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:
Richard S Courtney says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am
Har! Har!
When I ask for the scientific references where the scientific evidence can be found for the assertion that a large contribution of the warming since the mid 70ies or so comes from PDO as natural phenomenon, I am told to “Google”? Right.
Well, for the esoteric stuff you need to go to the literature. For mainstream stuff like the PDO being a strong warming influence, Goog will do just fine. Or even beastly wiki . . .
Also, as a lukewarmer, I have no doubt there has been some GHG influence on overall warming. But you’d have to factor out the PDO (plus whatever else) to determine it.
evanmjones (and other lukewarmers) – do you agree with this statement from Steve Mosher “And as you all know the lukewarmer position ( sensitivity more more likely to be less than 3C than greater than 3C) is already the IPCC position ”
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/04/13/pay-no-mind-to-these-harassed-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-106354
I’m just curious to know what sort of spread of sensitivity those that self define as lukewarm sign up to.
REPLY – I’m a lot less warm than that! I define lukewarmers as (tentatively) buying into the basic forcing, but WITHOUT the positive feedbacks. ~ Evan
Jan P. Perlwitz:
At April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am I replied to your post at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am and I then explained how your post clearly and unambiguously demonstrated you are a pseudoscientist.
You have not replied (which is not surprising).
This morning at April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am (before going to fulfil duties much more important than trying to educate a pseudoscientist), I presented a post that
(a) pointed out the nature of your pseudoscience
and
(b) reminded of the threats made against adherents to science by supporters of your pseudoscience; see e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/02/rewriting-history-treatment-of-sceptics-disappears-from-university-of-oregon-press-statement/
And you have responded to that at April 15, 2012 at 6:43 am.
I ask everybody to read that response although it is both fatuous and childish.
For a start you say;
“And this is another one of the alleged “scientific arguments”? It’s an opinion statement where you make an assertion about how I allegedly would view science and construct models. An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.”
Firstly, of course I was making a comment and not a scientific argument. It was a comment ABOUT your science. Comments about science are normal in all scientific forums; e.g. the journals Nature and Science have editorial and comment sections.
Secondly, it is an opinion about your science which is fully justified by evidence presented by me to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm in this thread where I wrote;
“For a recent example of a scientific argument supported by referenced data on this blog see my post of today at April 13, 2012 at 6:42 am in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/pat-michaels-on-the-death-of-credibility-in-the-journal-nature/”
Anybody who checks that reference can see I did NOT provide “An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.” I made a factual statement about your science (n.b. not an ad hominem) that was fully justified by evidence which I had already presented in this thread.
So, either you did not check that reference or you have deliberately stated a falsehood by claiming I made “An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.”
Personally, I think you failed to check the reference (because your arrogance is such that you are unwilling to learn anything from anybody) but I could be wrong about that so you may have lied.
Then you say;
“Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!”
Thankyou. I agree that I have done a “Good job!” in that I have pointed out
(a) Your own words proclaim you are a pseudoscientist
( b You have failed to provide any alternative understanding of those (your own) words
(c) You have demonstrated here that you are ignorant of science and how it is conducted
(d) Your post-normal science is an attack on science
And
I have upheld valid scientific standards by assisting you to demonstrate all in points (a) to (d) for everyone to see.
Standards are upheld by supporting the good and (especially important in this context) exposing the bad.
Richard
Perlwitz says:
“This is an opinion blog, not a science blog.”
Wrong. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. It does not censor opposing views like the execrable RealClimate and other alarmist echo chambers do. For example Perlwitz, who gets his own model-based oipnion papers hand-waved through pal review is, of course, simply writing an opinion. Any conclusions based on computer models [which include all of Perlwitz’ papers] are based on the GIGO principle: Gospel In, Garbage Out. Perlwitz wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit him on the a… nkle. Models are not evidence.
Given Perlwitz’ low opinion of this multiple award winning Best Science site, why does he continue to post here? As anyone can see, he is certainly geting no traction with his model-based beliefs. And he hides out from any attempt to falsify a scientific hypotheses [a necessary function of the Scientific Method]. He provides no verifiable facts to support his evidence-free belief that CO2 is the “control knob” for the climate. And he is finding out, like lots of other readers here, that his putative knowledge of the subject is shallower than many other commentators. He’s been winging it; he doesn’t even know the difference between an El Nino and a La Nina [April 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm].
Perlwitz is finding out the hard way that far from being just an opinion site, WUWT is a rigorous scientific peer review site. Shoddy thinking, belief in models as opposed to testable evidence, and appeals to authorities that are as deficient as he is do not get a free pass here. We are more than willing to discuss scientific facts, data and evidence, but Perlwitz is not. He prefers to make derogatory comments about this Best Science and Technology winner. Wake me when Perlwitz tries to explain his CO2=CAGW belief system using verifiable facts, such as showing any global harm due to increased CO2. He will not accept the challenge because there is no evidence of global harm from that tiny trace gas — which even after a ≈40% rise, is still a tiny trace gas.
