NASA Rebuked for Promoting AGW

Many of my colleagues are saying there are lots of signs about that its already the beginning of the end of an era, in particular that it will soon no longer be popular to believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Breaking news today is the release of a letter signed by 50 former NASA employees asking the organisation desists from making embarrassing comments promoting AGW…

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.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

48 Responses to NASA Rebuked for Promoting AGW

  1. Robert April 11, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    I think we need to look a couple of years down the line, to when people will be discreetly trying to get egg off their faces, and passing blame. My admiration is always for people who say they were wrong straight out.

    When a boom ends, or a previously dominant school of thought has been debunked, people often claim to be victims of deception. Someone is often singled out as a visionary for predicting the end. (Think of Krugman’s Nobel for knowing what was obvious to a cow in a paddock.) I well remember how, in the mid-nineties, anyone doubting the Asian Tiger economies was called a yobbo racist. A couple of years on, anyone doubting the Asian Tiger Economies was called a newsreader. As of today, we’re even allowed to doubt Nathan Tinkler. What next? Don’t tell me China is going to stop booming one day!

    The truth is that nobody has been the “victim” of deceit, though there has obviously been plenty of deceit. Ridiculing Hansen and Gore is healthy, blaming them is not healthy. People should be sacked, but not persecuted. Those warmist preachers who have cleverly tip-toed toward the skeptic side – Judith Curry comes to mind – should not be made heroes.

    A clear majority of people in academia, journalism and politics have been pushing CAGW. That’s quite a few million people all up, with a high degree of education in an age of instantly available opinion and information. How can they be victims? The problem is their self-interest and groupthink, not Hansen or Gore or Flannery.

    If you lost money in the market of the 80s, your greed was to blame, not Skase or Bond. All the necessary knowledge was available to make you cautious. If you’re embarrassed by your naivety over the climate scam, blame yourself.

    I’m embarrassed to talk of the dumb things I’ve believed and acted on over my lifetime. And I was one hundred percent responsible for my stupid beliefs and actions. The people encouraging or advising me were only catalysts.

    The climate boom is over. There will soon be a lot of wind-turbines and solar panels to scrap, and new coal power generators and dams will be needed. I say focus on all that.

  2. jennifer April 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    Filing this here:

    Dr Benny Peiser, director of sceptical think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, said governments and the public had “more urgent problems to deal with” than tackling climate change. He said: “People have become bored by some of the rhetoric from the green movement as they have other things to worry about. In reality the backlash against climate change has very little to do with the sceptics. We will take credit for instilling some debate but it is mainly an economic issue. Climate change is not seen as being urgent any more. James Hensen has been making predictions about climate change since the 1980s. When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up.” –Richard Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 9 April 2012

  3. John Sayers April 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    “very distinguished list but there’s only one Meteorologist, amongst them”. – yup they are already posting that remark in an attempt to fob off the severity of the letter.

    cue Luke!

  4. bazza April 11, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    True John No 50 Thomas Wysmuller add on is a lone one time meteorologist in a sea of mainly retired engineers, one assumes. Interesting bloke Thomas – worked for NASA back in APOLLO days in the 60s. He gave a talk to NASA alumni in 2008 summarised by Sean Keefe “He pointed out that Earth’s temperature has steadily increased by an average of one degree per 1000 years in the last 18,000 years, but Earth’s temperature has increased by two degrees in just the last 200 years. This sudden” increase, Wysmuller said, is due to an anthropogenic effect—an increase of greenhouse gases from human industry. He theorized that, although Earth’s climate is warming up now, the next ice age will get here faster than it normally would due to this sudden warming. He cautioned that the northern latitudes will experience severe snowstorms or “lake effect snow” due to Arctic sea ice melting from global warming and decreasing albedo”. Scary eh?

  5. spangled drongo April 11, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Yeah, but for every good story there are lots of bad stories.

    Can you believe this?

  6. bazza April 11, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Not to worry spangled, the data were adjusted initially because the earth moved and more recently because the sky is falling down.

  7. cementafriend April 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    John S & bazza, With due respect for Anthony Watts, Meteorolgy is about weather not climate.
    No doubt some meteorologists are skilled and some have read and learnt widely. However, the meteorologists at BOM get things wrong frequently and one has to wonder about their knowledge.
    I note from the BOM web site that to become a meteorologist you need to have a degree with 2 years of mathematics, then they train you for 10months which they regard equivalent to an honours level course where you specialise.
    For interest I picked out randomly a course in USA -University of Florida. There there undergraduate course requires 120 credit points in which 10 credits points are for physics and and 4 credit points for chemistry.
    I would suggest that there are few or maybe no meteorologists (similar to climate scientists) who understand heat and mass transfer, reaction kinetics (eg formation of ozone, reactions in oceans etc) or fluid & particle dynamics. On the otherhand, many of the listed NASA engineers know much more than any so-called climate scientist such as Hansen, or Schmidt

  8. jennifer April 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    More filing:

    In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency. Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media. The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program. –The Washington Examiner, 10 April 2012

  9. Another Ian April 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm #


    From comments at

    Hot under the collar says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:04 am
    This proves it,
    To warming alarmists skepticism IS rocket science.”

