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:
You missed another option in the poll:
4. Sack him without notice or compensation, then sue him for bringing the organisation into disrepute and abuse of his position amounting to Gross Misconduct.
@Monty: You haven’t read this site long, have you?
Wonder if UniverseToday will carry this? Since some of the authors there are regular users of the “denier” word, I doubt it.
I was going to say one small step toward Mann, but I even groaned myself!
@Monty: Sorry I see that my previous one-sentence reply was unclear. Try reading articles on this and other sites regarding the issue. For example, ice cores have shown that CO2 lags temperature. A recent study purports to overthrow this long-standing result, and this site, among others, has at least one article on the topic, wherein you can find the kind of data you seek.
If you’re trolling for a soundbite reply, you won’t get it.
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does, and the list of ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ who don’t believe in AGW.
Looks like I might have a long wait!”
http://www.real-science.com/laurie-david-lying-children-save-planet
Our CSIRO needs a similar letter to alter their charter from being a Government (tax) propaganda machine and back to making a contribution to science.
Meanwhile, in the middle of solar maximum, the sun is having a virtually spot free day…
@Anthony (in reply to Esteban)
They would silence us. But they’ve lost.
@eo Peter
“Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.”
I wondered what Buzz Aldrin thought following your comment:
And from wikipedia: “In 2009, Aldrin said he did not believe humans were causing current climate change: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.”
I wonder how many of the signatories to the letter read WUWT? Hanson and others are causing NASA to be ridiculed. The wonderful success, intelligence and bravery of the signatories and others who worked so hard and took such risks to gave NASA its reputation for excellence in space is slowly being diminished by the politically driven obsession with CAGW. The men and women who signed this letter can’t be easily ignored.
“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.”
Um… it’s a bit late for that now. Someone’s going to have to work out how to dig NASA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, UEA CRU, the APS and Wikipedia out of the mess they’re in. For a start……
That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright,
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight.
Tennyson – The Grandmother.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm
@Monty
You still don’t get it, do you?
Do you understand ‘lost’. As in ‘lose’ and ‘losing’.
Listen to your High Priest.
You can tell how big a story is by the determination of the trolls to try to shoot it down with their smug bologna. Anthony, don’t believe for a second that you didn’t play a huge roll in this tide turning development.
I’ve said this before, but I really wish someone would ask Hansen this question “If your models were being used to design and control space ships, would you, hand on heart, go up in one?”
I’ve heard appeals to authority. These guys, I accept their authority. these guys have DONE stuff.
Hansen needs to resign. He would be much happier as a full-time campaigner. As it is, I wonder when he actually WORKS, what does he actually DO?
Looks like a who’s who list of my friend’s dads growing up. Too bad my dad isn’t still alive to add his name to that list.
Monty you write:
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does..”
Freely RE-WRITTEN:
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows that my GOD cant exist even though I know he does..”
My point: You dont make science by demanding counter-evidence..!
Is it fair to demand CO2 backup evidence? Yes!
Because the heat-effect demanded from CO2 is so massive that it should be able to take temperatures on Earth to a level not seen in millions of years. That is, CO2 MUST have the ability to dominate all other climate effects.
IF CO2 had this effect, obviously we would have seen this in real evidence from ice cores etc long ago.
The fact that real evidence of CO2 mediated massive warming is not found is indeed evidence that CO2 cannot be the warming agent needed for a dangerous warming as claimed.
The alarmists has an overwhelming problem not finding any evidence for such a massive effect.
Hope you understands this, its not for fun etc. that sceptics demands evidence.
As engineer (still) working (a t high level) on the Ariane 5 program, for both French and European Agencies, I have the greatest respect for NASA’s achievements (especially for bringing Man to the Moon) and for all those guys here above (engineers, scientists and astronauts…) who made these achievements possible. But I also have to admit that NASA/GISS unbridled advocacy of AGW dogma, without the slightest evidence to support such a claim, has brought the whole NASA institution into disrepute.
NASA has achieved the highest standards in terms of models’ verification & validation.
Indeed it is just ridiculous to observe that GISS’ climate modelers have been unable to apply their own standards and that they still base their claim, about a so called catastrophic manmade global warming, on models that have never been formally validated. But the very inconvenient truth is that none of these nice climate models would be able to pass any V&V process since there outputs are daily rebutted by comparison to observed climate data.
