Credit: Climate Change Encyclopedia

Letter to NASA is Common Ploy in Climate Change Denial

12 Apr , 2012 by

[/caption]

A group of 49 former NASA employees from Johnson Space Center have written a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, requesting that the space agency refrain from “unproven and unsubstantiated remarks” regarding how human activities are causing global climate change.

“As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position … is inappropriate,” says the letter. “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS(Goddard Institute for Space Studies) that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

The letter was reportedly supported by Leighton Steward from the Heartland Institute, an organization known for its stance of trying to cast doubt on global warming science.

“NASA has always been about looking out to the skies and beyond, not burying our heads in the sand,” climate scientist Michael Mann told Universe Today in an email “This is an old ploy, trying to cobble together a small group of individuals and make it sound like they speak with authority on a matter that they have really not studied closely. In this case, the effort was led by a fossil fuel industry-funded (climate change) denier who works for the Heartland Institute, and sadly he managed to manipulate this group of former NASA employees into signing on to this misguided statement.”

Mann added that 49 people out of tens of thousands of former and current NASA employees is just a tiny fraction, and that “NASA’s official stance, which represents the full current 16,000 NASA scientists and employees, is clear if you go to their website or look at their official publications: human-caused climate change is real, and it represents a challenge we must confront.”

NASA has responded to the letter, inviting those who signed it – which includes Apollo astronauts, engineers and former JSC officials – to join the debate in peer-reviewed scientific literature and public forums.

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate,” wrote Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist. “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.”

“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 concluded.

As several different people have noted — including former astronaut Rusty Schweickart who was quoted in the New York Times — most of those who signed the letter are not active research scientists and do not hold degrees in atmospheric sciences or fields related to climate change.

Schweickart, who was not among those who signed the letter, said in the New York Times that those who wrote the letter “have every right to state and argue for their opinion,” and climate scientist Gavin Schmidt added in the article that people stating their views is completely legitimate, “but they are asking the NASA administrator to censor other peoples’ (which is something else entirely).”

The letter from the former NASA employees – including Apollo astronauts Jack Schmitt, Walt Cunningham, Al Worden, and Dick Gordon — chides that since “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.”

Schmidt wrote previously on the RealClimate website that he certainly agrees the science is not settled. “No scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out…The reason why no scientist has said this (that the science is settled) is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy.”

However, he added, “In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt.”

For further reading:
Letter from former NASA employees
Letter from Waleed Abdalati
Article by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times
Article by Eric Berger in the Houston Chronicle
NASA’s Climate Change website
Real Climate

, ,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
PrometheusOnTheLoose
Member
April 12, 2012 10:32 PM

These people will swear on their mother’s grave that god exists, they have no possible way they can prove it . . . . but being the hypocrites that they are, they will complain about NASA asserting that climate change is due to human activity.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 10:46 PM

Strawman.

God is FAITH, not science, the two are far from each other as, to use my fiance’s turn of phrase, “as far as the Sun is from Pluto.” Faith cannot be proven, that’s the whole idea behind FAITH.

What NASA asserts, without PROOF, is merely their opinion. To make it worse, the opinion is driven by politics.

Put NASA’s current politically driven assertions through the rigor of the Scientific Method and then get back to us.

PrometheusOnTheLoose
Member
April 13, 2012 11:19 PM
No, they are not “far from each other”. . . . when it comes to the truth, whether it is religion or science, the truth still requires the same logical foundation. Faith is the invention of the decievers or the un-enlightened, it is but a method used by parasites to deceive the unwary into believing that which benefits the parasites. Parasites are common in nature too, it is their means of survival. When you try to use the word “faith” to argue for a point that should be (if it were really true) even more important (the idea of a soul and eternal life) than any question of science, and yet place a lesser burden of proof upon… Read more »
Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 14, 2012 12:07 AM

Yes, they are. The Church’s, until recently, condemnation of Galileo’s work is a clear demonstration.