  10. Neville April 11, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Can anyone imagine a more ridiculous time for Gillard and her clueless govt to be introducing a co2 tax?
    Benny Peiser is correct, most govts have lost interest in this nonsense because of more difficult economic conditions, but the Gillard govt carry on regardless.

    While part of the science is looking dodgy the idea of AGW mitigation by Australia is 100% pure con and fraud.

  11. Johnathan Wilkes April 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    I’m repeating what others said already, when politics interfere, science, dodgy or not has nothing to do with it.

    What I’m really annoyed about is that this sort of underhanded scheme had been executed hundreds of times before, even in living memory and we still fall for it.

    Will we ever learn?
    Not a bloody chance!

  12. Richard deSousa April 12, 2012 at 2:34 am #

    The problem is agencies like NASA have been overtaken by bureaucrats and environmental activists rather than scientists and engineers.

  13. Schiller Thurkettle April 12, 2012 at 6:34 am #

    Climatologists measure the weather. Then they make predictions about the weather. ‘Weather is not climate’ is a tired old trope.

  14. Minister for Truth April 12, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    AND, to make matters even worse for the warmist frauds, here is an expose that comes on top of the NASA letters, regarding the sources of funds for the WWF.

    So when the alarmanistas in Australia at the ANU, Uni NSW and Melbourne University go out on a limb and stridently criticise the sceptics for being in the pay of big/oil/gas (which in any case is not true) in reality it turns out, that the boot is on the other foot.

    The organisations they are involved with, namely the WWF, eg Karoly being on a Scientific panel for example,..are huge recipients of funds from the BP et al.

    Coming on top of the Australian Academy of Science making Flannery a Fellow, one has to wonder just how smart and ethical these people really are.

    Hypocrites seems to be an apt description.

  15. Professor Rupus Holmes April 12, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    People are now definitely one and all against the varying forms of political correctness, which is actually debate censorship and definitely statist.

    Whole industries have been tainted, noble or good practices corrupted by name calling and the most vicious censorship seen in human history. Heritage destroyed, histories changed and corrupted, identities and nationality altered. Frauds on scales unimaginable had become the status quo in Science justifed by grants and false prestige and recognitions awarded.

    In Australia our short heritage has been shattered replaced with guilt about our history and even our identity ravished, the average Australian declared invader and not indigenous. Science and branches of it bent and twisted by committee over the actual laws of science proof decided by feelings and central committee system that would have made Stalin himself proud.

    This position by NASA’s historical creators and author’s of its scientific legend as a paramount world science organisation is late to defence and even then this form letter is hardly a strategic action plan to return of lead practical science organisation status of it’s former glory days.

    In my humble opinion, in view of the Climategate scandal, the letter should have demanded the resignations of Manne and Schmidt forthwith and if not presented their defence in open forum for their behaviors as outlined in Climategate and other anti science egregious behaviors.

    Jennifer I write this under nom de plume as you are aware but like you I have felt the lash of these commissars of Orwellian correct thought.

    Late is probably better than never, barely.

  16. bazza April 12, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    The signatories include astronauts, true heroes with great status they should spend wisely – noblesse oblige. Some facts – the letter came from the Houston chapter of NASA alumni so they would say that. Most would have learnt their science half a century ago. I am not aware that any of them have made an original contribution to climate science. The origin of the letter is clear from the claim by oil and gas heavy Leighton Steward, a geologist chairman of Plants Need CO2 that he catalysed it after he talked to the chapter of retirees. Walter Cunningham as a much revered astronaut was a key spokesperson. One of his expositions (in the Houston Chronicle!) has an ironic subtitle “When you don’t have the facts, appeal to public opinion”.

  17. Minister for Truth April 12, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    “The problem is agencies like NASA have been overtaken by bureaucrats and environmental activists rather than scientists and engineers.”

    Says Richard de Souza above:

    And how true that is, and in reality its not only NASA that has been captured by the activists and lelftoids.

    Most professional institutions in Australia have been captured by the same mind set eg the ACS, IE Aust and AAS.

