NASA Scientists Embarrassed by AGW...

[CrusaderFrank]

If there was government money in aether, Michelson-Morley would have been able to kick Einstein and Relativity to the curb by claiming "Consensus"

 

[skookerasbil]

Care to match that with all the scientists in the Earth Science disciplines that are directly observing the consequences of AGW?

Which is adding up to what exactly?


We've been hearing about "All the scientists in the world........" for how many years now????


Like Ive been saying for eons...........doesnt matter. This shit has become nothing more than science hobby talk on the internet. When's the last time you saw a big feature on 60 Minutes related to "Global Warming". 2007?


Networks like ratings..........not people turning off their TV sets to watch Snookie on the other network, "Oh shit.......another BS global warming feathure!!!"


s0ns........I hate to break it to you but 2 years from now.........5 years from now............youre all going to be posting up the same BS links and still nobody is going to care.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK, Flatulance, and the rest of you silly asses, name me one National Academy of Science that does not state that AGW is real? Even that of outer Slobovia is acceptable. LOL

How about one Scientific Society, from any nation on Earth, that states AGW is not real?

A major University?

So what you fools are stating is that there exists a gigantic conspiracy among allmost all the scientists in the world to fool your silly little asses.

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat.........................................

What a pathetic bunch of ignoramouses you are.

Would you like a couple Nobel Prize winning physicists? Maybe a past President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences? Would THAT impress you? REALLY REALLY impress you? Maybe the original creator of Woods Hole Ocean Inst? Maybe the founder of "The Weather Channel"? Past principle Scientists for the IPCC reports?

What'll it take OldieRocks? Which of those do ya want?

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's take a look at what some of these NASA leaders are saying about their embarrasment at the NASA pimping for Anthropogenic warming...

Award-winning Retired Senior NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the
former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears
promoter, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen
“embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was
never muzzled.” Theon was the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research
Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics &
Radiation Branch. Theon also co-authored the book Advances in Remote Sensing
Retrieval Methods. Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological
Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an
Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and
awarded the AIAA's Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing. He
was also awarded the Radio Wave Award by the Minister of Posts and
Telecommunications of Japan for contributions to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring
Mission -- a joint NASA-Japanese Space Agency satellite. Theon has authored or
coauthored more than 50 NASA Reports, journal articles, monographs, chapters in
books, and edited two books in the scientific literature. “I appreciate the
opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote
to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15,
2009.

James Hansen's group leader --- embarrassed? Yup...

Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum
Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at its
headquarters office near Washington, DC. DeFayette, who earned a masters degree in
Physical Chemistry, also worked at the NRC’s Regional Office near Chicago where he
was a Director of the Enforcement staff. He also served as a consultant to the
Department of Energy. DeFayette wrote a critique of former Vice President Al Gore's
book, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007. “I freely admit I am a skeptic,” DeFayette
told EPW on January 15, 2008. “I take umbrage in so-called ‘experts’ using data without
checking their sources. My scientific background taught me to question things that do not
appear to be right (e.g.-if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is). That is one reason

I went to such detail in critiquing Gore's book. I also strongly object to the IPCC and its
use of socalled ‘experts,’” DeFayette explained. In his March 14, 2007 critique of Gore, DeFayette
dismissed Gore’s claim that “the survival of our civilization” is at stake.

DeFayette wrote, “Nonsense! Civilization may one day cease to exist but it won’t be from global
warming caused by CO2. I can think of many more promising scenarios such as disease, nuclear
war; volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteor impacts; solar heating.” DeFayette asserted that
Gore’s book was “a political, not scientific, book.

:applause: and a +1

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s
Apollo 7. was awarded the NASA Exceptional Distinguished Service Medal and Navy
Astronaut Wings and is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of
the American Astronautical Society. (Bio Link) Cunningham, a long time skeptic,
again rejected climate fears in 2008. “It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen
was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political
activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham
wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the
forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over
human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming
just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized
science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data
is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics,” he explained. “I do see hopeful signs
that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can
focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an
economic disaster on ourselves,” he added. “The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has
a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible
for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human
activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels
are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our
world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius.
Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on
the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be
made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans,” he
concluded

There it is !!!

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a
PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, has authored more than 190 studies and has
been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years” by
atmospheric scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Simpson declared she was “skeptical” of
catastrophic man-made warming in 2008. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any
organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson wrote in
apublic letter on February 27, 2008. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release
of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon
climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to
watch the weather forecasts,” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain
skeptical,”she added.

She didn't get to sign the letter in OP.. Died in 2010.

It's not a group of cultists. These NASA folks don't qualify as ignoramouses.. Remember that next time you alarmists attempt to marginalize the scientific dissent with ad hominem attacks.

 

[westwall]

OK, Flatulance, and the rest of you silly asses, name me one National Academy of Science that does not state that AGW is real? Even that of outer Slobovia is acceptable. LOL

How about one Scientific Society, from any nation on Earth, that states AGW is not real?

A major University?

So what you fools are stating is that there exists a gigantic conspiracy among allmost all the scientists in the world to fool your silly little asses.

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat.........................................