However, you neatly sidestep the more relevant point. Here, I’ll repeat it for you;

Put NASA’s current politically driven assertions through the rigor of the Scientific Method and then get back to us.

jim fulkerson
Guest
jim fulkerson
April 14, 2012 7:53 PM

Where is your evidence that NASA’s assertions are “politically driven?” Any references or specific examples?

Being that you frame the debate with this assumption, it should be more than easy for you to cite evidence, correct?

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 17, 2012 1:56 PM

My evidence is that NASA is accepting AGW as fact without proof.

That’s politics, not science.

Dave123
Guest
Dave123
April 17, 2012 8:41 PM

C’mon Cam…stop with this bluffing about proof. If you had a card up your sleeve, you would be forthcoming about what you think proof of something is, and why AGW doesn’t meet it. But you don’t….this is just a denialist game.

By the way, I think if you look carefully at what NASA says and certainly what the IPCC says, they don’t say fact….they use very careful language about “high degree of certainty”.

Look, I’ll play a little while longer- you put up a myth and I’ll show the evidence that shoots you myth down. At the end, we’ll be left with no viable explanation for current warming except AGW.

jim fulkerson
Guest
jim fulkerson
April 14, 2012 7:49 PM

Faith is not science, but your assertion that they are far apart simply isn’t rooted in the reality of the relationship of reason and faith.

Reason and faith work together all the time. If a stool looks and feels sturdy enough to stand on through observation, it is reasonable to assume that it will support your weight. But it actually standing on it takes faith in that reason.

Tom Blersch
Guest
Tom Blersch
April 12, 2012 10:42 PM

It is not “denial” to insist that a scientific body practice science and not advocacy.

Really20
Guest
Really20
April 13, 2012 2:24 AM

Applies to Exxon-funded “research” as well.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 10:50 PM

Then, show your arguments in opposition to “Exxon-funded research.” Let these arguments be put through the Scientific Method.

However, no one has demonstrated – to my knowledge – that, just because Exxon may be the source of funds, that the opposing view is without merit.

So, show that they were more than a source of money. Show that they tainted the research. Perhaps also show that the funding for pro-AGW research is not subject to the same biases you lodge against the anti-AGW research.

Julian Maytum
Guest
Julian Maytum
April 12, 2012 10:53 PM

I say we subsidize anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change so they can move next to the ocean. No bailouts though. Although your subsidy application forms will come with a free mask, snorkel, sunblock and an instruction manual on how to doggy paddle. The included map may or may not point you in the right direction smile

Edward James
Guest
Edward James
April 13, 2012 1:56 PM

why does Al Gore invest in beach front property?

jjb
Member
jjb
April 13, 2012 4:22 PM

Umm, that argument, “THE OCEANS ARE RISING” is well … bogus … Totally and completely Bogus. Al Gore told us in 2006 the oceans will rise 20 FEET. Now that was 6 years ago. NEWS FLASH: The oceans have not even rose 6″ in the past 6 years, let alone 3″. The average is 3.1 +/- MM a year or .122 inches. As stated, for the oceans to reach Al Gore’s 20 Feet, it will take just over 1,500 + YEARS to get there!

nanuk2
Guest
nanuk2
April 13, 2012 5:02 PM

He may very well have been flagrantly wrong. But there’s no guarantee that today’s rate of change will hold steady. Do a little reading about “Tipping Points” in the climate models.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:01 PM

Wrong. Several low lying archipelago nations have already lost yards of beachfront… So, again… Wrong.

