UPDATE: 11:30AM 4/12/12 Predictably, Andrew Revkin from the New York Times joins in with the poo-pooing consensus saying it is “utterly unremarkable ” (yet he writes a article about it – go figure). From Revkin’s shuttered in world of living in the woods (he didn’t even know what the TV show Seinfeld was until I brought it to his attention in Climategate2), that’s probably true, but Andy, here is one of your favorite consensus buzzphrases that can be applied: it is an unprecedented letter. There’s no denying that. – Anthony
==========
From the Daily Caller, in my opinion, a load of “hooey” from NASA’s chief scientist, particularly since James Hansen doesn’t bother with peer review much anymore, he just publishes opinions and protopapers to his Columbia University website and a compliant MSM repeats them as if they were in fact peer reviewed. Further, Hansen has never accepted an offer to debate, and he probably won’t. Clearly NASA’s chief scientist is clueless about what is going on.
NASA swipes back at former astronauts over climate change
NASA is swiping back at a group of nearly 50 of its former scientists and astronauts who wrote to accuse the space agency of advocating the “extreme” position that global warming is the result of man-made carbon dioxide.
In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, 49 former employees said 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.”
But NASA responded on Wednesday by saying they don’t “draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
“We support open scientific inquiry and discussion,” NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati said.
He added: “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Number of successful space missions commissioned by NASA when the 50 letter-signers/ astronauts/ scientists/ engineers were in charge: Hundreds of missions and some of them are still operational in deep space.
Number of successful space missions by NASA as we know it today? Just shameful. Zilch, nada, zero, niente. NASA is finished as a space agency. It should have a name change to reflect its current agenda. Hope Mitt Romney will have the opportunity to reshape it into what it was when we were watching men walking on the moon, directly on our TV screens. I was just 17 years when Armostrong made his famous remark; a small step for one man, one giant step for mankind.
Would my grandchildren be seeing an American taking his first step on Mars? Or would he be Chinese?
Instead of the disrespectful reply from NASA if I may suggest their reply should have included in some form:
…..thank you for your letter expressing concern that NASA is not being objective in its advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change. … Taking into consideration the tremendous respect admiration and regard the public, my colleagues and I have for your contributions to NASA and the pioneering of space travel, while I may not agree with your accusations I am concerned that so many of you felt so strongly that you were obliged to write and in acknowledgement of the debt and gratitude owed to you all I will investigate the matters raised in your letter and propose an independent enquiry…
That’s better, fixed.
Some hope!
NASA’s staff have excellent reason to respect anonymity … because some folks like to keep “enemy lists”.
Alex the skeptic says: @ur momisugly April 13, 2012 at 3:57 am
…….. Meanwhile China is planning space missions which would make the USA run away in shame. Thank God there’s North Korea with whom NASA can compare itself with.
______________________________
Well said.
To add insult to injury the technology used by China was transfered from the USA to China. The USA is now a toothless old dog with it’s military bases closing and NASA de-fanged.
http://www.defense.gov/brac/ or in the pop news: Pentagon Wants 33 Major Military Bases Closed | More than 775 other smaller military installations, including National Guard
The more I read the more I really really dislike the money sucking criminals in DC.
I was always brought up to think that NASA means Never A Straight Answer
LazyTeenager says:
April 12, 2012 at 4:54 pm
theduke on April 12, 2012 at 11:00 am said:
I thought that is what they were doing–”disagreeing with scientific conclusions . . .in a public forum.”
———–
Nup. They were insisting that NASA not tell anybody about NASA’s scientific conclusions.
I see your problem — English comprehension.
You don’t have it.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati said
Apparently the GISS folks over at RC (Real Censorship) didn’t get the message. Why does NASA continue to fund their efforts to silence anyone that questions AGW orthodoxy?
Unhappily, Mitt’s response when Newt Gingrich suggested the bold step of building a permanent base on the Moon was [paraphrase], “If someone came up with that idea when I was CEO, I’d fire him.”
Mitt may be a competent manager, but he’s no visionary. However, better his lack of vision than Obama’s march to dystopia. Maybe Mitt will pick Newt as his running mate and put him in charge of NASA.
/Mr Lynn
With regards to sea level rise, does anyone know of any research being done to determine how much under sea volcanoes play a role in sea lvel rise? I’ve read where there may be as many 10,000 active under sea volcanoes, there must be some amount of water displacement going on.
