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:
[SNIP: Inappropriate. -REP]
Michael Creighten’s ”State of Fear” novel in ’04 or so makes a fictional/prophetic interpretation of the desperate mindset of the greenies + climate changers, with a lot of solid research and footnotes. Comics are going to try to boil this down to a Dan Quail ‘potato’ personal destruction moment for these outstanding and brave heroes. Their other tool in this arsenal is to spike this story,…= ignore it to death. Let’s keep it alive!
These scientist types need a descent hearing , and maybe a big name type spokesperson to bring in some attention. Too bad Hollywood has been bought + sold like some brainwashed lemmings.
Thank you guys in doing this! This is the NASA which allow us to walk on the Moon! Science not bullshits
According to bestplacestowork.org, the number of employyes working for NASA in 2006 was 17, 059. The URL to this information is : http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=NN00&q=scores_large
That is the latest information I could find. some of those guys are in their 90’s, my Dad is 94 and will sign anything you put in front of him… they only got 50 signatures out of 50-60k… wow that seems low…
[REPLY: Your first comment here and the best you can do is denigrate a group of American heroes on the basis of their age from the safety of your anonymity. That is real class. -REP]
This is a great development.
However, where is Ollie K. Emmanuel ?
He’s been outspoken on this for longer than anyone else I can remember.
As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus is wrong. I don’t know how to build a rocket, and the NASA engineers don’t know much about climate change. Seems like WUWT will grasp at any old straw as long as it’s peddling the same anti-AGW message. That’s why the term ‘skeptic’ doesn’t quite describe you all!
Smokey – the list most certainly was collated by Morano, who has to re-classify film-makers, Celebrity TV Gardeners and the like as ‘scientists’ to get his numbers up (if you read the quote from Titchmarsh, it is clear that he is not actually ‘sceptical’, either). A single example – and there are many more – is sufficient to show dishonesty.
Similarly the ‘Petition Project’ includes medical doctors, nurses, chiropracters and vetinarians and the like in its ‘tens of thousands’. Most have a degree in some branch of engineering rather than a hard science. And more dishonesty – the petition included a fake ‘scientific paper’ in the mailshot.
As with the NASA letter the number of people who signed is a lot less than 1% of those eligible to do so. Hardly convincing.
Contrast this with, say, IPCC WG1, the Physical Science basis, which is the work of over 700 practicising climatologists, or the fact that every professional association of scientists on the planet, including the National Academies of Science endorses the IPCC statements, and it is clear that your idealogy has quite a mountain to scale in the area of scientific opinion.
Monty says:
April 12, 2012 at 1:34 am
Funny! Thanks for the chuckle.
As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus is wrong means nothing to the true believers of the Climate Change Cult, intellectual honesty be damned. I don’t know how to build a rocket or how to exercise common sense in evaluating the assertions of :”scientists” that may have a vested interest in promoting a certain agenda, and the NASA engineers don’t support my preconceptions and biases, so as an expert in those preconceptions and biases I must conclude that they don’t know much about climate change. Seems like WUWT will grasp at any old straw as long as it’s peddling I have to strain at every gnat to shill for the same anti-AGW-alarmist, anti-free-enterprise, pro-nanny-state message. That’s why the term ‘skeptic’ “reasonable” doesn’t quite describe you all!me and the other true believers in the Climate Change Cult.
Edited for accuracy. Straining at gnats to justify appeals to authority is a characteristic of sheep.
Strain strain strain … strain those gnats!
Then fling ’em out, see if they’ll stick
From wherever you’re at …
As you swallow camels of dysfunction
‘Till your belly’s fat …
Strain strain strain … strain those gnats!
Phil Clarke says:
April 12, 2012 at 1:46 am
Hey, Phil! How’s it goin’, bud? Two questions for ya: First, Why is Mars so cold, and secondly, where are all the SUVs that produced all the CO2? LOL! Have fun!
