49 former NASA scientists ask for NASA to stop alarmism

[tinfoil]

http://sppiblog.org/news/former-nas...ts-admonish-agency-on-climate-change-position

LOL
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

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

shhhhhh.... don't startle the fear mongers like that... they have CONSENSUS!!!

 

[Bonestorm]

At least there's one meteorologist, which is at least kinda sorta a relevant area of expertise.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

*engineers

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

At least there's one meteorologist, which is at least kinda sorta a relevant area of expertise.

Tell us... what 'climate' specific classes do 'climatologists' take? What specialized science classes do they need to become a 'climatologist'? I eagerly await your reply.

As for your comments, all those National Academies of Science that 'back/support the AGW theory' how about taking a look at the backgrounds of those scientists? Outside of the US/UK/Austrailia... the vast majority have no 'climatologists'

 

[Onceler]

I don't know; the more I read, the more I think cause for "alarm" is real, at least on the general concept of how we're treating the planet and have come to rely so much on finite resources.

Things do need to change, and pretty quickly. I'm fine with some "alarm" out there...

 

[Bonestorm]

Tell us... what 'climate' specific classes do 'climatologists' take? What specialized science classes do they need to become a 'climatologist'? I eagerly await your reply.

As for your comments, all those National Academies of Science that 'back/support the AGW theory' how about taking a look at the backgrounds of those scientists? Outside of the US/UK/Austrailia... the vast majority have no 'climatologists'

Alternatively, you could explain how these various folks who work on completely unrelated scientific endeavors have anything meaningful to say on the matter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Alternatively, you could explain how these various folks who work on completely unrelated scientific endeavors have anything meaningful to say on the matter.

So in other words, you do not know. That said, unlike you, I will actually answer your question.

The bulk of climatology is: meteorological background (which you mock) and statistical analysis/calc/physics. How many engineers/scientists at NASA do you think have a background in the stats/calc/physics area? Pretending that they cannot understand the computer modeling and the calculations involved is quite absurd. They are more than qualified to comment on the failures of the modeling based on the statistical analysis.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't know; the more I read, the more I think cause for "alarm" is real, at least on the general concept of how we're treating the planet and have come to rely so much on finite resources.

Things do need to change, and pretty quickly. I'm fine with some "alarm" out there...

I disagree that any type of 'alarm' is needed. We have ample time to find alternatives. We should (and are) be continuing research and development of alternatives, but schemes by politicians for 'cap and trade' are not solutions. They do nothing but allow the government more control and allow wall street yet another way to fuck us over.

 

[Onceler]

I disagree that any type of 'alarm' is needed. We have ample time to find alternatives. We should (and are) be continuing research and development of alternatives, but schemes by politicians for 'cap and trade' are not solutions. They do nothing but allow the government more control and allow wall street yet another way to fuck us over.

In one sense, we have ample time; in another, we may have already passed the point of no return.

I don't care if it sounds all enviro-wacko, but the planet is basically dying right now. You really don't have to look any further than the status of the oceanic food supply to see a few red flags for humanity out there.

 

[Rationalist]

Most of the people on that list are engineers. I see only one meteorologist, which isn't surprising. You can probably still find a few doctors out there who will tell you cigarette smoking doesn't increase your risk of cancer.

The bottom line is 99% of environmental scientists accept the fact that human activity contributes to climate change. Rejecting the science is equivalent to arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old...or flat, for that matter.

 

[Bonestorm]

So in other words, you do not know. That said, unlike you, I will actually answer your question.

The bulk of climatology is: meteorological background (which you mock) and statistical analysis/calc/physics. How many engineers/scientists at NASA do you think have a background in the stats/calc/physics area? Pretending that they cannot understand the computer modeling and the calculations involved is quite absurd. They are more than qualified to comment on the failures of the modeling based on the statistical analysis.

That's a wonderful argument you are having with yourself, but I was interested in knowing what expertise these various individuals have with respect to the subject matter at hand. By all appearances, they don't work in the field, regardless of their educational background. It's not that they can't understand math, it's that they don't do this stuff. They do other stuff. I wouldn't value the opinions of the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Group I on space shuttle re-entry and am not inclined to value the opinions of NASA engineers on climate change.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In one sense, we have ample time; in another, we may have already passed the point of no return.

I don't care if it sounds all enviro-wacko, but the planet is basically dying right now. You really don't have to look any further than the status of the oceanic food supply to see a few red flags for humanity out there.

