animosity and revulsion coming from the alarmist clique and directed at scientific skeptics, who have the temerity to say, “Show us your data, methods, metadata and methodologies.”
Read the emails, at least what you can stomach of them. From Hansen on down they are pseudo-scientific climate charlatans, bewildered by the fact that the planet is falsifying their belief system. So they direct their hatred and anger at skeptics, who are at most guilty of simply saying, “Show us.”
Wake me the day they stop ignoring the scientific method.
Phil Clarke says:
“I perused your list of ’650 [sic] international scientists’ who disagree with the concensus [sic], courtesy of Mike Morano.” Wrong, Phil. Check your reading comprehension. I got my links from the source, not from Morano. And of course you’re referring to the smaller Senate list, with several hundred scientists. The OISM co-signers are in the tens of thousands. Your side has tried repeatedly to get counter-OISM petitions signed, and you have failed miserably. The ‘consensus’ fact [for what it’s worth] is that skeptical scientists are in the great majority, and the alarmist clique is really a small minority riding the grant gravy train.
And you say:
“Have I made an error? Is there another Alan Titchmarsh who is actually an ‘international scientist’? Or is Morano equating celebrity TV gardeners with scientists in his desperation?”
You are asking me if I know one of the 31,000+ OISM scientists? Or everyone on the Senate list? FYI, I never heard of that particular talking head before today. And you’re asking me about Morano, someone whose name you brought up?? Why don’t you go ask him what he thinks? I’m not his mind-reader.
In any case, if one out of 31,000+ is the best you can do [or even one out of hundreds], you’ve been had. You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you? It’s time you wised up: you lost this particular debate a long time ago. And work on that reading comprehension, ‘K? Thx, bye.
Nate says:
What a wonderful and incredibly apt quote. Asimov was a wise man.
If Isaac Asimov was here today there is no doubt he would apply his quote directly to the climate alarmist contingent, which has no intellect, but only fact-free gut feelings and grant hunger. He would be referring, of course, to the anti-intellectual climate idiocracy that demonizes “carbon” [by which they ignorantly refer to CO2, a trace gas].
[SNIP: Check site policy and resubmit when you’ve learned some manners. -REP]
“Key says:
April 11, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science. Oh well, that’s irrelevant.”
Now that’s funny. Those 50 NASA employees figured out you couldn’t use black body calculation to calculate the surface temperature of the moon. If they had they would have been off by some 20%. Co2 dives the climate hypotheses is based on black body calculation. Do you think it to could be off by some 20% from the get go? How about the fact there is no “hot spot” and the “extra heat” in the oceans is still missing. Lets not forget that cloud/water vapor “positive feedback” only lives inside a computer. And you still belive co2 drives the climate.
Smokey says:
April 11, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I’m sure he’d be pleased with the warmistas’ steadfast refusal to release their data, too.
/sarc. (roll eyes!)