just as we're discussing global warming, I run across this letter signed by 50 former NASA employees objecting to NASA's embrace of the theory of human-caused global warming.
just thought it might be interesting to some here and I doubt it will ever hit the mainstream media. comments?
-----------------------------------------------
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
Posted on 4/12 9:23 AM | IP: Logged
Why does the opinion of seven astronauts, and various "Flight crew training and operations" or quality assurance specialists weigh on this issue more than the vast majority of scientists who study climate as their life's work? 50 NASA employees are supposed to convince me that most prominent scientists in the field are in on the hoax?
Originally posted by PhilipVU94: Why does the opinion of seven astronauts, and various "Flight crew training and operations" or quality assurance specialists weigh on this issue more than the vast majority of scientists who study climate as their life's work? 50 NASA employees are supposed to convince me that most prominent scientists in the field are in on the hoax?
really now, all of these people have scientific backgrounds and professional standings to protect. signing and sending this letter is a very pro-active thing to do so they must feel strongly about what they're saying. I see no possible benefit or ulterior motive they could have in doing this. quite the contrary, actually.
also, you might note the referral to two of the signees for more information on the science involved.
also, they mentioned the hundreds of climate scientists as well as the thousands of other scientists who don't believe in -or are quite sceptical of- human-caused climate change. we're not talking about 50 clueless people here at all.
Posted on 4/12 2:14 PM | IP: Logged
"They must feel strongly about what they're saying"? "no possible benefit or ulterior motive"? What has that got to do with the reliability of astronauts vs. climate scientists?
You are correct that there are some dissidents in the field. I'll save you time and post a list. I'm sure they're knowledgeable too, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is that GCC is real and within that, a consensus that humans are causing it.
===== va: Human causation is important because it strengthens the implication that it's fixable. If it would happen without us, that implies that we're fighting against an inexorable force of nature. If we're partly causing it, then it should be easier to stop doing what we're doing.
Ha, as if!
This post was edited on 4/12 2:23 PM by PhilipVU94
Originally posted by PhilipVU94: "They must feel strongly about what they're saying"? "no possible benefit or ulterior motive"? What has that got to do with the reliability of astronauts vs. climate scientists?
I should have made my point better: NYD has rightly pointed out the vested interests of some who oppose the man-caused theory. However, there are also plenty on the other side who have vested interests too. many of these scientist survive on gov't funding and the more frightening the scenarios they present the better their chances of keeping research funds flowing.
these people formerly associated with NASA have no such selfish motives, or so it seems to me. to the contrary, they're going out on a limb to some extent. I thought that was worth pointing out.
===== va: Human causation is important because it strengthens the implication that it's fixable. If it would happen without us, that implies that we're fighting against an inexorable force of nature. If we're partly causing it, then it should be easier to stop doing what we're doing.
so...let's decide in advance that human causation is important, huh? let's establish our position and then set out to prove it. so much for the scientific method I guess.
Posted on 4/12 2:53 PM | IP: Logged
Oh, FFS, "Human causation is important because it strengthens the implication that it's fixable," is shorthand for, "The question of whether there is human causation or not is an important question because if there is human causation, it strengthens the implication that the problem is fixable."
Posted on 4/14 9:45 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by PhilipVU94: Oh, FFS, "Human causation is important because it strengthens the implication that it's fixable," is shorthand for, "The question of whether there is human causation or not is an important question because if there is human causation, it strengthens the implication that the problem is fixable."
so saying: "human causation is important..." is the same thing as saying: "human causation is an important question..."
maybe, but I don't think so; those are different statements with different meanings -- or certainly could be.
what does FFS mean? will I regret asking?
and who/what is va?
Posted on 4/14 1:00 PM | IP: Logged
nm
This post was edited on 4/12 2:53 PM by 4VANDY
Posted on 4/12 2:41 PM | IP: Logged
I believe based on what I can read and understand global warming is a reality. But a serious question why is it so important for some to ascribe it to human causation? I'm not convinced of that though I don't rule it out either.
Posted on 4/12 12:18 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by vadore: I believe based on what I can read and understand global warming is a reality. But a serious question why is it so important for some to ascribe it to human causation? I'm not convinced of that though I don't rule it out either.
I think this is the point. While climate scientists are the ones who are expert in the field, scientists of all breed might take issue with the presentation of data that still includes a large margin for error being presented with more certainty that it perhaps should. You will note that the element being contested is the presentation of high certainty on the degree to which human impact is driving climate change, not as to other elements. One of the issues that is consistently addressed in the scientific community is the difficulty of presenting scientific results to the public at large. Academia has established a successful means of sharing scientific information and results amongst scientists, but it struggles to convey results to the public. I think this is more a criticism of NASA's presentation of findings than of a) the analysis of results -- which internally reflect more accurately the certainty of conclusions and b) the science itself.
I'm not sure I don't disagree with the signatories, though I'm lay and haven't done enough research on the actual results. I think it's almost certain that human impact is driving climate change, but I also don't think the science is advanced enough to present that with true scientific certainty and consensus. There are just too many variables to control that prevent modeling with accuracy.
I'm not sure I would present this as a purely political issue. The Obama administration has been anything but kind to NASA and NASA scientists and administrators are relatively removed from the political sphere (though many have pronounced opinions -- such as JPL's Carolyn Porco -- regarding the anti-science movement within the GOP).
It should be noted that, and I believe it was also JPL, a group of NASA affiliated scientists did win the Nobel Prize with Gore. So I wouldn't doubt that a connection exists, but I don't think this is something that is related to the current resident of the White House in any way.
Posted on 4/12 12:39 PM | IP: Logged
NYD, how can you not acknowledge that it is a strong possibility that NASA's official position on the matter wasn't coerced by the Obama administration to further its agenda on clean energy?
How many of the former NASA employees were laid off (or are sympathetic to those that were) by the Obama Administration and may have had their own agenda against Obama for that reason in signing the letter.
I personally don't think that a connection between this issue and "the current resident of the White House" can be ignored regardless of which side is right or may be pushing their own agenda.
This post was edited on 4/12 1:31 PM by force10jc
Posted on 4/12 1:29 PM | IP: Logged
Force a good number of the former NASA employees may have a bent against Obama (many of them were part of the manned space flight program which the President has allowed to go on life support and thereby have lost their jobs), but they are not criticizing the policy aspect... they are criticizing the manner in which the science is being presented. I think it's probably a legitimate gripe on a difficult topic.
It's my understanding that NASA's position on climate change has not changed much during the Obama administration, so I don't know that that has anything to do with it.
Regardless of this, I think the issue here is one of science and how it is presented and not necessarily politics. There is no doubt that politics is inextricably intertwined; however, the language of the letter addresses specifically the means by which NASA is presenting scientific information. Because it is a valid concern, I'm not going to overread the politics in it (in other words, there is a valid issue that should be addressed outside of the political ramifications).
Posted on 4/12 2:03 PM | IP: Logged
If you think the NASA endorsement is not political in nature, think again. If the GOP takes the White House, expect their position to change almost overnight.
Yahoo! Sports
