This will be a top sticky post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one.
At the Heartland Conference in Chicago this morning, four of the forty-nine signers of the March letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (discussed at WUWT here, here, and here) appeared to discuss their reasons for signing that letter and to announce a second letter responding to NASA’s response.
The text of that letter is reproduced below:
May 11, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie:
In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.
On April 11th, Dr. Waleed Abdalati responded, holding that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
Eight days later, at a senate hearing, Dr. Abdalati, did just that, concluding that Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, with lower ranges less likely while “the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st century.” Abdalati added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”
The range and imprecision of this conclusion is astounding!
“Commonly considered?” Is this science by poll? If hard data points to a provable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, “Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the Sea of Tranquility, but we may make final descent within a range that includes Crater Clavius”?
We are not trying to stifle discourse, but undisciplined commentary, lacking in precision, is wholly inappropriate when NASA’s name and reputation is attached.
This letter should end the discussion, as a protracted discourse on this topic is not in NASA’s interest, but a commitment from you to equal or exceed the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science and accurate data most certainly is!
Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration!
Waiting to do so is not an option!
[signed 41]
PS Waiting to send was not an option either –we have fewer signatures than the first, as not everyone was reachable and only one opted out.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., 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/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald D. 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/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 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 Div., 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/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Div., 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/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 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/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 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 Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 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.– Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years
/s/ James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – ARC, GSFC, Hdq. – Meteorologist, 5 years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil C ,
NASA’s response is quoted in the second paragraph .
,i>KeithH says:
May 22, 2012 at 10:46 am
It’s amazing that predictions such as this are actually made in public when they have so little basis in any kind of reality.
What’s more amazing is that when those predictions fail to materialize and the prognosticators are questioned, they either say they were misquoted or ignore the question altogether.
Phil C says:
May 22, 2012 at 11:09 am
Can you reprint NASA’s response here? Or, can someone familiar with it at least provide us with a link?
Yup.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679
See what you miss by being AWOL so long?
I meant to say the letter’s second paragraph .
Encore!! Encore!!!
This is not a ‘slap in the face’. It is a public spanking, richly deserved and eloquently delivered!
Thank You Astronauts, Flight Crews, Ground Crews and all Signatores!!!
I have sent a letter to me representative in Congress stating that this issue (Hanson and his group of supporters at NASA) should be investigated by Congress. I believe that this is the appropriate thing to do and suggest that all others send their Representatives a similar note including the test of the letter and reference to the WUWT site or other appropriate citations.
Perhaps we can get Congress to finally respond to this political use of a Government position of trust. There are many people in multiple government agencies that are misusing their position and influence to promote a political position.
Regards,
Bob
Could someone please tell me why the National Aeronautical and Space Administration ( I do not see anywhere in their title; the word “Climate”) is discussing climate change?
What next the physicists at CERN mapping the surface of Mars?
Dear Honorable Charles Bolden:
In case you don’t understand the professionally written letter above (May 11, 2012), we gladly summarize it for you: “Stop your subordinates B.S.ing about AGW”.
Signed
We Taxpayer$
NASA is run by people who are a disgrace and corrupt. NASA will ignore the above letter because spineless, incompetent, politically correct fools are in charge. Until real scientists do real science at NASA the place will remain a bad joke. The 1st step NASA has to take to restore its credibility is fire Hansen.
What do you expect from NASA when Obama told Bolden NASA’s primary mission was to make Muslims’ feel good about themselves?
steveta_uk,
But why send this to a “Jr. NASA Administrator” ?
You’ve probably already figured this out by now, but that’s just a parsing problem. Charles Bolden, Jr. is the NASA Administrator.
Steven Kopits says: – “Hansen has completely taken over the branding of NASA, and he has politicized the agency.”
We can’t entirely blame Hansen for what NASA has become. For years now (if not decades), NASA has been on a downward spiral. The only thing NASA has done recently that has saved their bacon was the super successful Mars Rovers.
NASA is extincting itself and looking to be replaced by a new agency; minus the politics and bureaucrats.
Thanks to the many heroes and veterans of JSC who penned and signed this letter to our illustrious NASA administrator Mr. Bolden.