Looks like the “strike” tags don’t work here … here is how my “edit” should be read:
As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus means nothing to the true believers of the Climate Change Cult, intellectual honesty be damned. I don’t know how to build a rocket or how to exercise common sense in evaluating the assertions of ”scientists” that may have a vested interest in promoting a certain agenda, and the NASA engineers don’t support my preconceptions and biases, so as an expert in those preconceptions and biases I must conclude that they don’t know much about climate change. Seems like I have to strain at every gnat to shill for the same anti-AGW-alarmist, anti-free-enterprise, pro-nanny-state message. That’s why the term “reasonable” doesn’t quite describe me and the other true believers in the Climate Change Cult.
Never forget, that earlier in history the expert authorities promoted the idea that the earth was flat, and expressed alarm about those who might sail too far and fall off the edge …
Like wild animals backed in a corner, the apologists are panicking. Gnashing of teeth, grasping at any thread to discredit in any way ( not using any science of course ). It gives me no joy to see them slip beneath the waves of a shifting paradigm and the public understanding of the unsubstantiated claims of predicted doom. If only we could get back the wasted time and money.
Perhaps I am making an “ad hominem” argument. Regardless, I don’t think the quasi-scientific musings of a group of 80-year old men merits serious consideration, particularly when said group of 80-year old men has no particular expertise, recent research experience or recent education in this area of study.
[Reply: “Perhaps I am making an ‘ad hominem’ argument.” You are. Eighty is the new 60, and American astronauts are true heroes. Smearing them reflects only on the commentator. If Peter’s argument is the best argument he can make, it explains why the warmist crowd is on the ropes. -mod.]
@ur momisugly Nate says:
>>That being said, I would never critique an experienced, qualified, and credentialed climate scientist’s work.
Nate;
You should re-read the letter. The letter does not “critique” the work of anyone. All it says is that the science remains unproven, which is true. As such, it is not appropriate for NASA (a science agency) to be taking an advocacy position.
Phil Clarke,
Thanx for your unsupported belief system. Did you make that up yourself, or did you get help from Monty [or should I say Richard?]. Or Maybe from Nate, the NASA tax sponge who posts throughout the workday?
. . .
@Peter:
You are a moron. Your pals know that, but we didn’t… until you commented.
Over on RC:
[Response: Love the way that 49 retired astronauts and administrators (and one meteorologist) suddenly become some all-encompassing ‘NASA scientists’. Especially since they haven’t actually provided any specific example of what they are complaining about, and despite the fact they are calling for the bureaucracy to censor the ability of real NASA scientists to talk about their work. This is ably dissected here. – gavin]
Gavin’s ”here” links to:
“Ah yes, the ever-more-popular goalpost shift of “catastrophic climate change”. The letter of course provides no examples of NASA GISS public releases or websites claiming that CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change” – Dana Nuccitelli, Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff
Ok, so, they’re advocating global carbon dioxide emissions reductions to avoid beneficial climate change or possibly inconvenient climate change. No, NASA GISS makes it clear they believe climate change is human induced and catastrophic.
“The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient — it is a prescription for disaster.”
By James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato — July 2011
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/
”More Floods Ahead: Adapting to Sea Level Rise in New York City”
By Cynthia Rosenzweig, Vivien Gornitz, Radley Horton, Daniel Bader, and Richard Goldberg — April 2011
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_03/
“Our planet is heating up, largely due to atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. As mountain glaciers melt, ice sheets thin, and oceans warm, sea level rise is accelerating. As sea level rises, urban areas near the coast like New York City will undergo more frequent and intense episodic flooding following major storms, as well as permanent inundation of some low-lying areas. “
”Warming Climate is Changing Life on Global Scale”
By Cynthia Rosenzweig — December 2008
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_02/
“A vast array of physical and biological systems across the Earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by human activity. These impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans’ plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.”
Phil Clarke,
“Contrast this with, say, IPCC WG1, the Physical Science basis, which is the work of over 700 practicising climatologists, ”
Yes and no. Sure, WG1 references the work of scientific papers which have over 700 contributing authors among them. But no, they don’t actually write the words that go into the IPCC document known as WG1, much less the summary for policy makers. Chapter nine, for example, has about 20 authors, and I think about 5 or 6 lead authors. The authors write the early drafts, and the lead authors revise and edit them.
