Free Markets, Free People

Former NASA scientists and administrators denounce current NASA and GISS climate change stance

In a letter to NASA’s Administrator, 50 former NASA scientists and astronauts voice their displeasure over the climate change stance NASA has taken finding it to be unsubstantiated by science. They request that NASA  “refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”   Among those signing the letter is Dr. Chris Kraft, the former Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center for 24 years.

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.

Apparently Dr. James Hansen’s most recent charge that global warming is the moral equivalent of slavery was the last straw, and the men and women who signed the letter refuse to suffer the embarrassment he continues to bring to NASA in silence.

Note the last sentence in the first paragraph where the letter writers make the most obvious point – the science, despite claims by alarmists to the contrary, is NOT settled.  Additionally, much to the displeasure of the alarmists, as more and more scientific information comes available on the subject, the majority does NOT support their theory.

Thus the desperation exhibited by alarmist advocates like Hansen and his “slavery” nonsense.

The scam is coming apart at the seams and those like Hansen who’ve staked their professional reputations on the bad science that undergirded it are now suffering the appropriate consequences.

That is, being dismissed as a serious scientist.

And deservedly so.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

28 Responses to Former NASA scientists and administrators denounce current NASA and GISS climate change stance

  • Good for them! Hansen has increasingly outed himself as a nutter of the worst kind, showing up at anti-Keystone Pipeline rallies and calling it essentially a “dirty needle”. There is very little “scientist” left in him.

    • @Ragspierre “There is very little “scientist” left in him.” which gives one pause to wonder if there was ever one there at all. Also makes one wonder if he’s a ‘scientist’ in the same way Obama is a “Constitutional Scholar” doesn’t it?

      • NO, he was always just a political hack. My next door neighbor is a retired Nasa engineer, (lots of them around Houston. He assures me that NASA became completely polticized during the Clinton Administration. @looker

  • Hansen said in January of 2009 that Obama “had four years to save the world,” and that a failure to cut emissions by 10% or more would put the Earth on a runaway course. So now that it’s (nearly) four years later and nothing has changed in that department, I presume Hansen’s position is that we should give up because it’s too late.

  • How about 50 scientists and astronauts against man-made climate change versus about 5 million scientists and engineers world-wide who believe it. Now before you bring up Lord Acton’s foppish argument against this sort of data as being subject to ‘the fallacy of consensus’, one should be aware that the pragmatic nature of scientific revolution is the result of scientific consensus

    • @tadcf 5 million? Got signatures for that, or are you kinda taking what we in technical fields like to refer to as a Scientific Wild Ass Guess (SWAG) for that number. Personally I think there are 20 million scientists and engineers world-wide who don’t believe it. No, make that 50 million.
      ==============================================================
      It’s your swag bid.

    • @tadcf The last global consensus was that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD

    • @tadcf The last global consensus of experts in the field was that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD

      • @Neo_ Hundreds of WMDs have been found in Iraq since 2003; so you may want to choose another example.

      • @Neo_ Hundreds of WMDs have been found in Iraq since 2003, so you may want to choose a different example.

      • @Neo_ Hundreds of MWD have been found in Iraq since 2003, so you may want to choose another example.

    • @tadcf Actually, the estimated number of scientists and engineers world wide (that would be people with a credible license to claim they ARE a scientist or an engineer even if they don’t specialize in atmospheric science….) was something on the order of 4.8 million….worldwide….in 2001. It grew on average by about 50,000 (rounded up from 49705) a year from 1950 to 2001. So, let’s assume continued growth on that line, just for simplicity, that would give us another 550000 from 2001 to current – so 5,350,000. Now, according to you, we’re to believe that only 350,000 scientists and engineers of the total world population of scientists and engineers do NOT believe in global warming. Coincidentally from this small number we know 50 of them used to work at NASA.
      ====================================================================
      I should probably mention that ALL of the 5 million scientists and engineers who you’ve decided to cite are NOT qualified to be commenting on atmospherics and global climate….just saying.
      ==============================================================
      But, you keep on with your sciencey science thing of pulling numbers out of thin air.

      • @looker “Thin air” is NOT from whence that moron pulls his content. Unhappily…

      • @looker I bet you can’t find 500 scientists or engineers (or anybody else) who have actually read any of the scientific papers on the subject.
        This is plain and simple a “social cascade” of immense proportions (i.e. somebody tells two friends who each tell two friends and so on and so on).