We adapt to changes, the planet is not dying, it is changing. We get less than 5% of our food supply from the oceans. Given the fertility rate in the US, Europe, China, Russia are all below the sustainable population rate of 2.1, odds are we see a global population decrease in the next century. India at 2.58 is a concern as it will add to the world population, but they also have a very low life expectancy. As do most of the other countries with high fertility rates

That said, we should try to eliminate pollution of land, air and water as much as we can. As we tend to agree, we should try our best to get off of fossil fuels as much as possible. I just don't think the false 'alarms' help to reach the end goal. To the contrary, I think they detract from it. Every time they shout 'the sky is falling' and it doesn't fall people tune out more to the next proclamation of doom and the legitimate reasons to reduce FF consumption.

 

[Crashk]

"As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the global research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S... It's a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill

Behold the power of corporate propaganda!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's a wonderful argument you are having with yourself, but I was interested in knowing what expertise these various individuals have with respect to the subject matter at hand. By all appearances, they don't work in the field, regardless of their educational background. It's not that they can't understand math, it's that they don't do this stuff. They do other stuff. I wouldn't value the opinions of the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Group I on space shuttle re-entry and am not inclined to value the opinions of NASA engineers on climate change.

Tell us, then why do so many fear mongers champion the fact that so many National Academies of Science have reached 'consensus' on AGW? The vast majority of the Academies don't have a single 'climatologist' on hand.

Also, what argument am I having with myself? I asked a question, you refused to answer it like a coward and then presented a question. I then answered your question.

The expertise they have is in physics, calculus, statistical analysis. Are you really that naive to believe that they cannot use the same skills to analyze the computer modeling done by 'climatologists'???

Hell you even mock meteorologists as being 'kinda close'. It isn't kinda close moron. The required courses for a 'climatology' degree are physics, calc, stats, meteorology. They then take a few electives after that that 'specialize' in 'climatology'. Yet the base science is in the above four areas.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

At least there's one meteorologist, which is at least kinda sorta a relevant area of expertise.

LOL Reminds me of project Steve.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Most of the people on that list are engineers. I see only one meteorologist, which isn't surprising. You can probably still find a few doctors out there who will tell you cigarette smoking doesn't increase your risk of cancer.

The bottom line is 99% of environmental scientists accept the fact that human activity contributes to climate change. Rejecting the science is equivalent to arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old...or flat, for that matter.

Can you show us what additional qualifications one must possess to be a climatologist? or 'environmental scientist'??? Dung wants to run away from addressing it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tell us... what 'climate' specific classes do 'climatologists' take? What specialized science classes do they need to become a 'climatologist'? I eagerly await your reply.

As for your comments, all those National Academies of Science that 'back/support the AGW theory' how about taking a look at the backgrounds of those scientists? Outside of the US/UK/Austrailia... the vast majority have no 'climatologists'

http://bulletin.unl.edu/graduate/Earth_and_Atmospheric_Sciences#coursestab

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://bulletin.unl.edu/graduate/Earth_and_Atmospheric_Sciences#coursestab

Thanks for proving my point and for answering the question Dung was so desperate to avoid.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://sppiblog.org/news/former-nas...ts-admonish-agency-on-climate-change-position

LOL
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

Tin;
Creationist used to do the same stupid horse shit. They'd compile a long list of PhD signatories who opposed teaching evolutionary theory or were very critical of evolutionary theory and, just like this list, the signatories were almost exclusively outside the field of Biology. They were engineers and mathameticians or dentist with some sort of outside agenda (religious or political).

The reality is that the signatories of PhD level scientist who perform field research in climate/climatology/climate change far exceed the signatories on this list.

As a joke for this type os sillyness a list was created to make fun of opponents of evolutionary theory. It's called project Steve. Only PhD level Biologist (or related fields) named Steve are allowed to sign this document supporting biological evolution as sound science. The point being the list has several thousand PhD level biologist named Steve who support biological evolution as a foundational theory of biology.

The same thing applies here. By compiling a list of scientist outside this field of study you're trying to demonstrate that a consensus about the impact of carbon dioxide on climate does not exist. It's a silly notion. If I were to compile a list of PhD level scientist named Steve who work specifically in the field Climate who concur that carbon dioxide is impacting climate the list would be many times larger than the dissenting list of lay scientist you've provided here.

In other words, this isnt' very credible.