Dear Mr Revkin,
I note you have respect from the sceptic community. Starting out I was quite the believer in global warming but I think most RATIONAL people now accept it to be at best mistaken and at worst fraud. You need to accept that you are mistaken on the issue of whether or not CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is fairly obvious to most scientists that study of the climate has descended into data mining and an easy way to access funding. The worm has turned and the only people left flogging the dead horse are the usual crazy fringe which occupy most POLITICAL debates. This has turned a lot of people away from worthy conservation goals such as recycling and renewable energy which stand on their own merit and don’t need global warming propaganda. All debates have two sides. Do you want to be on the side who produced the climategate emails and defended Peter Gleick? I am glad to be on the side that includes the great men who helped bring about mankind’s greatest achievement, putting a man on the moon. Attacking men like this and others such as one of the greatest mind of the 20th century Freeman Dyson is silly. To qualify this by stating they are not climate scientists is silly. Hands up: Who wants to be a climate scientist? or Who wants to be a rocket scientist or astronauts working for NASA? It is no longer a debate it’s a no brainer,
Sincerely,
Tried to post this at dotearth.. not posted for whatever reason
Rob Dekker says:
And where do NASA and GISS claim that “carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change” ?
NASA says it right here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
The first thing you see when you go to the “Causes” page is the title: “The role of human activity” – where NASA says: “In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”
Then when you go to the “Effects” page, where NASA’s title: “The current and future consequences of global change” shows photos of raging forest fires, severe droughts and massive hurricanes.
Then there’s NASA’s “State of flux – Images of change” page that shows the devastation of the tsunami that struck Phuket Thailand on Christmas Eve 2004.
Rob, do you believe the Christmas Eve 2004 tsunami (or any tsunami causing earthquake) was caused by humans releasing CO2? NASA wants you to.
Rob Dekker says:
April 13, 2012 at 12:50 am
OK. And where do NASA and GISS claim that “carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change” ?
On their official sites — “Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses [sic] produced by human activities…[f]reshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.” Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ “However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.” Article from GISS, source: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=423
One from NASA, one from GISS — although the two are pretty much interchangeable these days.
beesaman says:
April 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Just thought, does NASA now stand for,
Not A Space Agency?
No AGW Skeptics Allowed.
Well a lot of meandering above, during which I lost track of the origin, which I thought was some British response, doing an ad hominem attack job on the 49 signers of the NASA expatriot’s letter.
It seemed like a classic debate losing dossier, including appeal to authority, among its strategies.
I’m supposed to believe that someone who can write computer code to do ordinary statistical mathematics, and write papers about it, IS a climate scientist; but someone who is merely a physicist who specializes in Black Body Radiation Theory, but doesn’t write papers in Geophysical Research Letters is somehow not qualified to offer an input on climate subjects. Seems like Geophysics is about a whole lot more than merely climate.
I don’t care whether your gig is the effect of Temperature extremes on the life cycle of mud snails, or, the toxicity of coral venoms as a function of pH ; when it comes to bragging at a bar, as an exercise in chick magnetism; nothing you could possibly say, can stand up, when faced with the simple exhortation:- ” I walked on the moon !”
ALL metrics are immediately reset, when faced by those four words.
And just who was the author of that British trashing piece; I looked for a bio, or even a bibliography of peer reviewed climate paper publications; but didn’t find any.
Well maybe I should have put on my Jounalism interpretation hat, instead of a climate understanding hat.
And that argument about just how few those 49 are compared to the current NASA employee roster (ALL of whom are well known climate science experts ??) ; not to mention the fact that the 49 all are now out of NASA employment. Let me see; the best time to poke somebody in the eye, is when he is your boss.
Who was that quite renowned NASA climate scientist, who dropped her guard within nanoseconds of verifying the signature on her NASA brass farewell letter.
For the purpose of simply having a pronounceable acronym to refer to people like Hansen in casual conversation at cocktail hour for example, I suggest modifying “CAGW” to “CAGWA” = “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist”
Oops! I should googled before posting, CAGWA is some sort of youth wrestling organization. Oh well, we’ll co-opt it!
NASA’s Waleed Abdalati says “We support open scientific inquiry and discussion”, yet NASA’s report “Adapting to a changing climate” (5/18/11) heavily references “Federal Action for a Climate Resilient Nation” (the 10/05/10 – progress report”, which clearly assumes a warming future, not a scenario in sight postulating a cooling or relatively constant temperature future.
Maybe NASA should get in touch with Ferenc Miskolczi and say they’ve changed their minds about suppressing his work and would now like to have an open discussion?
From Scottish Sceptic on April 13, 2012 at 2:27 am:
Because rockets are missiles and people live on the ground. Rockets being tested by being fired over civilians and their property tends to make people nervous as they can blow up in the air and wreckage will rain down, large chunks can hit and may explode from remaining fuel. Private companies would have trouble acquiring enough unoccupied land for testing, that accommodates the possible range of the rocket, and if you’re aiming for space then that range is very large. Insurance companies would balk. Governments are large enough to set aside enough federal land for smaller-scale testing and cover costs from collateral damage, and have the (presumed) authority to authorize such a risk.
