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:
Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
Can you link to some of these reports? I’d like to read them.
Good news. This post was Instalanched at 8:53PM. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
@ur momisugly Michael J. Bentley
That Sir, was an exceptional analisys of how NASA has become mired in mediocraty. I believe that there are many many fine engineers and scientists within NASA right now who long to do great things, and they are looking around and realizing that their dreams on working on cutting edge projects have been sold out by managerial turf wars, homage to the status quo, and massive subcontractor perks.
To all those who dream of being part of something great, I suggest that it won’t happen in NASA anytime soon (other than JPL, and even that’s questionable at this point).
Go NewSpace!
I worked with a guy in 2005-2006, “Charlie the Tuna”…who had been a machinist working for Control Data. They made the computer on board the lunar lander. I asked him one time about the “core memory” for the lander. It was made of 1 kilobit blocks. He said he’d forgotten. THEN a week later he walked up to me and said, “I remembered! Each lunar lander had a 40 block assembly. They cost $2000 each.” (Or $80,000 in 1966-68 money or about $800,000 now!)
Now these guys WENT TO THE MOON AND BACK with computers so basic, the PC I’m working on now makes them look NO BETTER THAN AN ABACUS.
Here’s the problem…”temporal provincialism”. I.e., “We are at the PEAK of our powers/intellect/progress RIGHT NOW, and everything is going to go downhill (i.e., Hansen and company, “The world is going to hell…..woe are WE…”,) and everyone before us were a bunch of primatives, and can be ignored.
Truth is, the guys that WENT TO THE MOON WITH AN ABACUS, and also (another example), designed, built and flew the P-51 in 187 days…just may, JUST MAY, on a “bad day” be 10 to 100x’s the “man” you are Dr. Hansen. Dismissing them because of their age and being “out of their time”, is done completely at your peril. (“Study the past, those who do NOT are doomed to repeat it..” – Aristotle.)
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
Afetr 15 years plus of this…you bet I’m staying put.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.”
You mean like the melting of the sea ice?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
(In case you’re not capable of reading the graphs – it’s above average globally.)
“Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.”
You must think you’re mighty important if you think our grandchildren will still worry about the greatest scientific hoax of all times.
Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter? The playbook instruction on this one is fairly easy, even for them – do a few ad homs, say something, anything outrageous, just get the bloody discussion off the damage that a letter signed by NASA royalty is doing to the cause.
Of course, for Hansen at al, the problem is that so many of the signatories on this letter are “connected” people and for an organization like NASA, which lives or dies at the whim of politicial largesse, these people definitely have to be listened to, especially in a year when there’s going to be a change in which party will be running the country at year’s end. Ain’t democracy wonderful?
Tough times to be a troll.
Pointman
Thanks to these brave old guys… brave when they were young, and brave still.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“…”
_______________
Rhea, where to begin…
”
“Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds…”
________________
The very nature of scientific skepticism is to not approach issues/problems with preconceived notions. You’ve “obviously” misinterpreted what you see here.
“I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
______________
You have that exactly backwards… real world results invariably refute the models predictions.
Feel free to post any data to support your assertion, otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.
“Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from
now, but it’s happening already.”
_______________
I’m not sure where you came up with that, but again, <i.post data/studies supporting your claim here and prove it, otherwise, you will be viewed as just another proselyte without a clue, or worse, a propagandist.
rhea3: “many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
Not one single model predicted the no warming of the last 15 years. So your statement is not based on facts. BTW, what is the forcing that caused the cooling of the last 15 years if it was able to completely negate the warming caused by humans? CO2 is going up, but not temperatures. How can there be warming without warming?
“I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.”
What evidence is that? If you have evidence, share it.
And your analogy is flawed. You immediately assume that everyone needs someone else to be told what to believe. There are brilliant minds on the skeptics side that ARE climate scientists. There are also people who have higher education and can look at the data on their own. This is why it’s the people with MORE education that are against AGW.