WaxyMary
Member
WaxyMary
April 13, 2012 10:48 PM
Jeff, You are indeed correct with what you say. However the additional over burden of water, fresh and salt to each part of any ocean or extremely large body of water causes the deflection of the bottom of that basin to some extant as well as presenting as a rise in seal level at that area. The extant can be wildly variable, as wildly as the ‘bed rock’ varies -from chalk to granite, pumice and hardened lava melt to dense vitrified mantle. Some of these materials will allow greater deflection downward which might tend to increase the observed sea level offset. It really all depends of course on the rocky types of mantle and their makeup at depth… Read more »
jjb
Member
jjb
April 13, 2012 4:22 PM

Umm, that argument, “THE OCEANS ARE RISING” is well … bogus … Totally and completely Bogus. Al Gore told us in 2006 the oceans will rise 20 FEET. Now that was 6 years ago. NEWS FLASH: The oceans have not even rose 6″ in the past 6 years, let alone 3″. The average is 3.1 +/- MM a year or .122 inches. As stated, for the oceans to reach Al Gore’s 20 Feet, it will take just over 1,500 + YEARS to get there!

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
April 12, 2012 11:25 PM

Does anyone have the statistic of how much CO2 is Natural vs. Man Made? I’m curious. I read in a report that human contribution is something around 3 percent but I can’t recall where I read that as it was some time ago.

Also, I don’t like the term ‘denial’ being used in science, especially towards scientists. These people are ‘skeptics’ of the science, not outright ‘denialists’.

Windemere
Guest
Windemere
April 13, 2012 2:30 PM

I don’t know Natural vs. Man-made but total co2 is .036% of our atmosphere.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:13 PM

Wrong. Are you a climate scientist? No? Then how do you know that such a small percentage of CO2 doesn’t matter? If it’s such a trivial amount, why don’t we just get rid of it all then see what happens? Wrong.

agimarc
Guest
agimarc
April 13, 2012 8:00 PM

Typical appeal to authority – a logical fallacy. Hansen is not a climate scientist either, yet he makes millions every years running his mouth.

If all the CO2 goes away, so does the vast majority of life on earth, as CO2 is plant food. There is a level that is approached during the ice ages below which plant life does not grow very well at all. Cheers –

Eppur_si_muove
Guest
Eppur_si_muove
April 13, 2012 12:29 AM
And here we go again What annoys me the most is not the frivolous back and forth debating, but the fact that no matter who’s right, we can all at least agree that the planet is undergoing a dramatic climate change. If you do in fact believe that the planet is undergoing a dramatic climate change, then you must also realize that humans are not capable of adapting to such an extreme change, so quickly. This climate change is affecting all of us, to ensure the continued existence of our species something must be done in response to climate change. Whether you believe it’s a man made problem, or a natural problem, a solution is STILL needed. Sitting… Read more »
Windemere
Guest
Windemere
April 13, 2012 2:28 PM

Humans are the most adaptable species there is except maybe the cockroach. What solution to you suggest, first we have to have a cause to solve. If warming is natural, then what, we can take all co2 out of the atmosphere killing all plant life, now what, can we stop a hurricane, tornado, thunderstorm. So far we have adapted as needed, we found ways to live in hot climates, cold climates, inside the Earth, above the Earth, and hopefully soon on another planet that is not Earth. Playing chicken little does nothing but incite panic when none is needed.

Cody Yeary
Guest
Cody Yeary
April 13, 2012 2:39 AM
I hate when people use that phrase “climate change denier”. Sounds like something the Catholic Church would have used – oh hes just a “geocentric denier”. Personally I’m not convinced either. Only since the late 1970s have we had complete data on global temps and it coincided with the start of the Pacific entering its warm phase and the Atlantic joined about 15 years later. I want to know what happens in 20 years when both oceans enter their cold phase. The Pacific is switching to a cold PDO and the Atlantic probably has another 15 to 20 years to go. To me the planet warming when the two largest oceans are in their warm phase seems just… Read more »
renoor
Member
renoor
April 13, 2012 7:27 AM
People have short memory. It’s 40 years since everybody was afraid of new ice age. The evidence was undeniable. When you look at global temperature graph like HadCRUT3, the evidence is now gone. This is what everybody needs to realize before they say that our “planet is undergoing a dramatic climate change”. We’re trying to comprehend forces of nature that act on very long time scale – and that’s OK, but somebody is trying to convince ordinary people that everything is known to man, that we understand the global climate and MUST act now, because we are doomed for destruction. I don’t understand why people don’t question things they are told based on silly arguments and threats. And… Read more »
ozonator
Guest
ozonator
April 13, 2012 8:58 AM

