Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
From Monty on April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm:
Even longer since you mangled what the letter actually said into a misrepresentation:
It seems you accidentally dropped the all-important “catastrophic” qualifier from your comment.
Now if you wish to argue that CO₂, at current and reasonably-expected future atmospheric concentrations, does have the catastrophic effect “we know it does”, feel free. Be prepared to supply references.
Apparently it is the so called rocket scientists who have not assessed all the available data before putting out wild accusations in press releases.
To claim that the prediction models are inadequate is false. The models have correctly predicted temperatures since 1900.
Myth no. 6: “Climate models are unreliable ”
[Please, no free advertising. Readers can easily find that unreliable blog if they want to. ~dbs, mod.]
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“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……”
wikipedia will just rewrite history to whatever the next version of the NPOV will demand.
If necessary, they will delete entire articles and create new ones to get rid of the editing history.
Easy.
Good on you ‘NASA’s – 49er’s’, thank you and well said.
Meanwhile………………………..”Yeah, but I thought Jim had fixed this?!”
Monty says:
”What thousands of years of empirical data are these?”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOG101/Study/Images/Entire_Earth_History_Record.gif
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
” Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?
” Otherwise I don’t think they exist.
Is that skepticism?
What would happen if you turned that skepticism toward the following?
Evidence for high sensitivity to 2xCO2.
Evidence for catastrophe without global carbon dioxide emission reductions.
Evidence for absence of catastrophe with global carbon dioxide emission reduction.
Evidence for “unprecedented” climate.
Evidence for MWP & LIA regional instead of global.
Evidence that mitigation would be more economical than adaptation.
Evidence that geo-engineering isn’t a more practical strategy than global emission reductions.
i guess the astronauts and engineers were living in a cave for the past decade or something?
nasa has a new reputation as moslem outreach and occasional autoshop for japanese cars.
anyway, nor all their untimely piety nor wit can cancel half a line of what’s been writ.
it underscores the depravity, if anything, for they are soooo too little and soooo too late.
that, is in itself, a defining act as well.
The letter was short, modest and cogent. It will be ignored by politicos within and without NASA, but, if it gets wide distribution, will have great impact.
@NikFromNYC
Posting skepticism from astronauts is like using the Pope to counter anti-religion arguments.
Celebrity worship can sway the uneducated, but not scientists. The evidence is all that matters.
NikFromNYC says:
April 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm
“Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5793914205_77d27c69cc_b.jpg
”
Great work!
I have been flabbergasted about how once respected institutions have thrown their reputations out of the window by producing all those alarmist bogus reports.
The latest comes from MIT which is recycling the long debunked “end of the world” alarmism that the Club of Rome into basket case of super nerds.
The MIT report predicts the culling of 5 billion people due to a global depression that will hit by 2030. Of course Global Governance will be our only way out.
And yes, the predictions are based on MIT models which is why we have to take this report extremely seriously.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/global-great-depression-and-population.html
No longer send your kids to MIT for an education.
They are now the New Club of Rome.
Geo, you mean a climate scientist that counts tree rings might not be as smart as rocket scientists that can land men on the moon and return them safely to earth?
And engineers, of course.
“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.”
———-
What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/
=======================================
John from CA says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Its about time!!!
NASA has made teaching materials available for quite some time. They must present a balanced and scientific viewpoint.
They’ve been teaching the ridiculous AGWScienceFiction that shortwave (visible light) heats Earth’s land and oceans and claiming the real direct heat from the Sun which is physically capable of doing this, thermal infrared longwave, doesn’t reach the surface; there’s a lot to put right..
It isn’t just that they’re pushing an ideology as if it’s science by corrupting data, they’ve corrupted the basics of traditional science – deliberately dumbing down science education for children.
Here’s where I discovered their gross malfeasance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886
And as Jud said above, not just NASA, the Royal Society too.
The two greatest science institutions have made themselves a laughing stock in science, but I think it could still be put right, if enough of those who work there or are members spoke out now…
..what isn’t a solution is to let it slide and hope that it will all be put right in a few decades – they should take the lead in putting it right.
Monty says April 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I’m a bit confused.
Yes, we know.
DBCooper says:
“Would that we could get a comment from Richard Feynman.”
He would probably throw some cold water on NASA’s climate models and demonstrate their lack of resilence.
NASA Releases Open Government Plan version 2.0:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/apr/HQ_12-107_OpenGov_Plan.html
Harrison Schmitt who the letter defers to on the science is a former Republican senator and long time anti-environmentalist activists. He says it is all a communist plot: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” See Wikipedia.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COAL_SURGING_EXPORTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-10-14-27-17
Maybe “death trains of coal” Hansen will blow a gasket over this report and render these complaints moot. Looks like the rest of the world, including Europe, doesn’t want to play his games with him anymore.
Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.
REPLY: Oh, please. Pieter Tans, keeper of the CO2 records for Mauna Loa, is a declared 911 Truther, you don’t see us dismissing the entire CO2 record because he has an “association” do you? Here’s a letter to the editor he co-signed:
World has lost a true, humble friend
The world has lost a true friend in Gilbert White, winner of the 2000 National Medal of Science, natural resource adviser to FDR, ecologist before the word existed, president of Haverford College, social scientist and much else he was too humble to mention.
Gil was a fearless thinker who supported ideas that were before their time, such as the project at Vote.org and ideas that many ridicule or fear, such as evidence that a few people in our government allowed or caused the 9/11 attacks. He’s the eldest in the Oct. 21, 2004, Boulder Weekly photo with us, attending a 9/11 Truth event, although we weren’t identified — see Boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html. At lunch afterward, he expressed surprise and frustration that the media simply refused to make this an issue in the coming presidential election.
Gil was pretty sure that 9/11 was treason partly because, when he was working in the FDR White House, he witnessed the congratulatory atmosphere there the day of Pearl Harbor. He believed the government had invited the attack to get people’s support to enter World War II, and that something similar happened to get Congress’ (not the people’s) support for the Bush wars.
Gilbert could have been a member of almost any elite, but he preferred non-elitists. He believed in giving power to the people rather than keeping it in the hands of any elite. He hoped that when people learned that the government was complicit in 9/11 that they’d demand the kind of participatory government you can help realize at Vote.org. That’s why we risk accusations of sullying the dead by writing this.
Steven Jones, BYU Physics professor suspended for his work with Physics911.net, and Kevin Ryan, fired from Underwriters Laboratories for speaking out, will speak Oct. 29 from 2 to 6 p.m. in CU’s Math 100, along with the founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.
EVAN RAVITZ, ROBERT McFARLAND,
PIETER TANS and MARTIN WALTER
Boulder
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20061023020522/http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_5065789,00.html
And here he is in a photo, he’s the one in the middle holding the banner:
http://archive.boulderweekly.com/102104/coverstory.html
Here’s his NOAA page: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/tans/
-Anthony
Michael,
Your history is good. The Navy had similar problems with submarines. They fixed it with a Quality Control Program that included (among many other things) a system of EXTERNAL audits. NASA institututed many parts of the Navy program, but not the audits. Having someone outside of your depatrment looking at your work can imporove the overall product, especially when lives are on the line. And yes, people have been sent to jail based on things found during audits.
From the astronauts’ 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.” I totally agree. There is much evidence to support the stand these courageous men have taken. Global warming fanatics are pushing the myth that carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is warming up the world and will cause Armageddon if we don’t stop using fossil fuels. They also control publication of scientific articles and are blocking any contrary reports from being published as Climategate proved. Proof that their claim is false comes from Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist who used to work for NASA. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010). This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to air had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and overrides any theoretical predictions that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides any climate models that use the greenhouse effect to predict warming. These are the ones NASA GISS and its director James Hansen have been citing as their authority that warming is happening. There is actually no greenhouse warming now and there has not been any for the last 100 years. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and stopped in 1940. There was no corresponding increase of carbon dioxide at its beginning and that rules out carbon dioxide as its cause. Bjørn Lomborg attributes it to solar influence and I agree with him. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There is no satisfactory explanation for this lack of warming. Suggestions that aerosols cooled the earth for these thirty years have been shown to be wrong. And there was no warming in the eighties and nineties either according to satellite temperature measurements. There was a short spurt of warming between 1998 and 2002 but it was caused by the warm water the super El Nino of 1998 carried across the ocean and not by any greenhouse effect. And there was no warming from that point to the present. That is all in accordance with the Miskolczi theory. And if you think that Arctic warming is a loophole, think again. Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm Gulf Stream water that Atlantic currents are carrying into the Arctic Ocean (E&E 22(8):1067-1083, 2011). These are the facts about global warming that fully justify the letter written by the 50 astronauts to Charles Bolden.
Yep, NASA needs to switch focus to its new Mission — Muslim Outreach. That’ll work!
The fish rots from the head.
Problem, we have a Hansen.
============
Regarding the Hansen poll: what I want to see is an honest review of his work, and in particular his outside activities, for the past decade.
If such an appraisal shows that he has not violated the terms of his employment, then it’s here’s-your-hat-what’s-your-hurry. Buh-bye Jim, enjoy your retirement.
But I’d really like to know why we should be on the hook for his pension if he’s been out buccaneering as much as it seems he has.