Wednesday, April 11, 2012

NASA scientists and astronauts: 'don't associate global warming frauds with us'.

Global warming charlitans like Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are getting a kiss-off from a bunch of outstanding NASA scientists and astronauts.

From From Watts Up With That:

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.”

Here's 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. 
(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

Amen. Seems that the real scientists who have done such extraordinary work at NASA can't sit by any longer and watch the reputation of their organization go down the drain with this scientific hoax.

But the most important point about this letter is this:

It is signed only by former NASA scientists and astronauts. 

The reason is obvious. Like their clones in the Darwinist claque, global warming scientists create an atmosphere of intimidation and censorship in which working scientists who still depend on their jobs and their livelihood dare not speak out.

As a friend of mine-- a very highly respected biologist at the top of his field who is a quiet devout Christian and who knows that Darwinism is b.s. told me a few years ago: "I'd like to speak out, Mike, but I will never get another grant if I do. I gotta feed my family".

The Code of Omerta doesn't apply to retired scientists. Hence the letter.


  1. Michael,

    Golly, your illogic knows no bounds. You refuse to discuss the science of AGW on the basis that you're not a climate scientist, but then proceed to accept uncritically the views of people who aren't climate scientists either.

    You've decided that you don't have the expertise to come to a judgement about the science, but you're quite willing to give others, with no known qualifications, to make the pronouncements on your behalf.

    Of the list, there seems to be only one with any expertise even remotely connected with climatology, and that's the meteorologist, who's more concerned with short term weather forecasts and safety to launch.

    Actually, I think that I wouldn't have any trouble, for what it's worth, of signing the letter. In particular the 'is having a catastrophic effect on climate change', which is true enough. There's no evidence that any current weather phenomenon is due to AGW.

    'Catastrophe' in science is understood to mean 'tipping point', and again, there's no evidence that any tipping point has been crossed (tipping points are due to positive feedback loops, for example, melting of Arctic ice and snow leading to decreased albedo, leading to increased solar absorption, leading to increased warming, leading to increased melting of Arctic snow and ice ...).

    I do have an objection to the comment that there are tens of thousands of scientists who have signed a petition disagreeing with the existence of AGW. That's the notorious Oregon petition, which includes thousands of engineers and medical practitioners as scientists.

    1. Seems to me that you're about the only one in your AGW-IS-TRUE club!

    2. Pepe,

      'Seems to me you're about the only one in your AGW-IS-TRUE club!'

      You need to look at a few more websites, rather than the denialist ones you read.

      There are plenty of people like me who think that AGW is true and happening, as far as any science can determine.

      Nothing in science is 100% certain. But there are scientific theories, such as Big Bang Cosmology, evolutionary biology and AGW, in which the evidence is so strong that to deny them would be perverse.

    3. "But there are scientific theories, such as Big Bang Cosmology, evolutionary biology and AGW, in which the evidence is so strong that to deny them would be perverse."
      Only to a positivist/monist.
      In much the same way the denial of the perfection of the Koran is viewed by Muslim Orthodoxy as perverse.
      It is quite simple really, Bach.
      Any theory that is not proven is easily argued and often denied, as it should be.
      None of the theories you list come close to certainty or law.
      Not even remotely close, actually.
      They are one step up from sheer conjecture; and that step is solely the result of forcing the data to conform to a preconceived (by centuries in some cases) notion. They should be contested, denied, and called out for what they are: 'beliefs'.
      Here are the facts surrounding those beliefs, upon which they are based for you to consider.

      Big Bang: Time and space seem to have a genesis and perhaps a terminus.
      Evolution: Creatures seem to be able to adapt to new environments and conditions in some cases usually over very long periods.
      AGW: The climate of Earth changes, and as it does it seems that certain gases and fluid dynamics changes with it. These changes cause further changes in the various habitats of life.
      The rest is conjecture, hypothesis, and working theory.
      To worship these ideas and theories is the true perversion.

  2. As a friend of mine-- a very highly respected biologist at the top of his field who is a quiet devout Christian and who knows that Darwinism is b.s.

    You mean, Egnor knows yet another crazed religious fanatic who can't accept evolution because of his loony dogma, but is unwilling to admit this to his colleagues because he knows they would all point and laugh.

    Next up on Egnorance: a surgeon friend of his who believes in the Stork theory, but can't admit it because he is afraid of getting fired.