Sincerely from France.
Eric
Sad that this had to happen, seeing the signatures of so many 40+ Year Nasa-Veterans calling to order their “Heimat”, the source of (their) pride and great scientific advances.
The squandering of Standing and Reputation of the Nasa is nothing to celebrate for.
Jud,
“How did they ever let this happen?”
Let me try to explain from some history. Some of you might have more info than I do on what I’m going to talk about – so feel free to call BS on me if your facts trump my understanding. This in no way is intended as a slam against the 99% at NASA who put man on the moon, Voyager in deep space, and Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. Those are steely eyed rocket mechanics! This is intended at the 1% who value politics and activism over the science they are paid to do and manage.
NASA has four major accidents in it’s past. Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, and Columbia.
Apollo 1 killed three astronauts in a capsule fire on the pad. An oxygen atmosphere intensified the fire. There was no escape. But let’s call that a learning moment – no sarcasm here. NASA recoiled and did the math (on slipsticks for the most part) and fixed the issues. Space is a risky business. Fire on a capsule, well, those astronauts knew the risks.
While the Apollo missions all tested the limits of man and machine, 13 was the one that carried double from the explosion to the landing. I think, for the general public, the movie about the events is probably some of the best factual theather Hollywood has done, bar none. Once again, an engineering watershed that changed how space was done.
Challenger – the beginning of the rot. I’m inclined to think that the leaders of the time couldn’t possibly believe people they trusted for cold, hard decisions based on nothing but evidence would make a decision for a purely political reason. It just wasn’t NASA. Even so, with the O rings at the point of no-go from prior evidence, the Challenger was cleared to fly. A blowtorch on a support, the support fails, the SRB pivots and breaches the Aux tank, explosion. A moment etched into the sky. A part failure? No a person failure. One lone voice saying NOOOOOOO!
The shuttle, proven in thick and thin flys again. Problems with the Aux tank foam. Columbia is holed. It makes it to space. Return is authorized. At 100,00 feet, the beams burn through, and the rest is a firery signature in the sky. Brave people die. A management and engineering error.
The rot was there then, and it is there now. The rot will continue to exist at NASA despite the best efforts of all of us. The career cost of bucking the majority, and engineering axiom, is just too high. People will make the political decision. Who in Hanson’s group will oppose him an survive at NASA. Communication is not an option. It is death.
Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5793914205_77d27c69cc_b.jpg
I posted this below dozens of online newspaper AGW articles per day for about nine months based mostly on Tom Nelson’s news feed (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/) but also Google news searches for clone articles, worldwide. A lot of laypersons have thus seen it! What a skeptical PR coup this opportunity was compared to the old days when real PR firms targeted small newspapers nationwide with letter writing and press release campaigns. Where’s my oil money check? When it didn’t arrive, I had to get back to work. When 50% instead of 0% of political candidates suddenly adopted AGW skepticism, my work was done, though I still gain great thrill from the clean up operations being reported here.
Kudos to the signatories for speaking up.
Yahoo news has now got it re just google web
http://news.yahoo.com/former-astronauts-scientists-warn-nasa-global-warming-212500690.html but nothing on google news except wasjhington examiner
Folks here at WUWT don’t seem to understand that James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA incur a risk of being fired if-and-only-if if they see a safety concern and DON’T speak up.
To see this, just visit the web page NASA Lessons Learned, which is operated by NASA’s Chief Engineer.
This lessons-learned page reflects harsh lessons-learned for NASA:
• “There’s no scientific PROOF that cold o-rings are a risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Challenger is approved for launch.
• “There’s no scientific PROOF that oxygen is a fire risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Apollo 1 gantry testing is approved.
Hundreds more examples can be cited. That’s the common-sense reason why only a very tiny fraction of NASA’s astronauts and engineers signed that petition… knowing that past attempts by NASA administrators to muzzle scientists and engineers have ended in disaster.
Frankly, I think a fraud, waste and abuse investigation into Hansen’s activities is in order. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has been active in making sure that IG investigators and wistleblowers are severely inconvenienced. Probably the reason why current NASA employees aren’t saying anything – they’ll get their throats metaphorically cut.