[SNIP: Tell me, does anyone at Vanderbilt University understand the meaning of “ad hominem”? Anonymous cowards don’t get to post comments like this. -REP]
To a Lib, any statement he can’t refute is automatically an “ad hominem” attack. He has no idea what the term means, merely that it’s Latin, and thus gives his reply the aura of being authoritative.
[REPLY: Sorry Bill, but he didn’t use the term. His comment was an ad hominem. Cowardly, anonymous, first-time commenters don’t get to do that. -REP]
[REPLY – I’m a lot less warm than that! I define lukewarmers as (tentatively) buying into the basic forcing, but WITHOUT the positive feedbacks. ~ Evan]
I’m a little cooler. From reading the data (as opposed to models) I calculate the 1st order forcing to be less than .6 C.
I have come to learn that when an AGW True Believer uses the word ‘robust,’ it is time to look up some Real science on the matter in question.
Smokey says:
Wow…How wrong could you possibly be?!? Asimov was already concerned about global warming in 1989 (and, according to his words, “for 20 years at least” before that)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA
Oh…and here is a list of Asimov’s published essays related to global warming and the greenhouse effect: http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/Essays/physics.html#Essay3
I’m a little cooler. From reading the data (as opposed to models) I calculate the 1st order forcing to be less than .6 C.
My recent research is causing me to seriously call into question the “official” amount of warming over the last century. I do not trust the adjustments (SHAP a positive trend adjustment? Say, what?!) and am inclining toward the position that even the raw data has a spurious warming signal that overmatches TOBS.
I also don’t see CO2 doubling over the next century.
It’s hard to know what to think. Except anyone who thinks anything about it is “settled” is too complaisant — or too chicken to take Leroy (2010) out for a test spin.
That is remarkable. It was said that only (unspecified) “alarmists” made such claims of “catastrophic” impacts without providing any evidence.
But now even NASA retirees consider the NASA/GISS/IPCC projection of 1.5 – 4.5 C increase in global temperatures for a doubling of CO2 to be “catastrophic”.
I would hope that someone could point out scientific evidence that climate sensitivity would be below that value.
Rob Dekker says:
“I would hope that someone could point out scientific evidence that climate sensitivity would be below that value.”
No problem:
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5721/newhadcrut3warming.png
Smokey, I asked for “scientific evidence”, not some graph that no one has verified.
But even without that, it is easy to find some major flaws in your graph :
For starters, you have completely ignored that this planet has oceans that absorb heat.
You also ignored the influence of aerosols, and ignored solar influence altogether also.
To avoid any more blunders in your argument, it would be nice if you would actually present a scientific publication instead of some representation of cherry-picked data.
So who is this guy Leighton Steward, who apparently wrote this letter, without providing a single piece of scientific evidence in it’s support, and then got 50 retirees to sign it ? Sourcewatch reports :
Ah That explains a lot.
Rob Dekker:
OK, I ‘get it’. You want reference to a peer reviewed paper that has methods and conclusions which have never been challenged in the peer reviewed literature and shows real-world climate sensitivit
So, you need to read
Idso SB ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’, Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998.
It can be read at
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
In the paper Dr. Sherwood Idso describes 8 natural experiments to determine climate sensitivity. His empirical (n.b. NOT model-derived) results are:
1. Changes in atmospheric water vapour at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
2. Changes in atmospheric dust at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
3. Annual temperature change (land 0.171 coast 0.087) 0.113 C/W/m2.
4. Earth total GH effect 0.097 C/W/m2.
5. Equator to pole temperature gradient 0.103 C/W/m2.
6. Venus – Mar extrapolated to Earth (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
7. Faint early Sun paradox (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
8. Tropical ocean water vapour (ocean 0.071 land 0.172) 0.101 C/W/m2.
Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
The real world indicates that the high climate sensitivities in the models are way, way too high.
But who cares about reality when we have dozens of models that each differs from every other model but each fails to emulate the real world?
The models vary in climate sensitivity from each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007)
In other words, the models use a vast range of climate sensitivities but the lowest of thiose values is 8x greater than is observed in the real world.
Richard
PS
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
From REP to me at April 16, 2012 at 9:32 am
[REPLY: Sorry Bill, but he didn’t use the term. His comment was an ad hominem…. -REP]
I didn’t know if he did or not — my comment was just a general observation in reply to your question, “…does anyone at Vanderbilt University understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’?”
Oh, wait. It was rhetorical.
Mea culpa.
The “ad hominem” crowd is alive and well here!
On April 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm, Nate said: “…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….”
The following e-mail was sent to another blogger who spent as little time as Nate did on background checking. As before. the credibility of our NASA group was challenged by trying to single me out, and I guess I’m still somewhat pleased that I was the “excuse” for doing so.