What a pathetic bunch of ignoramouses you are.

Name us one that doesn't obtain MILLIONS of dollars for their advocacy.

 

[mamooth]

They recently submitted a signed letter to NASA requesting that the agency abandon their SEVERE position on MAN-MADE global warming.

If denialists didn't suck so badly at science, they wouldn't have to constantly rehash such old propaganda nonsense. They could just talk about science instead.

It's good to be on the rational side. Being that the reality agrees with us, we just have to point to reality to win.

 

[Old Rocks]

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/03/11-10

WASHINGTON - March 11 - Nobel Prize-winning economists and scientists will deliver a letter to the U.S. Senate today, urging lawmakers to require immediate cuts in global warming emissions. The letter was signed by more than 2,000 prominent U.S. economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, 32 National Academy of Sciences members, 11 MacArthur "genius award" winners, and three National Medal of Science recipients.

"The nation's leading scientists and economists have joined together to tell policymakers that we agree about the urgency of addressing climate change now," said James McCarthy, one of the letter's organizers and a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University. "The bad news is the science of climate change is indisputable. The good news is we can cost-effectively cut the emissions that are causing it."

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE
Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010
From 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists warn world: Prepare for extreme weather - US news - Environment - Climate Change | NBC News

WASHINGTON — Top international climate scientists and disaster experts meeting in Africa have a sharp message for the world's political leaders: Get ready for more dangerous and unpredictable weather caused by global warming.

They're calling for preparations that they say will save lives and money.

The experts fear that without preparedness, crazy weather extremes may overwhelm some locations, making them uninhabitable.

The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new special report on global warming and extreme weather Friday after meeting in Uganda.

This is the first time the group of scientists has focused on the dangers of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.

Those are more dangerous than gradual increases in the world's average temperature.

The Washington Post reported that the report said there was at least a 66 percent chance that climate extremes had been changed because of carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels and other human activity.

 

[westwall]

olfraud allways tries to bury posts that blow his pithy arguments out of the water so here is the OP again.......sorry olfraud but these guys are the real deal and don't rely on models that are less accurate than random guessing...tsk, tsk.


"Former NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming | Global Warming Skeptics & Climate Change Science | LiveScience


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"

 

[westwall]

They recently submitted a signed letter to NASA requesting that the agency abandon their SEVERE position on MAN-MADE global warming.

If denialists didn't suck so badly at science, they wouldn't have to constantly rehash such old propaganda nonsense. They could just talk about science instead.

It's good to be on the rational side. Being that the reality agrees with us, we just have to point to reality to win.

Funnily enough, and counter to what the AGW cultists believed, those with a HIGHER level of scientific literacy are far more inclined to have a sceptical view. Those who LACKED the scientific skills were most likely to believe the fraud.

Who knew?


"Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?”

"How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?"

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.




'As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.'

- Study


"As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes."


Read more: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says | Fox News

 

[Old Rocks]

Faux News.

 

[IanC]

Faux News.

the paper was done by a coupla Yale boys.

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.

I cant download it here. but the play on 'tragedy-of-the-commons' leads me to believe that they were disappointed in their findings.

 

[westwall]

Faux News.

the paper was done by a coupla Yale boys.

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.

I cant download it here. but the play on 'tragedy-of-the-commons' leads me to believe that they were disappointed in their findings.

Indeed they were. It runs counter to the cultist paradigm that they know more than anyone else. Turns out they don't.

 

[westwall]

And here's the repost of the original so the nebies can enjoy it too!


"Former NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming | Global Warming Skeptics & Climate Change Science | LiveScience


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"

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is, you have to hunt far and wide for a scientist who will state unequivocably that AGW is a problem who does not also receive a substantial chunk of or all of his income to study and report on global warming and its probable causes. This automatically produces a strong motive to find reasons to keep studying AGW and signing on to initiatives to fund it and thereby continue to enrich themselves with our money.

And you have to hunt far and widefor a scientist who does not receive a substantial chunk or all of his income to studyand report on global warming who agrees with the scientists who are promoting 'evidence' for AGW. And it doesn't seem to make a difference whether the group in disagreement with AGW do any work for the oil companies or any other such entities.

As for the oil companies, they are making out like bandits capitalizing on 'green energy' initiatives at taxpayer expense and a lot of this is driving the big prices we are paying at the gas pump. They have almost zero incentive to protest government initiatives to combat global warming and are are highly unlikely to fund studies trying to prove that AGW isn't a problem.

For the life of me, I can't understand those of you who want to agree with only the AGW side of the scientific opinion and thereby almost beg them to take away your freedom, choices, options, and opportunity for what more and more appears to be flawed or bogus science.

 

[thanatos144]

AGW is proof Scientists are easily bought...

 

[SillyWabbit]

AGW is proof Scientists are easily bought...

People, money, go figure...

I'm of an age where I may or may not be alive if...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tcS-IHF7qo&feature=player_embedded]Sanford And Son: Superflyer 1/2 - YouTube[/ame]

One never knows.

 

[skookerasbil]

Faux News.

but winning..............

 

[percysunshine]

Why is anyone still debating what has been proven a fraud?