According to its website, “The JSC civil service workforce consists of about 3,000 employees, the majority of whom are professional engineers and scientists” (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/about/jobs.html). So I am not sure why we are supposed to be so excited that 49 former such employees, whose expertise to comment on climate science has not been elaborated upon in any way, signed onto this letter.
True skeptics would be asking to find out more about their qualifications…and also asking how many others were contacted who decided not to sign or were purposely not contacted because they were known not to be of the correct political ideology to make it likely that they would want to sign.
Hansen needs a cell padded or otherwise.
And a heart felt thank you to the signers of this letter.
Pointman says: “Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter?”
There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?
Reblogged this on contrary2belief.
There goes Joel Shore again with another “ideology” comment. And he still doesn’t understand that “true” skeptics is redundant: either someone is a skeptic, or a True Believer. As a charter member of the planet’s idiocracy, Joel Shore is in the latter category.
What they are basically saying is that when the predictions from a idea disagree with measurements from nature then the idea is wrong; and that NASA should alter their communications to underscore this fact; and spend at least as much time pointing out where the idea is in conflict with measurements from nature as they spend pointing out the consequences of the idea as if idea were not in conflict with the measurements from nature.
Who says it is irrelevant. It is what science is.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.
If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
The only looming catastrophes in our future are the ones that will result if the climate alarmists are able to implement more of their pernicious plans to futilely try to influence the climate with their useless carbon restriction policies. Nothing that has been attempted or proposed in that regard has the slightest chance of accomplishing anything meaningful to change our future climate, but from biofuels to wind turbines to solar panels, to shutting down existing electrical generation we have already paid a heavier price in human misery and environmental harm than could be levied by the worst case scenario of climate catastrophe you might select. The probability of that worst case is nowhere near 90%, but is closer to your getting struck by lightning or maybe to winning the lottery. There has indeed been a flood of alarmist “science” in recent years but is all generally as convincing as someone suggesting I really should be People magazine’s next selection for “Sexiest Man Alive’.
Looks like the Real Climate trolls are coming out. You know this is striking a nerve.
joeldshore says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?”
For a letter with no substance that is quite a herd of trolls. It hurts, doesn’t it? Hope you all get defunded.
I have to admit, I like it when a troll calls out to me. It’s perverse I know, but ignoring them is such a sweet pleasure, as the Bard would say. It’s best to think of them in a conceptual troll cage, howling at you ever louder for attention. They so desperately wish to engage your attention, it’s almost touching but not quite.
Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.
Pointman
Given the choices I voted to fire him and give him a gold watch, but my real choice would be to fire him and give him a kick in the butt.
Let me tell you how this is going to go from here to the end of the global warming movement. This is going to mirror the end of the McCarthy era. The warmists are going to come out in full strength against these scientists and astronauts – who are heroes to the American public – and that will be their final mistake. Like McCarthy, whose arrogance made him believe he could smear the Army – the heroes of World War II and Korea – the warmists are going to try to smear these NASA heroes. You will see op-eds in the New York Times – especially Krugman – condemning these men and women, and with that public opinion will permanently shift against the warmists. They’re about to be left in the dustbin of history.
Pointman says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm
“Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.”
Pointman, I like to answer them, not because I can persuade them of anything but because other readers might get something useful out of my answer. Just a good opportunity to throw some links around.
The trolls are probably in their majority in one way or another rent-seekers of the global AGW industry; a postdoc here, a renewables industries lobbyist there, and would like to keep their cosy do-nothing jobs. Boys, you will all lose it and you better get ready for jumping ship, but I guess you all know that already…
These fine engineers and scientists are going to be writing letters for a very long time if they wish to address the scientific institutions, societies, unions and associations which have been commandeered by AGW advocacy masquerading as science.
May I suggest landing a live astronaut on Venus instead? The mission should have the finest scientific payload for observation of Venus’ abundant lightning and 900F terrain, and of course, the astronaut should come home safely – not fried, poisoned, squashed or corroded. It might be a much easier task for them.
This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.