  18. Luke April 12, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Bunch of old engineering cranks -who cares

  19. Robert April 12, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    I dare say most of the signatories could be deemed scientists in some way – especially those who learned their science half a century ago, before the rise of climate shamanism..

    There are some profoundly anti-science people in NASA. For example, if you believe that climate can be usefully modeled, then you are proposing something as realistic as hopping to Melbourne from Darwin on one toe.

    But that’s probably being unfair to all cross-country one-toe hoppers.

  20. spangled drongo April 12, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Yeah, they wouldn’t have a clue.

    Unlike Mann, who only needs one tree to set us straight.

  21. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Bazza and Luke,

    Did you know that Tim Flannery doesn’t have a science degree? No formal undergraduate training in science? No math, no chemistry, no physics?

  22. Minister for Truth April 12, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    “Bunch of old engineering cranks -who cares”

    …and speaking of hypocrites up, pops the past master of it

    The warmists get exposed for what they are, and all she can do is stamp her little foot and say lispily..well who cares.

    What a wuss.

  23. Neville April 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    Jennifer I must admit I didn’t know that Flannery didn’t have a science degree. I knew he understood zero about climate science , but he has certainly been in big demand from unis all over the world and has collected numerous awards and speaking engagements.

    Fancy paying to listen to that moron speak on CAGW, makes me sick just to think of it. But he’d make a good double act for Gore.

  24. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 1:28 pm #


    Prof Flannery did his first degree in English Literature. So, not surprisingly he can tell a good story.

    It is then possible to do a higher degree that awards a PhD in a non-science or science related facility.

    It is then possibly to become a Professor simply by appointment to a particular position.

    You may also be surprised to know that Professor Peter Cullen never did a PhD. He was never Dr Cullen. He transitioned from ‘Mr’ to ‘Professor’ through appointment.

  25. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    PS But I suspect unlike many popular arguably ‘faux’ scientists in Australia including Professor Flannery and the late Professor Cullen, the 50 engineers and scientists who signed the above letter have actually studied basic science including chemistry, physics and maths and earned both their degrees and PhDs.

  26. spangled drongo April 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    Some people I know have PhDs in little more than nursery rhymes and how to feed chooks.

    Luke is more impressed with people like Benny and the boys’ real sciency claims such as this:

  27. Minister for Truth April 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm #


    To be fair, Flannery does have a Masters in Earth Sciences from Monash, as well as his Phd in English

    So I guess it depends upon what was in the Earth Science course and what he did with it afterwards.

    He would have still been better off doing something with logic and reasoning in it, as as well as some applied maths and stats.

    It might have then saved the tax payers of Australia many billions in useless desals and other wasted directions/costs.

  28. bazza April 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    Jen, more to the point – A recent NASA press report (12/8/11) “Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes” is likely to be the sort of stuff upsetting the ex NASA boys. (We know why they are not dealing in specifics). What bits of it are unnecessarily alarmist etc. I can tell you I am alarmed by the increased risk as shown by the following. “Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite is already consistent with a rate of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and West Antarctica that doubles every ten years. The GRACE record is too short to confirm this with great certainty; however, the trend in the past few years does not rule it out, Hansen said. This continued rate of ice loss could cause multiple meters of sea level rise by 2100, Hansen said.” Thank you NASA.

  29. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm #


    Why don’t you put the information together for a new blog thread… if there is significant new information showing warming at both poles. Email me.

  30. Robert April 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    All that ice in the Bering Sea and East Antarctica is really spoiling the post 2007 death spiral celebrations.

    Ice – the stuff moves too much! Makes it hard to organise a circumpolar yacht race from year to year. And with all these polar bear sightings, just how does one reach out to the ignorant and skeptical with stunts they can comprehend?

    Still, while we have Hansen…

  31. Luke April 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Jen – Flannery and Gore aren’t researchers on AGW

  32. John Sayers April 12, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Yes Jen – the whole academic structure is a mess.
    It needs to be restructured.

  33. el gordo April 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Luke’s right, those two are just snake oil salesmen.

  34. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm #


    I’m pretty sure that Flannery claims to be a climate scientist? On what basis was he made Climate Commissioner?


    Are you concerned/do you think it relevant that Prof Flannery has limited basic training in science – or am I being too harsh?

    Is it OK to do a PhD in science without doing an undergraduate degree in the same?

    One of South Australia’s notable diatom experts did a BA and then a PhD in science. I personally think it wrong. Image being admitted as a surgeon without first doing a medical degree?