And there are the national defense concerns. Rockets launched into space tend to cross the national boundaries on the ground. Can private companies effectively obtain permission from any country the rocket may fly over, or its wreckage may crash into? Even within a country there are concerns. Someone may say they are testing a sub-orbital rocket and are launching from Oklahoma, but how does one know it’s not really a weapon aimed at a metropolis like NYC or Washington DC?
So a government agency that regulates space exploration is necessary at a minimum.
Beyond that, as something that’s largely finished now, there’s the providing of research funding that creates potential markets worth investing in. Before satellites went up, where was the market for them? Who created the markets for the products of satellites by showing their potential in actual use, from communications to weather forecasting to surface photography?
There are also the benefits of the spin-off technology from reaching for goals that private companies wouldn’t pursue. NASA gave us a lot. Then came “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) spending that gave us a lot more.
Currently we have a technology glut. Anything further that’ll improve human lives enough to spend money on is being found on the ground. Remaining space exploration goals have much less profit potential. What is there worth gaining in exploring Mars or Venus, or even the Moon? If you think such have real value, then you want a government agency funding them as private enterprise doesn’t have the profit motivation.
The one local station shows the old Benny Hill episodes. Last week there was one highlighting the wonderful differences between NHS and private care. I’ve watched many British comedies on PBS over the years. Nowadays there are numerous online stories about the excellent NHS care.
I’m certain we in the US spent our money better.
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.
Louis Hooffstetter,
Thank you for your quotes from the NASA web site for evidence that NASA claims that “carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change”.
Let me go through some of your evidence :
First of all, does anyone dispute the IPCC on that ? If so, where is their scientific evidence ?
Second, do you truly believe that the 50 signatories to this letter intended this statement to be evidence that NASA’s claims are “unsubstantiated” then I sure am looking forward to their scientific evidence.
accompanied by the following text :
And again, my question is : does anyone dispute this ? And if so, where is their scientific evidence ?
If they did, then they did a terrible job.
But if you have even a shed of common sense, then you realize that this page deals with ALL forms of human activity colliding with Nature, including Urban growth in Texas and Colorado, deforestation in the Amazon and in Niger, mining growth in California and West Virginia, Arctic sea ice retreat and indeed also the devastating effects of the Thai tsunami.
Did you honestly believe that NASA is saying that ALL of these are because of CO2 changes ?
Bill Tuttle also quotes from the NASA web sites :
And once again, this kind of statements are well sustained by scientific evidence, so the question is : does anyone really dispute this ? And if so, where is the scientific evidence ?
In short, it’s OK if some 50 high-profile, well-thought-of guys, ex-NASA employees are venting their opinion in a letter, but maybe Abdalati has a point that they should have this debate in scientific literature instead of using their “high-profile” status to make their point.
Julie said Maybe NASA should get in touch with Ferenc Miskolczi and say they’ve changed their minds about suppressing his work and would now like to have an open discussion?
Maybe you could summarize for us how Miskolczi derived his equation 7 and 8 without making THREE assumptions that have no basis at all in physics ?
Jon R Salmi said :
Please let us know if you find ONE scientific publication that reports “a cooling or relatively constant temperature future”.
Rob Dekker says:
April 14, 2012 at 12:23 am
Did you honestly believe that NASA is saying that ALL of these are because of CO2 changes ?
NASA *said* that on its website. You obviously didn’t even bother to check the source.
Bill Tuttle also quotes from the NASA web sites :
“Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses [sic] produced by human activities. [freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.”
And once again, this kind of statements are [sic] well sustained by scientific evidence, so the question is : does anyone really dispute this ? And if so, where is the scientific evidence ?
Those statements are not sustained by any evidence whatsoever — they are predictions based on the projections of models that can’t even *hindcast* accurately, and anyone who has two neurons capable of snapping disputes that model projections are scientific evidence.
Rob Dekker says:
April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am
Jon R Salmi said :
NASA’s Waleed Abdalati says “We support open scientific inquiry and discussion”, yet NASA’s report “Adapting to a changing climate” (5/18/11) heavily references “Federal Action for a Climate Resilient Nation” (the 10/05/10 – progress report”, which clearly assumes a warming future, not a scenario in sight postulating a cooling or relatively constant temperature future.
Please let us know if you find ONE scientific publication that reports “a cooling or relatively constant temperature future”.
Ask, and ye shall receive, sport.
“We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.”
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4361/