The new ice age was going to occur because of the nuclear winter. Extremist Republican and Christian media outlets also leave out this fact.

renoor
Member
renoor
April 13, 2012 10:29 AM

Unfortunately this isn’t the case. The significant decline in global temperature was real in 70’s, but then gradually faded to oblivion, supported by “real” scientific data. Just look at three versions of the same global temperature graph from GISS:
http://dopice.sk/2lb

Eppur_si_muove
Guest
Eppur_si_muove
April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
“somebody is trying to convince ordinary people that everything is known to man” Who exactly is this “somebody” that you speak of? If everything is known to man, then surly the average person would be well informed as well, and the debate of future climate change, would be long and over with. The fact that the debate is still ongoing, shows the “ordinary people” that everything is not known. So I would not be too concerned of this boogeyman of yours, trying to convince the general public of anything at all. Where my concern does lie however, is within not knowing the “forces of nature that act on very long time scale”. If it is the case that… Read more »
andrew g
Guest
andrew g
April 13, 2012 11:24 AM

Yes, and 40 years ago we barely had colour television, basic world communications and primitive computing power by today’s standards, not to mention sketchy relevant satellite data to make such inferences. Surely you must accept that in those 40 years we have made sufficient progress in those fields that today’s predictions are massively more reliable than before.

renoor
Member
renoor
April 13, 2012 12:41 PM

40 years ago there were no computational models or simulations of weather. Also, I’m not talking about predictions (which, in my opinion, are highly inaccurate even today), but about data that these predictions use as input.

Windemere
Guest
Windemere
April 13, 2012 2:22 PM

Much of the data today comes from stations ensconsed in heat islands called cities. Fewer and fewer data stations are in rural areas due to lack of funding to maintain them. IF co2 were retaining heat would not the satellites record a drop in escaping heat from the Earth, last time I checked there was no appreciable change in radiative heat loss from the Earth

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:10 PM

Ya, they wouldn’t account for the heat island effect… You better call them and point it out… Lol! WRONG!

Dave123
Guest
Dave123
April 18, 2012 1:46 AM

Both Windemere and Renoor are repeating long debunked myths about global warming. Whether its the urban heat island myth, or missing the data the satellite do indeed detect a drop in radiation because of CO2… all people convinced that what they “here” has some validity with no obligation to research for the truth.

Here’s a nice simplified citation on the earth’s radiation budget- which also cites the primary literature behind it.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11991&page=26

Trenberth has published more complicated analyses of the radiation budget.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 11:02 PM

“Yes, and 40 years ago we barely had …”

Yet, we went to the Moon.

You were saying about the drawbacks of 40 years ago?

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 14, 2012 12:41 PM

There you see how “easy” it was to go to the moon compared to modeling the chaotic system of our atmosphere. Not to forget that the US government pumped a LOT of money into the moon program!

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 14, 2012 2:09 PM

Your point being … ?

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 14, 2012 3:53 PM

…how much better our models and simulations are compared to 40 years ago.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 17, 2012 2:03 PM

Yet, we cannot duplicate what was done 40 years ago.

As for models and simulations, they are only as accurate as the designer’s skillset can make them. Further, they do not correct for human bias, unless the human does the correcting. But, if the human doing the correcting is biased – well, so much for correcting.

However, all that aside, there is still no PROOF of AGW.

Dave123
Guest
Dave123
April 18, 2012 1:47 AM

You’ve made an assertion that we can’t duplicate what was done 40 years ago. What exactly hasn’t been duplicated and what is the origin of this opinion of yours?

