50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming

 

Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” (H/T Marc Morano)

Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam.

The letter says:

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.

Join Ricochet!
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 23 comments.

  1. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member

    That CO2 has a general warming effect is not in serious dispute, but its effect is minimal by itself.

    What is in serious dispute is what happens next, even though this is the key argument for catastrophic warming. The IPCC models all assume to varying extents that the natural response by the rest of the Earth’s climate system to CO2 warming is more warming, which is called “positive feedback” in the jargon. Positive feedback exists in nature but it is rare. Generally, positive feedback systems are unstable and self-limiting because they are self-destructive. Forest fires are an example; a small fire becomes a bigger fire until it has exhausted all of the burning material and puts itself out.

    So far, the evidence seems to show that the natural response to CO2 warming is to mitigate the warming, corresponding to a “negative feedback” system, which is far more commonplace in nature. Generally, systems that have any kind of longevity are negative feedback systems, which means they self-regulate. Warm blooded mammals exposed to cold increase their metabolism and generate more heat to keep a steady body temperature.

    ClimateSkeptic has a great video that goes into much more detail.

    • #1
    • April 11, 2012 at 2:06 am
  2. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    Huzzah!

    It appears that some engineers do come equipped with a spine.

    Now, if only we could find politicians furnished from the factory with both a brain and the spine to follow it.

    • #2
    • April 11, 2012 at 3:18 am
  3. Profile photo of outstripp Inactive

    The age of the earth is about 5 billion years. Life has existed for about 4 billion years. If life were “fragile” surely some catastrophic event would have wiped it out many times by now. Last time I checked I was still alive.

    • #3
    • April 11, 2012 at 3:21 am
  4. Profile photo of James Delingpole Contributor
    James Delingpole Post author

    @outstripp Your illusion that you are still alive is a classic case of “false consciousness” induced by the industrialist, capitalist, enviro-destroying conservative hegemony (of which Ricochet is a part).

    In fact, if only you listened to experts like NASA’s Dr James Hansen you would realize that you died many years ago, killed by your selfishness, greed and refusal to adjust your lifestyle in order to contain your ADDICTION TO OIL>

    • #4
    • April 11, 2012 at 3:26 am
  5. Profile photo of Pat Sajak Contributor

    It is incredible to me that this whole issue began with a misunderstanding. It’s been nearly twenty years since renowned climatologist and champion amateur fisherman, Dr. Hadley Murchenson warned that his favorite bait was being over-harvested. His clarion call on the subject of global worming has since been distorted by fellow scientists, and his untimely death in 2003 from a severe carp bite ended his efforts to clarify the matter. 

    • #5
    • April 11, 2012 at 3:47 am
  6. Profile photo of Von Clausewitz Inactive

    Does anyone recall when Du Pont lossed their patent on CFC causing aerosols? These same scientists were hired by the government to say how much damage CFCs cause. And make them illegal to protect Du Pont’s alternitive. Global warming! Remember in the 70s? The next ice age! Now of course they’re not sure. Global climate change! The sad part is that there are enough stupidly ignorant people to give this movement an audience. 

    • #6
    • April 11, 2012 at 4:10 am
  7. Profile photo of Percival Thatcher

    Quasicrystal1.jpgFun fact: The status quo doesn’t usually advance science. Being right trumps being in the majority, as Dan Shechtman could tell you.

    • #7
    • April 11, 2012 at 4:56 am
  8. Profile photo of David Williamson Member

    Wait a minute – what happened to NASA’s Muslim outreach program?

    Oh, and how come all the sensible NASA employees are ex-employees?

    • #8
    • April 11, 2012 at 5:42 am
  9. Profile photo of tabula rasa Member

    Warmist response narrative: [Fingers in ears. Eyes closed.] “La La La La, I hear nothing–I see nothing.” [Repeat as often and as loudly as necessary]

    • #9
    • April 11, 2012 at 9:09 am
  10. Profile photo of Give Me Liberty Inactive

    Leftists politicize everything! As long as scientific institutions (or any institution, education, etc..) are at the mercy of power mongering statists these institutions will be forced, sometimes in comical and farcical ways, to bend to their wishes. The global warming jig has been up for a few years now but so much has been invested in it that they cannot let it go. 

    • #10
    • April 11, 2012 at 9:21 am
  11. Profile photo of Roberto Member
    Von Clausewitz: Does anyone recall when Du Pont lossed their patent on CFC causing aerosols? These same scientists were hired by the government to say how much damage CFCs cause. And make them illegal to protect Du Pont’s alternitive. . · 5 hours ago

    Hmm I had not come across that assertion before, although a quick search did bring forward this American Thinker article: The CFC Ban which is rather interesting. Yet I am unfamiliar with the author and unsure what weight to give his statements. What writings led yourself to be convinced of this?

    • #11
    • April 11, 2012 at 9:37 am
  12. Profile photo of Fred Cole Member

    Maybe I skimmed it, but I don’t see any climatologists on that list.

    With all due respect to NASA engineers, why do I care what a Re-entry Specialist says about Climate Change?

    • #12
    • April 12, 2012 at 1:39 am
  13. Profile photo of reidspoorhouse Inactive

    Mr Bishop I love your photo! It’s perfect!

    • #13
    • April 12, 2012 at 3:55 am
  14. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member
    Fred Cole: Maybe I skimmed it, but I don’t see any climatologists on that list.

    With all due respect to NASA engineers, why do I care what a Re-entry Specialist says about Climate Change?

    Climatologists are people who conduct basic research on the Earth’s climate system, which involves devising hypotheses, designing experiments, producing models and simulations, gathering data, and publishing papers about their results.