I tried to post the reply to the offending webpage, but the blogger cared not to post it. Here is the response, and it applies here as well:
*****
I’m flattered that you highlighted me from among the NASA Astronauts, Engineers, Scientists, and administrators who signed the letter to Administrator Bolden!
My incredibly rewarding but brief NASA Career extended before, during, and after the Moon Landings. The Polynomial Regression mathematics, algorithms, or code I personally produced after leaving NASA finds use by every climate scientist on the planet, either embedded in their models, or used in their analysis (there may be exceptions; I’m aware of none!).
After leaving the agency, the NASA management skills I learned, helped me turn around internal operations of one of the nation’s premier insurance companies, saving thousands of careers in the process.
I’ve lectured on the meteorology of climate all over the world for over a decade. Millions follow my accurate meteorological forecasts annually. Both the heavy snows of 2010-2011, and the light snows of 2011-2012 were predicted before they happened, on America’s “Greenest” radio station, NYC’s WBAII 99.5, which covered not just the “What,” but also the “Why.” Listen to: http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/wbai_111213_200100ecologic.mp3, a NYC environmentally oriented radio broadcast where I make my “Annual” climate forecast.
Looking for some more green? I’ll keynote the Earth Day event run by Volunteers for Peace in Ossining NY on April 21, http://www.vfp.org/contact-us/vfp.org-peace-action-conference, where I’ll cover positive effects of the relationship of CO2, Temperature, and Climate. Then I’ll return to NASA Houston for a presentation on the Mathematics of Sea-Level rise, similar to one delivered to over 100 people at Hofstra University a week ago.
I’m honored to be among the current and ex-NASA group signing the letter to Administrator Bolden, that simply requests that the NASA’s name and reputation only be attached to claims supported by hard, verifiable, DATA. No censorship, “muzzling” or other nefarious behavior is intended; we’re just looking for accuracy and excellence when NASA’s reputation gets put on the line!
Thanks again for singling me out! I’m truly flattered!!!
*****
Now here’s what Nate should be looking at: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html
Here you find DATA, not supposition. Temperature and CO2 READINGS, not projections. If people (yes, Nate, you too!) focussed on the message, not the messenger, they might learn something!
tomwys:
You conclude your fine post at April 18, 2012 at 2:12 pm by saying;
“If people (yes, Nate, you too!) focussed on the message, not the messenger, they might learn something!”
Yes! Thankyou.
Richard
Mr Decker:
May I point out that – despite the “conventional wisdom” and all peer-reviewed literature and science organizations not recognizing the terms, process, and methods, that continental drift, H-H nuclear fusion, Uranium fission, and radioactive decay were proceeding along their merry ways …… long before anybody in the 20th century published anything.
Your vaunted “peer-reviewed” literature is not all worthless – some is very valuable. But ALL of it worth less than one fact that contradicts the so-called conventional wisdom of “pal-reviewed” papers that are written to gain friends and influence people. And, to date, there are simply no “facts” of any number that establish CO2 is anything more than a 1/10 of one degree influence. And billions in lives benefit from that anthropogenic use of CO2.
Only the CAGW “scientists” and their propagandists in the UN and mass media benefit by denying people lower cost energy, more food, clean water, sewage and garbage disposal, roads and bridges, tunnels and ports and housing.
The corruption in scientific “literature” by anonymously-reviewed self-serving “climate papers” is BY and FOR the CAGW cliques and CAGW propaganda mills of ABCNNBCBS.
I do have to admit that the complains in this letter are vague. What are they disputing as far as the science goes? I don’t see why they should have to shut up though.
Talking about Hasnsen of course. Let him talk.
Tom Wysmuller ,
Nice of you to stop by and post here on the thread which presents the letter to NASA that you signed.
There have been several people here who asked some questions on the assertions that you make in this letter. For example, one of the first sentences in your letter states this :
Here, could you please clarify which claims of “catastrophic impact on global climate change” by NASA and GISS you are referring to exactly ?
And also, exactly which “thousands of years of empirical data” did you have in mind that show why these NASA/GISS claims were “not substantiated” (scientifically, I hope) ?
Thanks, Rob, for your clearly posed questions! Answers may well find their way into a possible reply to the Agency’s reaction to our original letter. I would be doing a disservice to my co-signatories, each of which, without exception, was involved in one of humanity’s most magnificent achievements (and that includes the GISS people too!), if I prematurely undercut any potential joint response. Such individual pre-emption on my part would also be a discourtesy to the Agency, who responded to our group as one, and deserves any reaction, if forthcoming, accordingly.
In the interim, many webpages cover aspects of your queries, some in great detail. Of course, your interest is highly appreciated and welcomed. I look forward to many years of more reasoned, data oriented discourse in this fascinating area of study, within which I share your interest!