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:09 PM

Wrong. Pollution that was causing it was curbed and thus avoided the ice. Wrong.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:08 PM

Wrong. 100’s of 1,ooo’s of years of ice core data… Wrong.

oldenvguy
Guest
oldenvguy
April 13, 2012 3:03 AM
OK, I’m going to go out on a limb and reveal just how old I am. But I can recall that when I was doing atmospheric modeling in graduate school, our most significant development was getting a teletype machine installed in our lab. No more freaking punch cards! However, the teletype was a double edged sword. It’s relative speed (back then) meant we could crank through our models with reckless abandon. All it really took to generate the predictive correlations we were after was was enough coffee to keep us going into the late night hours. But we were fortunate to have a pretty good advisor who made sure that we knew our models were worthless unless supported… Read more »
Chris Langan-Fox
Guest
Chris Langan-Fox
April 13, 2012 4:12 AM
I am astonished that a site such as this that usually reports well, seems to support those that ride roughshod over facts with emotive terms like ‘denier’. ALL science needs sound questioning and refuting effort. To compond the bias by talking of ‘financial support from fossil-fuel’ sources’ is just ludicrous. The taxpayer, who also pays for NASA, is railroaded into paying vast sums to an enormous number of rent-seekers busily altering factual date to suit a political aim. The taxes of ‘fossil-fuel interests’ also gets misappropriated to enhance the political message of the Global Warmist lobby. If forty staff from Nasa, who have sound scientific credentials, seek a voice in opposition to the prevailing paradigm, I would have… Read more »
ozonator
Guest
ozonator
April 13, 2012 8:55 AM
At the height, about 5% of the nation’s GNP/GDP went into paying for those 49ers. As crime doesn’t pay, geologist Jack Schmitt dropped out of running for public office when he had to declare all his assets (wink wink nudge nudge). Conserving only Reagan alzheimer’s and slavery, “Apr 04, 2012 … Homage to the Heartland Institute … By Dr. Bill Gray … Before the Heartland meetings … I felt rather alone and shunned … internet blogs on which the real AGW science is now taking place. … ‘What is good for the Heartland Institute is good for our country and for the world’” (whistlesuckers perfuming the stink at icecap.us). And, still no debunked piece from Gray, “Doom and… Read more »
agimarc
Guest
agimarc
April 13, 2012 7:56 PM

Jack Schmidt was a single term US Senator from New Mexico 1976 – 1982. He was defeated by Jeff Bingaman. Appears that the asset declarations did not bother him all that badly. Cheers –

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:06 PM

Wrong. Just because someone has scientific credentials doesn’t mean they’re knowledgeable in the 100’s of scientific fields that exist… So again…, Wrong

Teranodon
Guest
Teranodon
April 13, 2012 8:23 AM

I like Universe Today, and I am not a hard-core “denier”, but the tone of this article is annoying. Look – there is legitimate disagreement and debate on this issue. That being the case, can’t this web site adopt a more civil tone. In this case, all that is needed is to add a set of quotation marks, plus “says Michael Mann”.

I will add that MM is no hero of mine (his shoddy work is the cause of much of the debate on CC), whereas the Apollo astronauts definitely are heros.

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
April 13, 2012 9:20 AM

Hear, hear!

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 13, 2012 10:15 AM

Not that again! Just because someone is a hero in ONE field, it doesn’t mean he is a hero in ANOTHER.

Just like those former NASA employees. Most (if not all) of them have never studied climate in that kind of detail that is necessary to make a firm statement!

Neither have I. So I rely on those who did!

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 10:51 PM

“I like Universe Today, and I am not a hard-core “denier”, but the tone of this article is annoying.”

I agree. As soon as I saw the word, “ploy,” in the headline, I knew that it was a hit-piece that had only one point of view and dismissed the one in opposition.