NASA is suffering a serious delinquency of scientific virtue and is in need of significant course correction. The vast majority of folks I worked with while at JSC did not support the non-sense that Mr Abdalati and his politicized version of junk-science that Mr. Bolden also is endorsing by standing idly by while this rubbish is carried on.
It will be a happy day when these political hacks are no longer running NASA. And for the fans of the “In God we trust, all others bring data.” motto, it was on the wall through the final flight of the Shuttle program in the room I worked in. It clearly has no meaning to Mr. Abdalati nor Mr. Bolden unless it agrees with their agenda or can be massaged to do so.
ElBobbo says – “NASA’s primary mission was to make Muslims’ feel good about themselves?”
Apparently NASA, with its deep involvement in Anthropological Global Warming (and making some feel good); NASA has lost sight of its Vision statement: (from – What Does NASA Do? 02.01.10):
NASA’s vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world — and off of it — for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What’s out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?
So much for reaching “new heights” and “What’s out there in space”.
Perhaps a new vision: Too costly go where Neanderthals have stride before.
@michaeljmcfadden. Great post! Yes, in a state of relative economic and technological success, we have become complacent.
Most don’t understand the serious hurt that could fall upon us. So the environmentalists and affluent effete libs go chasing after the fairy tale of global warming, insisting on draconion measures, like the mandated 83% CO2 cuts by 2050 that -passed- in the U.S. House in 2009. That would have reduced per capita usage to 1867 levels. 1867. The Democrat cap & trade bill would have thrust a wrecking ball into civilization, no question. But O’s war on energy proceeds, and his criminal plan which would cause the price of electricity to skyrocket would also severely stunt electrical power generation. At jnova a comment by wes george puts this in perspective:
If that letter doesn’t work to get NASA out of the CAGW business, nothing will.
RHS, Bill Tuttle, P Walker and Phil C
I have from the beginning been very skeptical of that alleged NASA response (by Abdalati). The only source to that ‘response’ is the (obscure) spaceref.com link by Bill Tuttle above, and it is nowhere an official statement or even a complete and properly presented response. Just snippets, phrases, and purported citations. Without introduction, proper framing, or formal addressing of the issue.
It looks much more like a recounted phone conversation ‘on the fly’ to me. Further, there are obvious misleading facts presented by the spaceref link. However, it did stir some activity among the usual pro-AGW, sites which probably was the main motive.
I never did, and still don’t consider NASA to have issued any ‘formal response’.
drip, drip,drip.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/world-leaders-to-tackle-real-pollution-from-black-carbon/
Well said, gentlemen. It’s good to see a few dozen seriously scientifically qualified heads appearing above the parapet.
And well done, Anthony. Their letter is an awful lot more public for being here and, we can hope, will have more impact as a result.
“The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”
The question everyone should ask themselves is;
Why does NASA, a space agency, have “opinions” on AGW ?
Aren’t there other US agencies that should care about this?
And; Since NASA is a government agency, and such things like this is said…..why? Surely the US Government cannot be that stupid, that they really believe in AGW? Surely????
So, the logical explanation must be; The US government must have another agenda behind it.
What is that other agenda? Back to the stone-age?
What follows this? The letter is great and certainly needed (needs?) to be sent, but what follows when this advice is again ignored? I hope these NASA heroes have a plan of action, they need to be heard worldwide.
Bzzzz! Look, study up on IR Spectroscopy and get back with us …
For extra credit ‘splain why and how humid evenings cool less than ‘dry’ ones.
.
I encourage everyone to watch the NASA folks give their presentation at Heartland moderated by Leighton Steward. Harrison Schmidt and Walt Cunningham in particular give very compelling presentations.
I could never understand how NASA scientists could follow, or indeed lead, the Global Warming crowd. Now I understand. Well done gentlemen. Sometime in the future you will be seen to have been right and I hope I live to see the day.
phil c~ you know, if you actually took the time to read at the various skeptical blogs, you would not only know what was going on, you would know where to look to find out more. You might find it edifying to actually READ and THINK about what we are saying, rather than take your side’s word for it.
Off topic, but for the Americans in the crowd there is a White House petition asking for “Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.”
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