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.
That made my day. Does anyone know who the lone dissenter was and why he/she declined to attach his/her name?
Further to Eric SimpsonEric Simpson says:
May 22, 2012 at 11:21 am
The Crumbling Consensus
The Consensus doesn’t look overly healthy in Australia, ither, at the moment.
Australian poll – late April
Posted on WUWT – attracted some comment.
Go to: –
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/
for the final tally.
Note – Round 2 results are – ahem – not immediately obvious.
The Sky-Is-Falling-Team’s hammering is [a bit] less obvious including all results.
Highlights: PostShow
Dismissive 49%
Alarmed 23%
Concerned 13%
Doubtful 9%
Cautious 5%
Disengaged 1%
5439 votes counted
Also shows totals [for round one and round two; possibly statisticaly significant, but I suggest not].
Many of the readership thinks highly of Australia.
So – let us see if they awaken from their dream [or nightmare] . . . . . . . . .
NASA’s chief said in his reply,
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
“Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public. ”
. It seems that the astronauts have no expertise in climate science, yet they want to impose their views on what the climate science says on NASA. The chief appropriately says, that he is not going to impose their views on NASA. He is going to quote what the peer reviewed science says.
If the astronauts don’t like what the conclusions of the research, since they are retired and free to do what they want, maybe should do some research and get it published.
michaeljmcfadden says: May 22, 2012 at 10:29 am
Jump 50 years into the future, to just 37 years ago, and half as many cars in the US were causing double the pollution (or more… haven’t really researched the figures on that),
———————————————————-
Automobile emissions have dropped far more than a factor of four. Per this reference: http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/pdf/pmr-v45-i2-050-059.pdf
unburned hydrocarbons are down from 10.6 in 1960 to 0.125 in 2001.
carbon monoxide is down from 84 in 1960 to 3.4 in 2001, and
nitrogen oxides collectively down from 4.1 in 1960 to 0.2 in 2001.
All expressedin a wonderful government unit, grams/mile. It’s time to thank the EPA for a job well done and “We don’t need ever tighter controls” so their budget can be cut 50%.
Concensus is not proof – Aristotle.
1 meter?….does that moron know how much water that is…..and where is that supposed to come from?
wwschmidt says on May 22, 2012 at 10:14 am:
===============
I too am dumb-struck.
HaroldW says:
May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
steveta_uk,
I think you have a problem with UH humour. (humor).
DaveE.
Or even UK humour.
DaveE.
_Jim says:
May 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Couldn’t have anything to do with enthalpy and the extra energy to be dissipated in a humid environment?
DaveE.
amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
Unless NASA gets back into the space business we can expect them to be in the “atmospheric” business. Probably more money for them there.
wikeroy says – “Why does NASA, a space agency, have “opinions” on AGW ?” “What is that other agenda?”
Your choice(s):
1) AGW is politics and politics is driving NASA. (kowtowing to Green agenda)
2) AGW is money and cash cow for NASA. (more jobs, higher pay, more toys)
3) AGW is control and government runs NASA. (U.N. / IPCC – Cap-n-Trade(tax))
wikeroy says:
Wickeroy, my perception from a quote that I read a few years back was that the big agenda or prize was, which agency out of NASA and NOAA , would get the big fat ongoing Government contracts to fix what now appears to be an unlikely problem, by running a Geoengineering project worth Trillions in tax gravy to either Agency. The article claimed that Hansen argued with Gavin Schmidt over the spoils and he won the day.
Seems they were a bit premature in thinking they had won the prize before they had truly secured a monopoly on their version of climate science. Maybe someone has a link to that article or quote to remind us verbatim. Kind of makes sense, as there were overtures to do things like spread black soot on snow and dumping waste in the oceans.
Kind of sends shivers up the spine, but that is a whole new agenda of extremes, and hopefully avoided with thanks to the insider who released the CRU emails and helped expose the scheming team for what it was.
Time for my obligitory comment.
We need a base on the moon. A real one, not a virtual one.
Folks are getting really bored with computer models, cartoons and simulations.
Man does not live by data alone.
The degradation of NASA, and the US in general, continues in many ways. Just look around you with open eyes.
Having the hero’s like these gentlemen that step up and speak truths is inspiring and essential to our future successes.
Having to call a “Russian Cab” to do much of our space business now, is not a good thing by any means.
Remember to vote in November!
hen says — amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
Not really that amazing, since those signatories are professional scientists. Climatology with its consensus belief basis vs. professional scientific method is more akin to Astrology. {Apologies to Astrologists…}
Interesting that today Bolden announced that starting with today’s launch, the International Space Station would be supplied by private sector space vehicles freeing NASA time up to concentrate on other projects like going to asteroids (I thought that was going to go private too ….) and to Mars. No mention of earth bound projects like “climate” or anything else. Guess the Dems are turning it all over to the “Private Sector”. Wait …. wait…. isn’t that a Republican slogan? Hmmm. Maybe they are planning to transfer Hansen and his group to the “Private Sector” ?????
hen says:
May 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm
amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hen – do you have a son named “Chicken Little”?? Sorry mods, delete if you wish, I just couldn’t resist.
Is Waleed the source of the “Outreach to Muslims” program?
As a kid, I always thought the purpose of NASA was “Outreach to the Universe”. Good to see private enterprise stepping up to the plate.
hen says @ur momisugly May 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm
amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
Hen, and you think being a crimatologist is a badge of honor? No, crimos are people have nothing useful to say, exept for their paymasters. All others need not apply for government grants.
BTW I do not study “climate” but as an engineer and scientist, I do think rationally and can spot logical fallacies and politial BS and self-interested garbage when I see it.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
The science is not settled.
The truth is not being told to the public.
Top scientific organizations (eg NASA) are being complicit in broadcasting propaganda and are being caught out!
NASA was producing excellent, leading edge, climate research exemplified by John Herman and Richard Goldberg’s 1978 publication “Sun, Weather and Climate.” I understand among other things NASA had concerns about changes in the depth of the atmosphere as it affected the frictional effect on orbiting spacecraft. I understand Skylab came down because they miscalculated. There was also growing concern they would be blamed for climate change because of the gases they were injecting in to the troposphere, but more so with those in the stratosphere.
Things changed in 1981 when Hansen was appointed Director of GISS but he came to centre stage in 1988 when he was handpicked by Al Gore and Timothy Wirth to push the global warming hypothesis. Wirth had said,
“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
In a 2007 PBS Frontline documentary Wirth said,
“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”
It has been all political and scientifically down hill since then.
I worked at NASA for 11 years. Space Shuttle, Space Station, various advanced projects, all canceled. The biggest problem we had was money. Most space programs require stable multi-year budgets. But every year they have to grovel at the feet of an administration and various congresscritters for what ever scraps of cash they can get. They cannot count on a stable budget from year to year. Frequently the admin changes, priorities change and frequently the holder of the pursestrings changes. And even when they manage to plan long range, the project gets designed by political committees, not engineers. The Space Station does virtually nothing we wanted it to do and very little of value.
In this environment, you do what makes the politicians happy. And that means promote AGW. When that changes, Hansen will be out faster than you can say, what was up with that?
In the meantime, don’t expect any changes.