The best way to think of the project is like a student who writes an essay referencing a bunch of scientific literature. The student can say pretty much what he wants to, so long as he can cite the evidence, and a good writer can support opposite conclusions on a single topic. Nobody would claim that the students essay was written by a hundred scientists just because that was the sum total of the authors of the cited material – would they? Well, only if they were propagandists.
If you actually look closely at the names in that oh-so-famous-700-list, you find something interesting too. Names like Richard Lindzen and John Christy, Akasofu and many other skeptics pop up. So the idea that there are 700 climate scientists all agreeing on catastrophic global warming is wrong on just so many levels, it never ceases to amaze how many people fall for it – especially those who have been regular visitors at WUWT. There’s really no excuse, is there?
Monty says:
April 11, 2012 at 10:53 am
“Hi Vince
Tell me what are ‘catastrophic forecasts’. Does 4C warming by 2100 count? Or 1-2m sea level rise?”
Catastrophic forecasts are those that warn of catastrophe. What does that mean? Some examples include Hansens warning that NY will be under water by the year 2000, and forecasting of Sea Level rises of tens of metres by 2100. Other’s include the destruction of the Amazon rain forests, a sixth great extinction, billions of climate refugees, the turning of the American mid west to desert, human extinction.
“Just because lots of people (whose qualifications can’t be ascertained) have signed a letter proves nothing. ”
If NASA is pushing catastrophic global warming (they are) which is unsupported by scientific data (it is) then the veracity of the authors petition stands. Remember, most of the evidence for catastrophe, if you can use the word “evidence”, comes from non peer reviewed literature in the IPCC, most of it written by enviromental lobby groups. and the remainder comes from a few outlying scientists such as Hansen. Surely you know that. Your citation of 4C is a red herring, a number plucked at random from a bunch of computer models. And 1-2m sea level rise. Where does that come from? Not from science – the IPCC upper limit is 59cm.
“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 ”
Bona fide like Richard Lindzen, you mean? Or Akasofu, Pielke sr, Christy, Spencer, Loehle, Tisdale, Scafetta, Douglass, Choi,
[Snip. Labeling all commenters with a different scientific point of view as “deniers” violates site Policy. You are no one special. Please review this site’s Policy and abide by it, or post your personal attacks elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]
Vince – a couple of corrections. Firstly the number of contributing authors to WG1 was 619. I misremembered the total including reviewers. Apologies. Secondly, these are NOT just authors and co authors of the souce papers (that number would likely be a lot higher), they prepare the
text, data and graphics that make up the IPCC report itself. It seems unlikely that they dissent in any large number or degree from the conclusions. Jim Prall has collated a chart of the most-cited climatologists, including the 619.
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
Concensus is a slippery thing – how many Biologists feel the need to proclaim the consensus on evolution? However Roger Pielke Snr produced a survey which found:-
1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the 2007 Report.
2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2.
3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.
That 97% again ……
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1-by-brown-et-al-2008/
A Lacis says:
April 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………
Evidence?
There might be a test here to be made.
If one infer that the climate doodeling super computer by Hansen et al functions like a space flight and navigation computer system (they do try so hard to steer where future funding goes after all) one could ask how many astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts, would want their space vehicle software to be recoded by GISS-Guys and an essay as to why…not?
Bart,
I’m a woodworker by trade and this is my first post here. Please excuse my layman-ship. As a former believer in climate warming/change I must say to Phil, Monty, Nate et al. At some point you
have to show me some “bodies”. In the beginning “bodies” were strewn all over the place, Mt. Kilamanjaro pics, polar bears and all sorts of believable data/predictions about rising sea levels and temperartures. You had me! But then Gores movie came out and upon further review hmmm…. well maybe it’s not so clear. Well there would have to be some “bodies” turning up soon with all of the scientific community behind climate warming/change. Yet no “bodies”, the Maldives
,Vanatu, Bangladesh are still above sea level. Polar bears still intact. Tornado’s/hurricanes at or below recorded historical/recorded levels. Not one direct weather/climate event can/has been directly related to mans influence in almost 40yrs of climate scientists sounding the alarm. So in the end counselor’s if we are going to proceed with case I will need the prosecution to produce a body.
Cheers
Bart
[snip. Your name-calling of others here gets your comment snipped. ~dbs, mod.]