  35. bazza April 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Jen, thanks for your invitation “Why don’t you put the information together for a new blog thread… if there is significant new information showing warming at both poles. “ but I don’t have a science degree. The information as showed above by AnotherIan is not hard to find if anyone is a genuine seeker of the truth. I am more interested in what you and your contributors see as alarmist – as your intro to this states:”Breaking news today is the release of a letter signed by 50 former NASA employees asking the organisation desists from making embarrassing comments promoting AGW”. Lets have some specifics, what NASA comments, and where alarmism is not supported by the evidence. Surely that is the issue but I would be surprised if your readership operate at that level.

  36. Robert April 12, 2012 at 9:47 pm #


    That new information showing warming at both poles may be available to “a genuine seeker after truth”. I’m guessing that wouldn’t be us.

    So there!


    I can’t fill you in on the specifics of the former NASA employees’ complaints since, like you, I don’t have a science degree. You would therefore be obliged to reject any information I furnish.

    However, as a seeker after truth who operates on a higher level, you can always take up the invitation of the signatories:

    “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.”

    They do have science degrees – in hard, non-politicised, non-faddish fields of study. Could be interesting for a seeker after truth who operates on a higher level.

  37. jennifer April 12, 2012 at 9:54 pm #


    I assess information on its merit. I would be more than happy to post something from you if you can string a few words together (which I know you can from your contributions in the threads already) and have a particular issue that disproves what many of us here bang on about.

    That you have a science degree, or not, is neither here nor there. I have more than once commented that Cohenite can do a good review of evidence despite limited/any formal training in science.

    Indeed, challenge us!

    Regarding what James Hansen gets wrong. Well, I’ve posted often on this topic eg.

  38. el gordo April 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Here is the latest on SST …. if natural variability rules then the oceans should ‘theoretically’ cool for a couple of decades.

    I had a great debate on a leftist blog about Southern Ocean warming …. Bazza could start with something like that.

  39. John Sayers April 13, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    OT – more BS on the Murray Darling basin scheme.

  40. jennifer April 13, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    Filing this here:

    NASA is swiping back at a group of nearly 50 of its former scientists and astronauts who wrote to accuse the space agency of advocating the “extreme” position that global warming is the result of man-made carbon dioxide.
    In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, 49 former employees said 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.”
    But NASA responded on Wednesday by saying they don’t “draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
    “We support open scientific inquiry and discussion,” NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.
    “If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati said.
    He added: “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate.”

    Read more:

  41. bazza April 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    Thanks Jen for posting the NASA retort and also your example from years ago from Hansen on the ocean not suprisingly not warming for a few years. (How alarming was that?). You might have bothered to first check the recent warming trend in the latest NOAA data but it would have spoiled your story.
    Back to the NASA Chief scientist and his retort: “If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,”
    I too was inviting your contributors for specifics. In a couple of dozen diversionary responses, not one that was on topic let alone with an example of a specific – lots of cheap shots, classic obfuscators all and obscurants too. I was referred to Cunninghams stuff to see what his whinge was – I think he liked empirical science, not models. But how empirical is the GRACE data? It is a wonder they got to the moon and back – no models – must have been VFR, slide rules and seat of the pants. Talk about racket science from the boys in Houston.
    Thanks too for not worrying about my lack of a science degree, I don’t even have a Masters let alone one in Earth Sciences – still lack of a science philosophy is obviously no barrier to contributing here! This is about the only court where good evidence gets trumped and swamped by bad. It should be embarrassing for you.
    You might get more traction with your MDBC story, over and out.

  42. Robert April 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    “I think he liked empirical science, not models”

    Talk about a lack of science philosophy! No wonder a seeker for the truth on a higher level would be dismissive. (And Bazza is master of the disdainful, dismissive tone. It should be called textual pouting.)

    I get it. There needs to be far more extrapolation, graphing and modelling using hopelessly inadequate data from hopelessly rudimentary fields of knowledge…

    And far less of that empirical science stuff!

  43. Johnathan Wilkes April 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm #


    Now here is someone who complains about others not supplying “specifics”.
    There never was any “specifics” presented by you.
    Just ranting, insulting and running away.

  44. Luke April 13, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Another view of our ex-rocket scientists and flyboys …

  45. Robert April 13, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    The good thing about a Skeptical Science link is that the wording alone lets you know how utterly lame and distorted the posting will be. Handy for us rustic knuckle-draggers stuck with a satellite connection.

  46. jennifer April 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm #


    Luke probably thought I was giving you what he calls a “free kick”.

    And I was.

    So why not provide the evidence for ocean warming? You know my email address.

    We need to be challenged.

  47. bazza April 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    a free kick to drop kicks?. I did a challenge – it did not work.

Website by 46digital