Dave123
Guest
Dave123
April 18, 2012 1:22 AM

Cam, you and the 49 hold the point of view that you have no obligation to be specific…or for that matter to publish in the peer-reviewed literature where everyone else puts for their ideas and arguments. The exceptionalism of your position (and theirs) is why this is and has been a ploy.

maurizio52
Guest
maurizio52
April 13, 2012 8:38 AM

“The letter was reportedly supported by Leighton Steward from the Heartland Institute, an organization known for its stance of trying to cast doubt on global warming science.”

Global warming science? Should better “(climate) science about anthropogenic global warming”.

About Heartland and “Casting Shadows”, what about Peter Gleich?
What kind of shadow projected on the supporters of CAGW his attempt to steal documents about funding Heartland Institute, AKA Fakegate?

Personally I think that Science is Never Settled, and that most of actual warming is “Mann”(et al.) made.

Thankyou and best regards.

Maurizio Rovati

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 13, 2012 10:19 AM

Yeah, “Science is never settled”. Nice weasel word.
It’s true that a scientific theory cannot be “proven”. However, if the evidence is pointing in just ONE direction, it is almost like proven.

And in this case: The evidence is clearly pointing into just ONE (and only one) direction beyond any doubt!

renoor
Member
renoor
April 13, 2012 10:42 AM

If you watch violin string vibrating for 1 milisecod, the evidence for string ripping apart from violin in next few miliseconds is absolutely clear.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:21 PM

Wrong. 100,000+ year old ice cores… Wrong.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 14, 2012 2:20 PM

Wrong.

maurizio52
Guest
maurizio52
April 13, 2012 12:13 PM
The evidence? What evidence? Mann’s one? Please do not deny that temperature are steady at least since 15 years ago while CO2 levels are steadily rising. The same guys that claimed A. global cooling swithed to warming and now Science is settled only when they want it to be so? And when Data are not confortable with their computer models they, the “team” as they call themselves, attempt to rewrite those Data, not their models that are built around an unproven claim about climate sensitivity. Do they believe that the bigger the computer the stronger the evidence? By the way, do you think that Gleick is an hero? Some do, I think they are completely wrong. There are… Read more »
DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 13, 2012 2:38 PM
1) I see that we experience particularly hot years in the last decade, albeit a natural up and down occurring from year to year (aka weather). I also see that due to a particularly warm year 1998 a plot from that year on might indicate a “steady” temperature. However, if you plot the same from, say, 1990 or even 1999 (maybe) it would look a little bit different. We are warming. 2) Global Cooling was never such a scientific consensus as is now Global Warming. Not because they wanted, because the data says so. 3) You clearly refer to “ClimateGate”, which was proven (and yes: proven!) several times being a fraud, a real manufactured fraud! 4) Ah, nothing… Read more »
maurizio52
Guest
maurizio52
April 13, 2012 3:43 PM
4- I told there are “few” things not “nothing else”, read please! What world? Is an interesting question, my answer is, mostly Western World. 3- At the moment I am talking about Fakegate not Climategate, read please! And google Fakegate if you want. 2- I am 60 and I remember the rising and the falling of that cooling hipotesis. I think Warming is still alive because it had more time with rising temps. I agree that some warming is driven by CO2 (about 1°C doubling CO2 conc.), I do not agree with the supposed climate sensitivity, all positive feedbacks, catastrophic claims… 1- If we are on a termal plateau it does not mean that temps are rising. They… Read more »
Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:21 PM

Wrong. “hipotesis” … really? When your words have red lines underneath them they are… Wrong.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:19 PM

Wrong.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 11:05 PM

Are you a parrot? Do you think that, somehow, repeating the same word over and over again makes you right?

Show the science to support AGW. Show the PROOF.

David Feitler
Guest
David Feitler
April 14, 2012 1:39 AM

CAm, Jeff is making the point that none of denialist are offering proof of anything. You are simply repeating long disproven myths, and demonstrating profound ignorance of the evidence.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 14, 2012 12:43 PM

There is no proof in science. Only evidence. And there is a lot. Where is the evidence against AGW? That is your claim. And since you go against 97% of the experts, it is YOUR duty to present your evidence! Where is it?

