49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change



Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change.

The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.

The press release with attached letter is below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They 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.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

“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.”
“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.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The 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.

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

The big question is: Can anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions exacerbate climate change caused by solar output variances?

While it's generally a good idea to find ways to recycle carbon, we don't have the technology or even the resources to sequester it in the amounts budding geo-engineers want us to, and focusing too heavily on this takes attention away from more important problems like our dwindling fossil fuel resources and the energy crunch.

I'd rather all that effort went into developing more power resources, because when we eventually run out of coal and oil, carbon emissions will go down drastically.

Nuke
FIRST PERSON By Alex Magno (The Philippine Star)
Updated April 12, 2012 12:00 AM

Before anything else, put aside the wild idea that “green” technologies will liberate us from the power crisis.

At the present stage of scientific development, none of the newfangled “green” technologies will provide us with enough baseload capacity to support our economic growth. We may blanket the entire archipelago with costly solar panels and still suffer supply shortfalls. It will be more economical to buy a hundred nuclear plants than build all the windmills needed to generate the equivalent electricity we need.

If we wait for energy technologies to develop further and for costs to drop, we will do so in darkness. We will have to forego opportunities to improve our capacity for wealth creation. The poverty that implies will warp our culture, penalize our people and probably spark upheavals.

All we have available at present for keeping a reliable power supply in place are conventional power sources: bunker oil and coal.

Unfortunately, we are an archipelago with small islands that cannot build large rivers. We can never generate the awesome (and cheap) hydroelectric power that China will acquire when its Three Gorges dams come into full operation. The best possibility we have is to dam the Chico River — which government tried to do in the seventies but eventually surrendered to the force of public resistance.

Even with so much hydroelectric capacity, it must be mentioned, China is in the process of building a score of coal-fired and nuclear power plants to ensure its energy security.

We are the second largest geothermal energy producer in the world. That might sound spectacular — but the electricity we generate from this renewable source is hardly enough to support the needs of a populous province.

It is nice to daydream about having an economy powered entirely by renewable energy sources. We all love clean air and safe power generation. But we also want to be in the mainstream of the energy-intensive civilization mankind has evolved. We want electricity around the clock and large factories to employ our people.

There is, of course, the option of going Bhutan’s way. The small Himalayan kingdom achieved a consensus to maintain the natural environment even if this means staying primitive.

Except for the marginal groups of ecological fundamentalists, we are unlikely to evolve the same consensus. We can never return to the pristine age when we were all fishermen by day and mythmakers at night. There are simply too many of us and we can no longer be supported entirely by farming and fisheries. We have to create wealth using energy-intensive means.

In order to create the wealth to redeem us from crippling poverty, we have to make imperfect energy choices. We have to use imported bunker fuel or burn coal to create the electricity we need.

Hydrocarbon fuels are entirely imported and subject to the vagaries of global supply and demand. Coal is of such bulk that transporting the material is a major cost factor.

Unfortunately, electricity cannot be stored. It must be used as soon as it is created. It dissipates when delivered over long distances — a phenomenon described as “systems loss.”

We need continuously generating power plants that produce electricity even during those times of the day when no one wants it. The electricity generated even when demand is below peak is simply discarded. There is no way to avoid that. We cannot restart power plants every morning and shut them down at night.

The economics of electricity adequacy is a most complex one. The mix of energy sources defines total generation costs subdivided into units of energy actually purchased by consumers. That always includes the cost of unused energy during off-peak hours.

Add to generation costs the expense of transmitting electricity and all the systems losses incurred in the process. Add further the financing costs involved in the capital-intensive business of power provision. It is easy to see that the closer the generation plant is to the consumers, the less the systems loss.

Coal fired plants are a logical, if imperfect, option for Mindanao. There are good coal sources in the island and power plants may be built close to the coal mines to reduce transport costs. But the environmentalists frown on that option.

As we move closer to the power summit, more people have suggested the deployment of nuclear power plants. But there is a strong public orthodoxy, no matter how scientifically unfounded, against the use of this option.

Several local executives have expressed willingness to host a nuclear plant in Mindanao. No other power source can generate electricity more cheaply and more cleanly than nuclear plants. They use small amounts of fuel with negligible transport costs, although the proper disposal of radioactive waste might be a long-term cost and safety issue.

For decades, we have spent millions everyday just keeping the Bataan nuclear plant mothballed. We have by now probably spent more keeping that plant mothballed than we originally spent building it.

First the Bataan plant was a monument to corruption. Now it is also a monument to a public phobia for an otherwise tenable source of energy. We have spent billions maintaining a plant that has yet to generate a single kilowatt of power.

Perhaps the suitable time has come to review our policy on nuclear power. There are clear voices arguing its merits, including that of Agham party-list representative Angelo Palmones and Mark Cojuangco.

The public and this chronically uncourageous administration should finally lend those voices an ear.