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:
That’s a tough choice in the poll – his idiotic wacko environmentalism has done wonders for the fence sitters. But in the end – I say give him the boot. Do gold watches come in a solar powered versions? Or maybe a wrist sundial would be more appropriate. 😉
Would that we could get a comment from Richard Feynman.
No sign anything by Black or Shukman on the BBC yet. I’m not holding my breath on it appearing any time soon.
Ed_B says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am
” However, the electorate will return Pres. Obama and a Dem house due to the rediculous (sic – and hilariously ironic!) nature of Rommney (sic) running on tax breaks for the rich when he pays less income tax as a percentage than probably his hair stylist.”
Ed,
Thanks for the political climate prognostication! I’ll give it the same weight as any climate prediction from Jimmy Hansen. The republican platform is shaping up to be ‘no changes to taxes, just cut the bloated, morbidly obese federal budget’. There is nothing in it about ‘tax breaks for the rich’ (I love that empty socialist demogoguery!). If you have data that shows Romney’s personal tax rate is less than (“probably….”) his hair stylist, please present it here!
I don’t pretend to know who will win the US presidential election this November. I am, however, working as hard as I can to defeat Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist ‘green’ agenda.
MtK
Here’s another good website for space junkies:
http://spaceflightnow.com/
Hansen? Ignore him. Fire him. He is insane.
Good letter to NASA if a bit overdue. NASA needs to get out of the Climate debate; quit taking sides; and get back to data and science and let the scientific results fall as they may and the policy decisions be made by publicly elected officials.
There has been enough nonsense.
Finally. It’s about time that leaders in our country put an end to this fraud (I am not speaking personally of Hansen; I am addressing the shameful destruction both of science and of a once highly respected American institution.)
Also, couldn’t vote. Hansen deserves a trial for destroying and altering data. If (when) found guilty, he deserves a prison cell and a huge fine. No retirement for him — nor for others who have perpetrated the fraud called CAGW.
Also, thanks to Anthony, other couageous bloggers. commenters, and scientists. I hope you/we won’t stop the truth-telling until we find that no more funds are being spent for these noxious purposes. Wow! That will be alot of accounting.
“Wait now for the Bad Astronomer to poo-poo them one by one. Moon hoaxers will rejoice.”
LOL… I hope so! Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.
Schmidt responds: This is pure politics. As former employees of NASA they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues. I note that they provide no references for the ‘unsupported’ statements that think NASA has made. Scientists who work for NASA are however expected to talk about their results, write about them and submit them for peer review. What these letter writers are asking for is for the administration to curtail the free speech rights of NASA employees that they disagree with and that is just wrong. If I asked Bolden to tell Cunningham et al to to stop spouting nonsense, I would be instantly criticised for trying to quash dissent, but these guys have no qualms about it whatsoever. The only response needed is to point these people to the NASA statement on scientific openness that was made the last time people tried to politicise discussions of NASA science. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. – gavin
I voted for the firing, but I’d exchange the gold watch for a thorough investigation of the massive outside income he has garnered in recent years which to most appearances is in clear violation of quite a number of agency rules.
Ditto! Fire his butt, and then open a Congressional investigation on Hansen’s possible misuse of NASA funds and misrepresentation and/or falsifying NASA scientific data and conclusions.
/Mr Lynn
pokerguy says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:55 am
Hear hear.
NASA needs to get back to its roots! They seem to have lost their way and this is at least a step in the right direction.
In the poll I voted for “Keep him going.” But NOT because I think he’s the sceptic’s best weapon, as I do not believe that. The truth and empirical evidence are our best weapons. The reason I want to keep him going is because to fire him would instantly make him a martyr for The Cause, and that would not be helpful at all.
Well, this is NASA. Communism goes down the drain, & what do these guys do: build a really cool space station (& let the rest of space exploration go to wreck) – and present that as a gift to the Russians: where the Yanks have to BEG for every trip they may be allowed for a view of the home planet from space – transported up in an old tin can that wasn’t even state-of-the-art 45 years ago. That firm deserves a lot more people like Hansen.
I guess the otehr 13 votes [at 1942 Z 10th April], for ‘Hansen as Hero’ are also sarcastic votes – mine most certainly was.
Interesting site on the issue of Cimate and weather.
.. – and I have had people from NASA volounteering to help with my site in different ways, and im honoured, but the demand of privacy was 1 priority (!)
So what comes from retired scientists tells a story of what they believe, but cannot say until retirement.
I’m a bit confused. The letter says: “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”.
What thousands of years of empirical data are these? All the empirical data I know seem to show conclusively that C02 has a large impact on the climate system.
They also say: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts”. Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?
Could someone provide a list? Otherwise I don’t think they exist. There are a few (Lindzen, Spencer etc) but the rest (Ball, Plimer etc) are hardly ‘climate scientists’ or even scientists at all!
I suspect that other NASA scientists and engineers will sign on to this letter now that its existence is known
NASAs Chief Scientist is a “Climate Scientist” specializing in propagandizing about the dissapearence of the cryosphere. When he was selected, I posted in tips, but the story was never picked up. I dont think this letter will do any good. NASAs new mission is to advance the socialist cause.
Leo Morgan says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
“Fire somebody for being wrong?
Hell no!
That’s a warmist tactic.
A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.”
Hansen is not just a researcher who happens to be wrong. He is the gatekeeper of GISTEMP, data falsificator extraordinnaire, and earns a million a year on the side selling his doomsday prophecies via books, and getting prices from European governments who exploit his unscientific bloviations to justify the tax regime they impose on us, so he is a useful idiot for EU governments.
And your argument that we cannot know we are right until after the fact should be applied to all climate models – before they can just fudge a few constants in their programs to “explain” why they have failed for at least the last decade, force them to compare their newest model configuration FOR AT LEAST A DECADE with what happens in reality before giving ANY attention to it. Well, this would lead to a rather big dearth in climate model publications, I should think. And I would call it the precautionary principle protecting us from constant unfounded doom mongering; but the current US administration needs AGW doom mongers to justify filling the pockets of Obama bundlers with green energy loans.
NASA has long become a joke, the pork barrel habit of disassembling the “reusable” Space Shuttle after each flight, distributing the parts across the US, cleaning them, sending them back to Florida and reconstructing a Space Shuttle from them looks as if Bastiat had invented it to explain how not to do things.
The Obama administration drastically cut NASA’s budget for space exploration but increased their budget for studying climate change. They want to change the primary mission of NASA from one of science to one of government propaganda. That’s not going to change until there is a change in the administration.
This is but another form of the immortal line …
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”
This is what I believe these NASA legends are trying to say to the head administrator. When you look deep into the eyes of the climate models, nothing peers back at you. Absolutely nothing. Sad really that billions have been spent and 30 years wasted on this reckless charade into a dead alley.
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Monty,
Is James Hansen a climate scientist? Is Al Gore? Is the man in charge of the IPCC?
I said this morning (April 10, 2012 at 2:44 am) on another thread:
Oh, NASA, hero organisation of my childhood! Now can’t launch anyone into space, is controlled by pork-barrellers, and employs nuts like Hansen.
“How have the mighty fallen”.
—————————-
Excellent news from all the heroes – perhaps the mighty can now get up, brush themselves off, and cater to our greatest imaginings, not our stupidest fears.
More Harrison Schmitt, moonwalker; less Gavin Schmidt, viciously devout propogandist.
Forget Hansen, on to Mars!
And if NASA can’t, see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php which also covers SpaceX and other private space efforts.