    1. Darwinism is a failed (and stupid) explanation of evolution!

    2. I also know plenty of professionals in various real sciences (ie practising as opposed to purely academic) who are convinced that creatures adapt, but also agree with Dr Egnor that the Darwinian model is bunk. I also know people in various social sciences/fields who feel the whole approach is nuts, and is simply a pseudo-scientific means to justify some very nasty ends. These are not 'fanatics', nor do they occupy some fringe. They work in the space industry, education, defence, the medical professions, the police, and even in government.

      You were never a beast, and shall not become like God. You will die. There is good and evil.
      Get over it.
      The fanatics are the ones who refuse these truths and dream up alternatives to 'explain them away'.
      The serpent LIED.
      Dress it up in philosophy, run about in robes at night, talk with 'spirits', or call it 'science' - no matter.
      Your legend is PURE BUNK.
      I should also note that hiding behind 'science' is fast becoming impossible, as the falsehood and dogmatism of your religion/faith (autobiogenesis / 'evolution') becomes more apparent with each new discovery. Your square pegs just do NOT fit the round holes, even when you force them in!
      The scientific establishment will eventually choose credibility over dogma, or be reduced to a political tool and replaced along with those hollow politics.

    3. "The serpent LIED."

      You believe in a talking snake and yet you have the hubris to tell someone else

      "Your legend is PURE BUNK."

      Your blathering about how science is 'fast becoming impossible" is just evidence that you have become disconnected from reality. Quite sad really.

  3. Current species (including humans) evolved from earlier species without intervention of divine magic. That's what fits the evidence. Produce an example of divine magic, and you can introduce it as a possible causal agent. Until then, "God" is no more an actor in the development of species than are midichlorians or Lord Voldemort.

    We use evidence to determine truth in courtrooms. It's not a bad system. It's worked quite well in science too, which is why we're communicating over a global digital network and not with scrolls carried by camels. The evidence says: common descent. Period.

    Darwin got it right. Moses got it wrong, as did every other ancient author of creation mythology. I know it really burns some bums on this blog to know that, but most of you do actually know it deep down in places you won't admit you have. That's what I like about this blog - some of you are intelligent enough to recognize the cognitive dissonance of trying to deny the DNA evidence of common descent, and the contradiction of trying to insert divine magic in to a world that so obviously operates just fine without it.

    As for global warming - A simple evidence-based examination will get to the truth a lot faster than deciding whose opinion to glorify because they once wore NASA or a cross on their shirt. Perhaps looking at the findings of AGW skeptic and data analysis expert Richard A. Muller and his BEST project.

    If your opinion doesn't fit the facts, it's not the facts that need to change.

    But go ahead, dig your trenches a little deeper and tell me how Thomas Aquinas disproves evolution and how Jesus died to absolve humanity of any responsibility for the Earth's climate.

    1. @KW:

      The really funny thing is your confidence that your "shit just happened' atheist metaphysics really explains anything.

      You have no explanation for the actual existence of anything. Life just magically arose from the mud, biological systems just happened because stuff changes and survivors survive.

      Christians don't have all of the answers. We understand that the answers lie Elsewhere. But unlike atheists, we don't run away from the questions.

    2. No, the really funny thing is that science has explained more in 200 years than religions explained in 5000 years.

      The really funny thing is that humans are more peaceful, more tolerant, and more connected than ever before in all of history, but the really awful, contentious, nasty barriers that remain between us are largely religious.

      The really funny thing is you attempt to speak for Christians, but you're so full of hate and so lacking in intellectual integrity that you bear no resemblance to any Christians I know.

      The really funny thing is that you REALLY want to reject evolution and Darwin, but you've admitted in your more lucid moments that you (1) accept common descent; and (2) don't believe God tinkers with the development of species, so therefore you accept evolution. Your hatred of the idea of evolution is at constant war with your inability to escape the physical truth of evolution.

      But the really REALLY funny thing is - I'm not KW.

  4. we don't run away from the questions.

    Liar. You do nothing but run away. One of the commenters has repeatedly challenged you on your misunderstandings about global warming. Another has done so regarding evolution. All you do is stick your fingers in your ears and say "Naa, naa, atheist, communist, I can't hear you!"

    On Judgment day, you will certainly be judged for your lies.