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 14, 2012 2:20 PM

The AGWers made the claim; it is up to them to prove it, if it is to be taken as fact. It is not up to the opposition to prove something false.

If I claim that little green aliens are hidden away in Area 51, it is not up to those who disagree to prove me wrong. I must prove my assertion first.

A claim without proof is not fact until disproven. That’s not how it works.

Learn something about science.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 14, 2012 3:56 PM

There is no proof in science. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence against it.

97% of the climate scientist say that AGW is real and happening. That is enough for me, since THEY have studied that bl**dy thing for a very long time making them the experts and the authority to appeal to.

Which experts do you appeal to? Where is your evidence AGAINST AGW?
Your claim is the extraordinary one, not mine. The burden is upon you.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:19 PM

Wrong. If “science is never settled” than why does all this super-useful techi-electro thing-a-ma-bob devices we all rely on to live anymore….. WORK? Wrong.

maurizio52
Guest
maurizio52
April 13, 2012 10:07 PM

Dear Jeff “wrong” Boerst, you are confusing Science and Technology in this case.

Best “wrong” regards wink

ozonator
Guest
ozonator
April 13, 2012 8:43 AM

Those 49 are only able to “scientifically” predict a free lunch. They should soon be coming out with another paid acting gig letter stating that Bangladesh doesn’t exist either as it isn’t mentioned in the conservatives’ bible. Thus, another billion dollar grant to Al Gore – “NASA to Study Climate Change in Bangladesh” (IANS; daijiworld.com, 4/13/12). And if Bangladesh does exist, the 49ers will blame the flooding victims for not letting in Louisiana Governor Jindal build sand berms along the coast with money from BP, Muslims who accept AGW disasters are terrorists, or something.

ozonator
Guest
ozonator
April 13, 2012 9:00 AM

Were you all at the same Little Ice Age seminar?

interI0per
Member
interI0per
April 13, 2012 11:53 AM

when will the oil industry be declared a success? is it such a continuously dismal failure that it must be endlessly propped by taxpayers? why do oil industry lobbyists even exist?
are they fearful they won’t be allowed to suck every last drop out of the earth and burn it in the atmosphere? it seems they have read Darwin and applied the lesson to industry.

the pat answer is: remove the subsidies and you will only pay more for gas… HA!

here is an ‘unhealthy’ green initiative: http://www.windenergy.com/commercial/industrial-applications

exray
Guest
exray
April 13, 2012 12:03 PM

The “believers” have got 2 dots connected. The Earth is warming, CO2 levels are rising. The “deniers” assert this is not enough to establish a causal connection.
Has anyone calculated the CO2 load that would be experienced if ALL the fossil fuels were burned? Has anyone been able credibly to define where the “tipping point” is leading to a thermal catastrophe (whatever that’s defined as?).
Science is not democracy, where if 99% of scientists say we have man-made warming, then we do.

Windemere
Guest
Windemere
April 13, 2012 2:13 PM

At one time 99% of all scientists believed the sun revolved around the Earth too, only continuing scientific research in the face of overwhelming opposition which included the possibility of jail, torture, brought out the truth of the solar system. Why should we relegate ourselves to another “Dark Age” because we believe in a consensus instead of facts.

Windemere
Guest
Windemere
April 13, 2012 2:13 PM

At one time 99% of all scientists believed the sun revolved around the Earth too, only continuing scientific research in the face of overwhelming opposition which included the possibility of jail, torture, brought out the truth of the solar system. Why should we relegate ourselves to another “Dark Age” because we believe in a consensus instead of facts.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:11 PM

Wrong.

Super Earth
Member
Super Earth
April 13, 2012 9:55 PM

“Has anyone calculated the CO2 load that would be experienced if ALL the fossil fuels were burned?”

Yes.

The result would be a warming of more than 10 ºC, maybe even 15ºC. No glacier will remain on the planet. Sea level would be 60 meters higher(due to the total meltdown of Greenland and Antartica). The Tropics would be unhabitable and the climate of the Poles would be subtropical.

skipdallas
Member
skipdallas
April 13, 2012 12:03 PM

The deniers of global warming are the industries that stand to lose something. Whether it be profits, or the specter of more regulation. These industries, their paid up politicians and the people that deny the facts accepted by scientists around the world for the “Man made” effects on our climate have but one agenda: Keep the money flowing in no matter what! And to hell with the environment.

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
April 13, 2012 1:15 PM

While I mostly agree, unfortunately, both sides of the argument are guilty of this.

– There is a lot of money to be made in the ‘green’ industry
– Alarmist claims brings more funding (supports many careers)
and…
– A lot of youth votes are to be won by politicians.

While I am sceptical of the catastrophic claims of ‘rising sea levels’ and ‘destruction of the Great Barrier Reef’, I really wish politicians and greedy industry would keep their noses out of the scientific argument. I would love a debate – between scientists – not greedy folks with their hands in everyones pocket.

mbarricarte
Member
mbarricarte
April 13, 2012 2:27 PM

To Ex NASA employees: try to find something better to do with your time than signing on to this misguided statement. Dont be manipulated by big oil bucks!!

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 11:00 PM

Instead, be manipulated by “green” bucks.

Demonstrate that they were manipulated.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 13, 2012 2:42 PM

Al Gore is no hero in the scientific community.
“ClimateGate” was proven several times to be manufactured. The scientists behaved as they should and did nothing wrong!
There is no blind devotion. Only a clear look at the facts.

ITSRUF
Guest
ITSRUF
April 13, 2012 3:19 PM

NASAs extreme position is inappropriate, and it shows NASAs lack of focus and purpose.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:03 PM

Wrong.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 13, 2012 10:58 PM

What an astounding argument you provide! I have seen it three times now, and I am overwhelmed by your thoughtful reasoning and detailed analysis of the views you oppose whereby you came up with your statement.

Science should simply shut down and defer to your obviously enlightened intellect.

By the way, do you recognize sarcasm when it is presented to you?

jjb
Member
jjb
April 13, 2012 3:47 PM
NASA is trying to find a “side” that will get them more $$$$ … Sad but true. Rev Al Gore told us the Oceans were going to rise: “20 FEET” .. Now this was told to us back when his Scam Video was released in -> 2006. Well here it is 6 years later and the Oceans have not even increased 3″ let alone 12″. Now for his 20 FT … Wow, do we have some serious catch up to do. Especially when the oceans are only rising at a very slow slow slow rate of 3.1 +/- MM … a year. Or for those who do not understand Metric that = to 3.1 millimeters = 0.122 inches.… Read more »
Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 7:16 PM

Wrong. Who’s gonna give them all this money of which you speak? Wrong.

Atanu Maulik
Guest
April 13, 2012 5:03 PM

Many of the promoters of this global warming bullshit are funded by Russia and OPEC. They are worried that the shale gas and oil revolution currently underway around the world may make nations like US and Israel and also EU energy independent. So it has to be stopped somehow.

Super Earth
Member
Super Earth
April 13, 2012 6:54 PM

Energy independence is one reason MORE to move away from fossil fuels.

Oil has peaked in the USA 40 years ago. Since then production had been declining. The new slight increase in production in the last 4 years is from fields that are very expensive to operate, and deplete rapidly. Cheap oil is gone. Even the International Energy Agency recognize it.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 13, 2012 6:58 PM

Wrong.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 13, 2012 7:34 PM

Yikes, a conspiracy nut. Where do the denialists find this garbage?

Olaf
Member
Olaf
April 13, 2012 9:06 PM

The EU is becoming oil independent because of the high fuel and gas prices. More and more windmills and solar cells are being placed, people want less and less fuel consuming cars.

If Russia and OPEC wants to keep on delivering oil then they should lower the price instead.

wpDiscuz