97% Of Rocket Scientists Agree

Ninety seven percent of rocket scientists agree – NASA climate science is junk science.

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to 97% Of Rocket Scientists Agree

  1. Robertv says:

    “thousands of years of empirical data”

    If we watch the last 100,000 years, normal climate is much colder. And if we take the last 500 million years much warmer is the normal climate.
    The conclusion is that the climate we had the last 10,000 years is the abnormality in the system.

  2. Charles Nelson says:

    Huh…what would THEY know?

    • Anon says:

      That is a very good point. But if you develop that further that essentially means you put all of your faith in a few hundred climate scientists. I was willing to do that for about two decades while I taught CAGW at the University. Climate Science was not my field and I relied on the peer review process, which is the gold standard in the fundamental physical sciences. I did not question anything and never felt the need too… CAGW is simple to explain and teach.

      Then 2016 rolled around and I read Wikileaks and watched the Democrats rig an election against Bernie Sanders. So the unthinkable crossed my mind one night: “if the Democratic Party had no problem running a phony primary, what would their attitude be toward the integrity of the climate record?”

      I initially dismissed this suspicion, but it nagged at me. So finally I decided to clear out a weekend and address my doubts by visiting all of the tin-foil hat Climate Denier conspiracy websites to debunk the their arguments. I thought it would be as easy as taking on the Creationists and Flat Earthers… but one weekend led to months.

      My attitude and findings were pretty much like those of German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls who wrote:

      “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/

      My first interaction with Tony and his website was this video here:

      NOAA : Hiding Critical Arctic Sea Ice Data

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8

      He explained the origin of a graph that I regularly used to use to show students how the Arctic was going to be ice free in a few decades.

      With all that I subsequently discovered, I will never go back to teaching CAGW again and will explain the other side to any student who wants to learn (and there a plenty).

      So instead of saying “what would THEY know”? You ought to be asking yourself: “What do I know?”

      • arn says:

        it is always nice to see which the turning point was to make people change their minds
        and when and why the seed of doubt begins to grow
        and to break through all the barriers and walls that had been put in our minds to keep us inside the box.

        • Squidly says:

          For me it was when I learned the physics behind the Laws of Thermodynamics and further learned that a “radiative greenhouse effect” is not possible in this universe. For if it were possible, we could not exist.

          End of story ….

      • Al Shelton says:

        @Anon…………..
        Your conversion to an AGW skeptic is admirable, and your explanation is excellent.
        Keep up the good work wrt educating the ignorant.

        • arn says:

          Most interresstig is that he did the exact opposite thing of what he used to do while he was in the comfortable auto-pilot mode.

          He never even thought about questioning AGW though he had direct jobrelated contact to the subject on a advanced and intellectual level,
          but used his critical thinking methods about politics
          (and the complete ignorance of politics and media of the betrayel)to question the status quo of AGW and official narratives.
          His guts and instincts showed him the way
          not his intellectual and as soon as one abandones deep thinking for clear thinking many things become far more easy visible and accessable.

          • Anon says:

            Hi Arn, Thanks for the feedback!

            If I could self analyze myself here: I originally thought that I was being “intellectually lazy” for not looking into CAGW more throughly.

            But then that did not quite work, because there are so many things that as scientists we take for granted. All the way from the speed of light being constant to trusting that a label on a bottle of reagent is accurate. And if you had to verify everything that you take for granted in life, you probably would not get a single thing done.

            So now I think it was my “magnitude threshold” that was triggered. It still seems implausible to me that NASA faked the Moon landings or that Hitler lived out his life comfortably in South America. These things are just too big to not have unraveled at some point, so I just dismiss them as time wasters.

            However, when Wikileaks broke the DNC and Podesta emails and demonstrated unequivocally, “in their own words” the contempt the Democrats have for the Democratic process, that crossed some “magnitude threshold” for me. Then the old latin adage came to mind: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”

            And to tell you the truth, even when I deliberately set aside the time to look into the Climate Skeptic websites, I really did not expect to find anything. (But here I am, contributing two years later.)

            Anyway, if you told me in May of 2016 that I would be a regular reader and commenter of a blog that I had never even heard of, called “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog”, I would have laughed you out of my office.

            All I can say is that we live in a very strange world.

      • Charles Nelson says:

        Severe sense of humour failure there buddy!

      • Charles Nelson says:

        Don’t have much of a sense of humour do you?

      • With me it was a debate with Jerry Pournelle. The topic was relative safety of nuclear energy, but those same scientist-impersonators and Luddites are all screeching Global Warming today. Same scam. To shut down electrical power in These States, not dictatorships, a problem must be devised such that the only solution is government crippling of U.S. electrical generating capacity, with help from foreign collaborators.

  3. arn says:

    So what-
    none of these guys can pull a hockeystick and an armagaeddon out his ass,
    therefore they are 97% incompetent.
    They maybe good at logical thinking and use of common sense but that’s not what AGW is all about.

  4. AndyDC says:

    The classic cherry pick used by all junk scientists when trying to prove a bogus theory. It looks really scary in the chart above, but if you start the chart in 1940, it does not look at all scary, as sea ice in 1940 was higher than it is now.

  5. Gerald Machnee says:

    I did a presentation to a Seniors group today.
    One comment by a lady: And until today I believed EVERYTHING I read in the Winnipeg Free Press about climate.
    So I got at least one conversion. I also told them where to look for Polar Bears and ice: Polarbearscience.com by Dr. Susan Crockford.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *