Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Next time someone tells you that scientists all support the “dangerous climate change from CO2” hypothesis, point out to them that forty-nine former NASA scientists have written an open letter to NASA pointing out that NASA is hyping unsubstantiated and unverified claims about climate … posted without further comment.
w.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If only Greta had signed the letter, things would have been so different after this eight years, since the “Real Stuff” signed that letter.
As Greta would have been all of nine years old back then, her endorsement would have meant so much more, than the views of those scientists and engineers with hundreds of years research and knowledge under their belts.
In it’s simplest form; Photosynthesis–the basis for the food chain of the Earth:
Sunlight + CO2 => O2 + H2O
O2 gets exchanged for CO2 thus completing the cycle back to the plants that support the life on this planet.
So what exactly is the argument here? CO2 is “bad”? Why? It’s an essential element for the growth of the base of the food chain on Earth leading to a vast array of ecosystems, incredibly diverse and way out of scale of possibly the most complex computer on Earth to date–the human brain.
The problem isn’t CO2–the problem is the illusion of control based on a non-substantive idea of power within the human species–something that afflicts us down to our cores and has since we invented it.
Unfortunately, climate change alarmism now has so much cultural inertia behind it that it can’t be refuted by reasoned analysis. For one thing, most people would rather swallow shingle nails than admit they were wrong about something, and there are a lot of people who are wrong about climate change.
There may be hope for Greta Thunberg though, because she is still young enough to be surprised (as we all were in youth) to learn that grown-ups lied to us about quite a few things when we were growing up. One day, when Greta is fifty, she will notice that the climate hasn’t really changed all that much, and life in Sweden is pretty good for most of its inhabitants. I would love to see the look on her face when that thought enters her brain.
This letter was amusingly rebutted at the time by an actual climate scientist…
https://www.desmogblog.com/49-cliff-clavin-s-walk-bar-and-talk-climate-change
You run a clown show.
Clown shows have the virtue of being amusing.
The fallacy is thinking that there are any actual scientists on desmogblog.
The fallacy is thinking that climate science is an actual science.
Actually it is a potpourri of sciences and that is why so many involved in the pure sciences can pick holes in their claims.
griff citing desmog.
A bunch of far-left losers that have basically no capability of rational thought.
This is the crowd he “hangs” with. !
John Abraham .. alarmista extrodinaire !!
His whole life depends on the AGW scam.
And has been provably WRONG on basically everything he has ever ranted about.
I remember an English Prof telling about inviting one of her top students to join her with an overseas visitor to attend one of Shakespeare’s plays. The student did not know anything about the guest. She was astounded afterwards when discussing the play to find he was a Professor of Chemistry. She was convinced he must also be an English Prof. This works both ways. Sometimes an English scholar and academic can have a surprising insight into one of the sciences. They are after all supposed to be people that enjoy reading.
I found it sickening reading about the verdict against Peter Ridd. This is not justice. It is people like Judge Vasta that should be sacked not Peter Ridd.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jul/24/salvatore-vasta-judge-in-the-peter-ridd-case-has-had-more-than-20-verdicts-overturned
Vastas ruled in favour of Ridd. That ruling was overturned by two other judges.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, justices John Griffiths and Sarah Derrington found Ridd’s enterprise agreement did not give him an “untrammelled right” to express professional opinions beyond the standards imposed by the university’s code of conduct.
They ruled his termination did not breach the Fair Work Act.
Yep, the Uni used their government funding to close down any criticism of the shoddy anti-science work of its so-called “climate scientists”
Pity.. there were so many worthwhile things they could have used it for.
But actual teaching and science takes very low place in their agenda.
Another unsubstantiated, vacuous assertion..
All you are capable of, isn’t it Jackass.
Of course they used Uni funding.
And it has been proven there was sloppy and academic fraudulent work from some of the JCU “climate” trough dweller.
Facts mean NOTHING to low-lifes like you.
I was wrong to impugn Vastas having drawn the conclusion from a wrong reading of the Guardian article.
I should have resourced material like the following before commenting:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/07/university-appeal-upheld-peter-ridd-loses-we-all-lose/
I do, however, believe that Peter Ridd has been a responsible scientist and is being punished for being a contrarian – which scientists often need to be.
I have had enough of pseudoscience by quasi intellectuals with nothing but personal attacks.
Enjoy your confirmation bias.
“I have had enough of pseudoscience by quasi intellectuals”
Yet you still keep posting links to it.. !!
Yes, you should stop doing it, Jackass.
You have ZERO intellectual or scientific knowledge, and have never backed up anything you have said with anything except blatant propaganda pap links
Willis
It would be great if you could comment on this article, if you think it’s worth commenting on:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/11/austrian-analyst-things-with-greenhouse-effect-ghe-arent-adding-up-something-totally-wrong/
Missing from this discussion is the follow-up letter (NASA-41)!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/22/nasa-astronauts-announce-second-letter-to-nasa-at-heartland-conference/#more-64104
To their discredit, google doesn’t even put it in their search engine, & that speaks volumes!!!