    But scientific studies are published in public journals so people from diverse backgrounds have access to them in order to critique them. Smart people with technical training are capable of analyzing and criticizing work from other fields.

    The laws of physics are the same for everybody. Climatologists as well as engineers study and use thermodynamics, EM-radiation, fluid mechanics, organic chemistry, atmospheric science, numerical modeling, finite element analysis, statistics, etc. In fact the engineer Burt Rutan argues that engineers take a different approach to the problem than scientists (climatologists) do, and it is valuable to compare and contrast them. He produced a detailed writeup about it if you’re interested in moving beyond appeals to authority into substantive arguments.

    I think it is a mistake to put too much emphasis on job titles.

    • #14
    • April 12, 2012 at 5:30 am
  15. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive
    Fred Cole: Maybe I skimmed it, but I don’t see any climatologists on that list.

    With all due respect to NASA engineers, why do I care what a Re-entry Specialist says about Climate Change? · 2 hours ago

    Because any scientist can see and point out the terrible methods utilized by most climate researchers.

    Just because I am not a rocket engineer does not mean that I cannot speak up when one of them decides to attach their wonderful engine to the fuselage of the vehicle with nothing but two #10 screws.

    Also, when was the last time you saw a degree program in climate science? Especially from enough years ago to certify these 50-70 yr olds doing most of the research. Most of them aren’t credentialed as “Climate Scientists” either, but they are given that title by virtue of the field they are working in.

    Lastly, that is a mighty thin sinew to cling to in order to discount what these men say.

    If that helps you sleep at night, by all means proceed, but be aware that you are essentially just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la la la la la”.

    • #15
    • April 12, 2012 at 5:55 am
  16. Profile photo of James Gawron Thatcher

    James,

    Maybe 50 men can change the world. I salute them for their perception and for their courage.

    Keep the good news coming James we need know about it just as much as the latest Obamite travesty. Maybe more.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #16
    • April 12, 2012 at 6:39 am
  17. Profile photo of Fred Cole Member
    CoolHand

    If that helps you sleep at night, by all means proceed, but be aware that you are essentially just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la la la la la”. · 50 minutes ago

    I am? I thought I was using critical thinking.

    I mean, it says something, that none of these scientists are, you know, actual climate scientists.

    And yes, journals are written so people from diverse backgrounds can review them, but the peer review process includes people who are actually specialists in the relevant field!

    Mechanical engineering isn’t climate science!

    • #17
    • April 12, 2012 at 6:55 am
  18. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member
    Fred Cole

    I mean, it says something, that none of these scientists are, you know, actual climate scientists.

    And yes, journals are written so people from diverse backgrounds can review them, but the peer review process includes people who are actually specialists in the relevant field!

    Mechanical engineering isn’t climate science!

    Hey, well, if it passed a peer review, it is no longer open to criticism. If you think you find something wrong in a published paper, but your job title is in a different field, hold your tongue. You must be confused.

    Even though you made reference to my post, you must have ignored the content of it. Mechanical engineers are not climate scientists, but my point was that you don’t have to be a climate scientist to criticize scientific claims related to climate. Please refer to the Rutan presentation I linked above for some examples of non-climate scientists uncovering serious flaws in published research.

    On a related note, do you truly think the IPCC report qualifies as “peer reviewed”? One of the major components of the common climate skeptic position is that the peer review process is terribly dysfunctional in this particular field.

    • #18
    • April 12, 2012 at 7:15 am
  19. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive
    Fred Cole

    I thought I was using critical thinking.

    Therein lies the source of your confusion.

    • #19
    • April 12, 2012 at 7:32 am
  20. Profile photo of Fred Cole Member

    Look, I’m not an alarmist. I’m not demanding immediate government action. I don’t think the world is going to end.

    All I’m saying is that 50 engineers equal exactly zero climate scientists.

    You can stack cow pies as high as you want, but that doesn’t make them into a bar of gold.

    Lists of non-climate scientists who are against Global Warming is not impressive to me.

    Try harder.

    • #20
    • April 12, 2012 at 8:01 am
  21. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    Heh.

    You’re still confused on a basic level.

    Nobody needs to impress you in order to be right.

    Just like one need not be a fictional “climate scientist” to observe data and decide if it supports a given theory.

    Science isn’t about being “impressive” or “consensus” or even “peer review”.

    Science is about matching theory to observed data in a repeatable and transparent manner. On this basis, “Climate Science” is nothing of the sort.

    There is right and there is wrong, and they are testable states.

    Your impression or the consensus of “climate scientists” is meaningless.

    A simple farmer may still be right even when all of the scientific establishment is against him.

    Veritas Omnia Vincit.

    • #21
    • April 12, 2012 at 8:54 am
  22. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member
    Fred Cole: All I’m saying is that 50 engineers equal exactly zero climate scientists.

    Lists of non-climate scientists who are against Global Warming is not impressive to me.

    Try harder. · 56 minutes ago

    Well, in this very comment thread I have posted links to two different detailed science-based presentations critiquing the climate change thesis presented in the IPCC reports. Does that impress you? Did you even look at them?

    Anyway, you’re missing the point. The topic of this post is a letter from NASA employees to NASA leadership urging a change in NASA policy toward climate change advocacy. It presents a short summary of their position and a call for particular actions. It is not a scientific critique and it is not an appeal to self-authority to convince you of any particular conclusion. Your criticisms are off base.

    • #22
    • April 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
  23. Profile photo of Stephen Bishop Member

    Many thanks for the link.

    Mark Wilson: That CO2 has a general warming effect is not in serious dispute, but its effect is minimal by itself.

    ClimateSkeptic has a great video that goes into much more detail. · 8 hours ago

    • #23
    • April 12, 2012 at 12:02 pm