        • @Neo_ Hence my sudden interest in the freely bandied about number of 5 million. One has to chuckle as to how that number is reached during a post…it’s all happening at the speed of thought of course, but it’s essentially like this –
          “There are 100,000….no, that’s not big enough, there must be more, a million?…no, still not big enough, how about 5 million, yes, that will work, that sounds like an important number, 5 million. Oh, there must be that many, after all there are……(pause as he seeks a number)…..a lot, there are a lot of people in the world…..” And so the quote is created, 5 million scientists and engineers without any consideration for reality. Think how much more credible his statement is now! Why 5 MILLION!!!! That will surely make the point that these piddly 50 are insignificant worms!
          =====================================================
          Clearly, he did as much research as many of the 5 million scientists and engineers who believe in global warming did…..

        • @Neo_ course this internet thingie allowed him to actually try and figure out how many scientists and engineers there WERE, roughly anyway, based on the number of professionals holding degrees in fields that are classified as ‘scientific’ or engineering, without delving even into which branch of study those degrees had been earned. There actually IS data, but the best I could find was a study ‘as of’ 2001, so I did an wag extrapolation from there. It’s probably higher than my number, given the explosive growth of the economies in China, India and the former Soviet Bloc and the subsequent probable increase in the number degree holders. However, it’s not going to be THAT much higher.
          ======================================================
          But since he was taking it from the methane factory, there was no need for THAT was there.

    • @tadcf 5 million scientists and engineers world-wide who believe it
      ————————————————————————————————-
      Actually, no scientist or engineer “believes” in anything outside of their religion. The scientific method REQUIRES skeptical inquiry and demonstration of any theory, along with verifiable data. We all see why are you confused about these things. The term “scientific consensus” is both oxymoron and anathema to rational, scientific inquiry.

    • @tadcf I’ve had a couple of pisco sours but… Bullshit. As Einstein once remarked, it takes only one correct person to prove something wrong. Otherwise we’d be choosing between experts on how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Disclosure, PhD in physics and can see a load of crap when published.

      • @DocD PhD in physics eh? Okay, where do you stand on Anthropogenic Global Warming? Hurry up, be quick about it, I have 5 million other scientist types to survey…..come on man I don’t have all day.

    • @tadcf “one should be aware that the pragmatic nature of scientific revolution is the result of scientific consensus”. Again, bullshit. The fundamental concern of science is falsifiability. Thus we have had to wait decades for the 6-sigma verification of the Higgs boson, but climate change “science” can apparently do with inverted calibrations when required, no error statistics from a single Siberian tree, etc. It ain’t rocket science… It isn’t actually science.

      • @DocD “one should be aware that the pragmatic nature of scientific revolution is the result of scientific consensus”….but….but…..this had that rich creamy reasonably intelligent sound to it, like the corporate mission statements of the 90’s that were intended to….uh….inspire? improve profit?…I never was sure what they were intended to to, but they sure SOUNDED like they meant something important didn’t they? So too the quoted sentence, it has pragmatic in it, always a good word, it uses scientific a couple of times, and consensus, well, who could argue with consensus (provided we’re all consenting towards a goal I like of course….). No no, string all those words together, and it’s a not quite a symphony, but it’s certainly a very moving piece for a string quartet!
        ===============================================================
        I don’t understand why it’s not scientific, it sounds so….sciency, doesn’t it? Go ahead, say it to yourself….surely….it does…..no?

      • @DocD Hell, I can even see a guy who looks like young Leslie Neilsen, in a lab coat, with a beaker in one hand and a test tube in the other, talking down to his hot blonde lab assistant, who’s just said some stereotypically womanish thing from the 1950’s…”No Miss Jones, one should be aware that the pragmatic nature of scientific revolution is the result of scientific consensus!”
        =================================================================
        Come on, you must have watched movies like Plan 9 from Outer Space, you just KNOW you can see this scene in your head.

    • @tadcf one should be aware that the pragmatic nature of scientific revolution is the result of scientific consensus >>>>>>>>>>>> Consensus isn’t science. For the umpteenth time.

    • @tadcf Word of advice, you’re not ready to be up on the porch with the big dogs yet.

    • @tadcf Word of advice, one dog to another, you’re not ready to be up on the porch with the big dogs yet.