Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging »

Who would have thunk it eh?
Cheers Comrades

Watts Up With That?

Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.

See also:The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming

Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

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…

View original post 1,273 more words

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Craigy says:

    Anthony Watts? He takes money from the “smoking is good for you” (tobacco industry) and the “Burning oil and heating the planet is a good thing” (Exxon Mobil) spokespeople – the famous wingnut think tank known as ‘The Heartland institute’…….yeah them!

    Another credible source from loony denialists……

    Who would of thunk it eh?

    This helps explain Watts and the wingnut, denialist, madness…..

    http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/singleton/

    “Smart Idiots”…LOL

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    Mate you are on the wrong side of the argument here and obviously have not even read the post in question. Am I right about that?
    Because if you had read it then you would see that the gist of that post is a a denouncement of the use of models rather than empirical measurement and real science not by Anthony Watts but by 50 very respectable NASA people.

    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.

    1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
    2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
    3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
    4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
    5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
    6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
    7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
    9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
    10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
    11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
    12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
    13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
    14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
    15. /s/ Anita Gale
    16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
    17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
    18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
    19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
    20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
    21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
    22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
    23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
    24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
    25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
    26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
    27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
    28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
    29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
    30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
    31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
    32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
    33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
    34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
    35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
    36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
    37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
    38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
    39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
    41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
    42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
    43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
    44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
    45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
    46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
    47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
    48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
    49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
    50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

    So please consider the actual message here rather than denouncing the messenger .

  3. Craigy says:

    You do make me chuckle Iain. You post stuff from watts blog that is attacking the messenger NASA, and then go me for attacking Watts. Didn’t you sleep well or something? Read about Smart Idiots it explains the strange views of those that reject science.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    I never sleep well and today is one of those days when I am counting the minutes until I can take more pain killers but that is by the by The post is about 50 eminent people in their field being critical of nasa’s approach and I would have thought that you being so red hot on trusting the “men in white coats” would have meant just a bit more time on considering what they are saying rather than just dismissing it out of hand.
    As for your link I don’t rate it very highly for a couple of reasons: USA political traditions and culture are rather different to our own and secondly I could convincingly make precisely the same sort of case for you Warministas and the Pro AGW position.

  5. Craigy says:

    Sorry to hear your not feeling well Iain…..Anyway, your list….Can you point me to the climate scientists as they seem to be missing……The research that came to the conclusion about ‘Smart Idiots’ explains the situation these NASA people are in. My educated guess is that they signed the document for political reasons.

    I don’t understand the reality of climate change because I’m a bit to the left politically, I understand it because it is overwhelmingly supported by practicing climate scientists, yes the ones in white coats, who invented the pain killers that I hope you have had by now.

    ‘Smart Idiots’ refers to the research that shows that the more science that you show to a conservative in the US, the more they will dig in their heals and claim it’s all a left wing conspiracy. Its bazaar, but it does explain these kinds of letters.

    As for ‘Heartland’, ‘Watts’ and the rest, if you complain about Flannery and Gore being paid to sell their message, you can’t have it both ways and go quoting them as untainted sources.

    Perhaps you should put this disclaimer when you re-post from ‘Watts up’…….

    This comes from ‘Watts up’ a denialist blog funded by large donations from the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank that claimed smoking was safe while being funded by the smoking industry. They also take money from big oil so anything they say should be understood in light of this fact.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    Firstly your issue with word press came from forgetting the “au” from your email address

    Sorry to hear your not feeling well Iain…..Anyway, your list…. Can you point me to the climate scientists as they seem to be missing……The research that came to the conclusion about ‘Smart Idiots’ explains the situation these NASA people are in. My educated guess is that they signed the document for political reasons.

    Sciatica is a real bitch mate and it is not that amenable to even strong medication

    Frankly I don’t know why you are so keen to elevate “Climate scientists” to the status of being the arbitrators of good science it is a relatively “new” discipline and certainly one that has been shown to be subject to a great deal of bad scientific practice (as per the climate gate scandal) and then we should never forget that Michael Mann is a “climate scientist” who still defends his indefensible “hockey stick” fraud! The signatories are all involved in much harder and more empirical science which is precisely why they are questioning NASA on this issue.

    I don’t understand the reality of climate change because I’m a bit to the left politically, I understand it because it is overwhelmingly supported by practising climate scientists, yes the ones in white coats, who invented the pain killers that I hope you have had by now.

    Actually the pain killers that I take were not in any way invented by climate scientists, something that I grateful for every time I take them. If they were a product of climate science I expect that they would be as efficacious as homoeopathy and based upon some bizzare computer model that would be largely wrong in the way that it understands positive and negative feedbacks between pain receptors and the central nervous system, rather than drawing upon the empirical evidence going back thousands of years that the juice of the poppy , in measured doses, can be very effective in treating pain.

    ‘Smart Idiots’ refers to the research that shows that the more science that you show to a conservative in the US, the more they will dig in their heals and claim it’s all a left wing conspiracy. Its bazaar, but it does explain these kinds of letters.

    It is just as easy to demonstrate that soft liberals are all about the emotion of the issue, the spin from the AGW crowd is all about the urgency of “saving the planet” and of course they argue that if you don’t agree with thier proposed cure you hate Gaia….

    As for ‘Heartland’, ‘Watts’ and the rest, if you complain about Flannery and Gore being paid to sell their message, you can’t have it both ways and go quoting them as untainted sources.

    Photobucket

    This picture should put all of your nonsense about heartland into perspective

    Perhaps you should put this disclaimer when you re-post from ‘Watts up’…….

    This comes from ‘Watts up’ a denialist blog funded by large donations from the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank that claimed smoking was safe while being funded by the smoking industry. They also take money from big oil so anything they say should be understood in light of this fact.

    Yep sure as long as Warministas put a disclaimer to the effect that they are funded by even bigger piles of cash extorted from government and business and that all of the schemes like Gillard’s carbon tax are the worlds biggest scams and Ponzi schemes built upon the millenarian fantasies of the watermelon brigade 😉

  7. GD says:

    Well said, Iain,

    now here’s my take…

    I find it amazing that some loony leftards are still supporting the increasingly debunked catastrophic global warming theory. With temperatures around the world fluctuating the way they always have, at least in our memory, and before that, with temperature variations that can’t be attributed to mankind, it seems the jig is up.

    After twenty years of scare mongering that the temperature is rising due to industry, the looneys have egg on their face. Carbon dioxide emissions aren’t causing the global temperature to rise. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    On practical fronts, governments worldwide are stepping away from looney greens’ schemes, which do nothing more than raise prices and damage the economy. The old sawhorse that they encourage development of new technologies is a furphy based on governments propping up such new industries. Canada, India, and the USA are distancing themselves from such programs. Solyndra is an example.

    Statewide, we are also seeing this trend. Premiers Baillieu from Victoria, O’Farrell in NSW, and Campbell Newman in Queensland, have shown they won’t tolerate the damaging greening of their states.

    In an ironic twist of fate, Newman instructed former premier Bligh’s husband to dismantle the massively wasteful green programs that Bligh had instructed him to set up.

    The jig is up, and soon the Greens and their looney followers will be electorally confined to Tasmania, along with the Tasmanian Devil and other extinct species.

  8. […] Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask… (iainhall.wordpress.com) […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: