NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change Activism

Global warming rebellion – “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.”

Fed up with NASA’s activist stance toward climate change, 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists and engineers sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week asking the agency to “refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The group includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, who admonished the agency for neglecting thousands of years of empirical evidence that calls the CO2 climate change theory into question.

The disgruntled scientists charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance, say nothing of a hundred years.

Pointing out that “the science is clearly NOT settled,” the letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS) especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.

“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,” the letter states, “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.”

Full text of the letter:

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.


(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


See also:
NASA rocked by global warming rebellion

See also:
Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366>

Thanks to William Sellers, Gordon Pratt, David Swineford, Stephen DiStaso, George Fitzsimmons and Thomas McHart for these links


33 thoughts on “NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change Activism”

  1. It’s hopeful but doubtful………especially when $$$$$ is involved!

    All roads to Rome were laid one stone at a time…’s to hoping!

  2. I will never tire of repeating: we came out of a snowball glaciation due to the greenhouse effect and we were saved by it by rocks that have imprisoned the atmospheric CO2 in the form of alteration products. This means that the atmosphere-lithosphere set forms a buffer system.

  3. This is the best thing I’ve read in a long time.
    I applaud the letter sent and signed by these great individuals of NASA’s glory.
    It was wonderful to see so many familiar names in the list.
    These men and women are true heroes in every since of the word.
    I don’t think this letter will not be received well at the desk of Mr. Bolden.

  4. others have said it,
    isn’t it really telling that the majority of Scientists that CAN and DO express dissent..
    have to be self employed or retired before they can speak out..
    because so many unis and places of employment are all set to cash in on the warmist moneygrab.
    if whatever you want to research doesnt have a warmist gloom doom spin..funding isnt there,.
    Mainstream Media in Auis..ONE man so far has had the guts to print this. Andrew Bolt.
    abc our ever so BIASED warmist govvy funded media has NO mention at all, so far.
    and when it does?
    it will be robin williams on science show with a smug chuckle saying theyre all fools or sold out to big oil and need to be “helped” with their mental issues.

  5. When asked to comment about the letter NASA and the IPCC rebutted the argument by stating “NAH NAH na na NAH” while sticking out their tongues…

  6. I suspect that some of folks that have been most shrill in claiming Carbon Dioxide drives global warming have been forced to have doubts about that position when confronted with sensible arguments delivered by intelligent and trained people that the issue is not settled. The above letter makes this point.

    It will take this letter and many more like it , published over a period of years to bring the issue of climate out of the realm of public opinion and into the world of fact and data based discussion.

    However, to some the facts and science are irrelevant, if there is money (in all its forms) pushing Global warming, then some folks will push global warming. Period.
    There is enough wiggle room in the science for people to hide their real motives and agenda.

    What I respect and I am very thankful for is that the above people took the time to write the letter.

  7. I can’t believe it! I hope it’s just not a letter, but a true position to bring NASA back to scientifically proven “straight answers” again. 😉
    They, of course, have the scientific knowledge, what is missing is a clear separation of science and politics.

  8. Bravo to all of them. I have said this before and I’m dead serious. When the cold really sets in and millions start dying from it, people like Hansen and Gore need to be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. If I’m still around, that is exactly what I will be pushing for with our elected officials.

    • I agree there should be arrests made but I think a change in government is in order to prevent obstruction of justice.
      Easier said than done considering the nature of the political system but it is a nessesary first step.

  9. You realize that none of the scientists that signed were climate scientists. I could go around and ask medical doctors to sign a letter stating that they believe global warming is yet unproven. The claim that “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts” is absurd. Produce names to match those numbers. You can’t, at least not by real climate scientists. Global warming is based on simple physics. You add more CO2 to the equation, the output temperature is warmer. It’s as simple as that. If we believe physics works anywhere (like the physics required to get those astronauts into space, or the physics required for your smartphone to run)then it must work here as well.

    • You want names? They’re here:
      31,000 + scientists dispute UN’s global warming claims!
      It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.”
      I don’t need a degree in climatology to know when I’m being lied to.

      • Names mean nothing next to basic physics. And when it comes to climate change, a PhD of a non climatologist means little compared to the PhD of a climatologist. It really shouldn’t matter how many people we get to sign a petition for or against, when you take basic physics, and can show that the earth warms when you add CO2 into the atmosphere. And then you look at the global temperature trends and find that, yes, they do correspond to what physics says should happen. In climate science, I’d much rather put my money with the consensus of climate scientists than with other scientists. The simple fact remains that physics says the earth should be warming with added CO2, and global temperatures reflect and confirm the physics.

    • James the physics you speak of are hardly proven. The forcing you refer to is to say the least contentious. Are you familiar with the Biosphere 2 project? Because of the respiration of the bacteria in the soil they experienced co2 levels many times higher than are present in the atmosphere, yet there was no corresponding increase in atmospheric temperature. By 1992 the atmosphereic co2 in biosphere 2 was 12 times that of the world outside. So bad was it they had to start pumping in oxygen. Despite that there was no increase in temp. Can you account for that? The climate scientist couldn’t. Neither could the physists.
      I refer you to Discover magazine Special Anniversary issue Oct 2010.

        • I just commented, but I don’t think it went through. This experiment wasn;t about proving or disproving global warming. They wanted to see the effects of increased CO2 on the biosphere. In fact, the scientists conducted the experiment with the assumption that global warming was occurring and would continue to occur. The article even mentions effects of climate change such as ocean acidification, both inside the dome and outside in the real world. I suggest you read articles well before you cite them in your argument. If anything, this article supports my argument. I fail to understand why the general population thinks that they are smarter than the climate scientists that spend their entire lives working in the field. Examine the scientific literature. There is no debate over whether AGW exists. The debate exists only outside of this group.

      • The physics I speak of are proven. In fact they are quite simple equations. If these simple equations are not reliable, then many other understood physics are also not reliable. Biosphere2 is hardly a decent representation of earth’s atmosphere. I’d love to see your sources on the biosphere2 project. As far as I can find, no such result of increased CO2 but no increase in temperature was produced. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Biosphere was also temperature controlled. There is also a known delay in CO2 rise and attributed temperature increase. The small scale of Biosphere2, and the short time in which the pseudo-climate inside was monitored is not a good reason to say the physics doesn’t work.

      • I reread the article you mentioned to be sure I wasn’t missing anything. No where could I find a mention that the overall temperature did not increase. Even then, Biosphere was in part built to monitor the effects of heightened CO2 on the biosphere. It is inadequate to measure a temperature to CO2 correlation, especially as applied to earth’s atmosphere as a whole.

        • In fact, the experiment was conducted with the full acknowledgment of the existence of global warming. It even refers to effects from increased CO2 such as ocean acidification. The scientists involved in the experiment did and still do believe in global warming. The experiment was not made to prove or disprove global warming. They wanted to know how the biosphere would react to the heightened CO2 in the future. If anything, this article strengthens my case, not yours. Read the articles you plan on citing well before using them in your argument.

          • You are correct and I sincerely apologize. My memory failed me with regards to this particular article. I re-read both the online and print versions of the article and you are right, they did not speak about a correlation between co2 and temperature. I will check my sources more thoroughly in the future.
            That said, the other links I provided give ample evidence that temp drives co2 not the other way around.

  10. Where were they 5 years ago? This is the beginning of what I predicted. The rats are beginning to abandon the Global Warming ship wreck. slowly, NASA will legitimize the naysayers and throw the pushers under the bus. Don’t let them succeed. NASA screwed up. The NASA administration has to take the hit along with the government of the United States including the head of the CIA, Democrats and the Ivy League universities.

  11. Just pay your “carbon taxes” to Al Gore and the big banks and there will be children with robins and flowers, sunshine caressing each new waking hour. The the world will be perfect, and don’t forget to vote Democratische. (even though it’s one head of the hydra). Good on the former NASA employees.

Comments are closed.