posted 04-11-2012 02:00 PM               

Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position

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."

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.

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.

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

posted 04-11-2012 02:36 PM               

Incidentally, as much as I respect the Apollo astronauts, from the autobiographies I've read I know for a fact that nearly all of them have opinions and firmly-held beliefs of all kinds (scientific, pseudo-scientific, political and religious) that I completely disagree with.

posted 04-11-2012 07:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by arjuna:
...thus one of the reasons to return to the moon (which indeed is the title of his own book) is seriously undermined.

---

We need to have a back-up plan, and He3 is an alternative (well, when the fusion aspect is fully resolved).

posted 04-11-2012 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
That doesn't lessen my respect for them and their achievements one bit, but it does mean that seeing an Apollo astronaut's signature on a group letter doesn't make me think I'm any more or less likely to agree with its content just because they signed it.

---

posted 04-11-2012 07:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
What they did in the past does not qualify their opinions any more than any other engineer or test pilot.

---

Aligning with an advocacy group (the Science and Public Policy Institute), putting out a press release and writing an open letter are all political actions as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The signatories care a great deal about the institution they have or currently represent (NASA)...

---

posted 04-11-2012 07:59 PM               

I could not see how these NASA insiders could be motivated by anything other than concerns that NASA's conclusions are being motivated by the same concern — funding.

posted 04-11-2012 09:21 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
With all due respect, I think your logic is flawed. The need to mine Helium-3 from the moon is because one day fossil fuels on earth will run out. It may be 50, 100 or more years but they will eventually run out. And the cost of fossil fuels will continue to escalate as they become more and more scarce.

---

The point is this: if there's no CC-driven need to transition to green energy, there may still be other reasons to move to non-carbon sources, but there is undoubtedly less urgency to do so. And thus it would be pretty hard to argue that the case for Helium-3 isn't diminished.

posted 04-12-2012 06:49 AM               

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.

Plants Need CO2 has a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2." It allegedly has connections with the fossil fuel extraction industry.

posted 04-12-2012 07:23 AM               

NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

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.

posted 04-12-2012 09:15 AM               

The letter was instigated by Steward, as he himself states:

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.

posted 04-12-2012 10:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
Steward is a director at EOR Resources (formerly Enron Oil & Gas) and the other two directors of "Plants Need CO2" are also big oil men. There are no prizes for guessing where the funding for this not-for-profit organization comes from, or whose interests they have at heart ....

---

Just to balance this, one has to remember that the Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, has a research institute in Delhi which is heavily involved in various renewable energy projects, thus calling into doubt both his and the IPCC's views on climate change.

posted 04-12-2012 12:18 PM               

This thread is about NASA and the motivation behind an individual with pre-determined views agitating astronauts and scientist-employees of a government agency to publicly critique that agency.

posted 04-12-2012 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Politics writ large.

---

You must be thinking rather of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies's Dr. James E. Hansen who, in a letter addressed to "Michelle and Barack" Obama bull horned the following dispassionate and neutral NASA "facts":

• "An urgent (iv) geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know."
  
• "What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees."
  
• "A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide."
  
• "The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax."
  
• "The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts."

posted 04-12-2012 05:36 PM               

NASA civil servants are still citizens. They, like all other citizens of the United States, have the right to write the President of the United States, voicing their ideas and concerns.

They are not speaking on behalf of their employer, regardless if they are a scientist, engineer or astronaut.

Otherwise, you should be admonishing Walt Cunningham, Jack Schmitt and Charlie Duke for using their title as "astronaut" to sign their letter. To the public at large, they don't know or care that the three are retired. To the public at large, they still represent NASA.

posted 04-12-2012 05:55 PM               

Are you implying that any letters sent by any private citizens, concerning CC, would be treated equally, as far as having their voices heard, and ideas publicized? I find that difficult believe.

posted 04-13-2012 04:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
No where in his letter does he mention NASA. No where does he use his title.

---

This is neither here nor there. The fact is that once the contents of his letter came into the public domain they were reported by the media with Hansen referred to as a NASA scientist. To the general public this carries the implication that the views expressed, at the very least, are endorsed by NASA.

posted 04-13-2012 09:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
By your reasoning, Walt Cunningham, Charlie Duke and Jack Schmitt had no right to send their letter. After all, it was their title as astronauts that drew their letter attention. The articles use "astronauts" in their headlines, not "retired citizens."

---

These astronauts are private citizens and no longer working as NASA employees. James Hansen, on the other hand, still has an employer-employee relationship with NASA today.

Many employers in the technical field require employees to obtain appoval prior to publishing or presenting any material or information directly related the work done by them or the "company" at large. By airing his views, Hansen gives the impression that his employer, NASA, approves the message.

posted 04-13-2012 10:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So you're saying that if Hansen's letter had expressed the opposite point of view, that climate change was not a concern, that Cunningham and the others would have still sent their letter as regardless the position, it was inappropriate for any civil servant to share their opinion?

---

But Hansen's publicly aired views are not simply stated an "opinion." He projects them as settled science using phrases like "fact has become clear." An opinon would include words like, "in my opinion it is clear that..."

On the other hand, if he did state the opposite view, present it as "fact" while voicing policy and tax recommendations, then I'm certain that too would be subject to public opposition from some quarter, if not from Cunningham (for whom I do not speak).

quote:

---

So if any NASA or federal employee speaks out against climate change policies that they too should be silenced?

---

posted 04-13-2012 10:18 AM               

So please define the qualifications that will deprive certain Americans their right to free speech. Is it their professional title? Their salary level? Their political affiliation?

And please clarify, had Hansen's letter clearly stated that it was his opinion that climate change was not a concern, would it have merited a letter in protest from Cunningham and the others?

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the letter that began this thread was solely or primarily motivated by the concern that a civil servant was misinterpreted as speaking for NASA as a whole. The letter makes it clear that the foremost issue is a view on climate change that is counter to their own.

Indeed the letters makes no mention at all of Hansen or his letter. To the contrary, it specifically cites "future releases and websites," neither of which apply to Hansen.

posted 04-13-2012 10:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So now you are saying it is okay for only certain civil servants to express their opinion but only if they specifically state that it is their opinion. Correct?

---

No. The cafeteria worker could state it as either fact or opinion, but would carry little weight because they, unlike Hansen, are not a professional NASA climatologist.

quote:

---

So please define the qualifications that will deprive certain Americans their right to free speech. Is it their professional title? Their salary level? Their political affiliation?

---

The brush gets broader. Seems you're now turning it into a First Amendment issue.

The answer would need to be on a case by case basis. Title, salary, and politics may not be relevant. One thing that could be relevent is any govornment or agency policies under which the employee is expected to adhere to under the terms of employment. I am not aware of any specific NASA policies against public disclosure, but many employers have them.

As far as free speech goes, Cunningham and Schmitt are not, as far as I am aware, subject to any NASA policy restricting what they can say. They are truly exercising their own free speech rights.

quote:

---

And please clarify, had Hansen's letter clearly stated that it was his opinion that climate change was not a concern, would it have merited a letter in protest from Cunningham and the others?

---

posted 04-13-2012 12:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
The point is how the media reports it once it comes into the public domain.

---

posted 04-13-2012 05:24 PM               

What Cunningham et al are saying is that employees who have views that are at odds with the ethics of the organisation should not make them whilst they are employed by that organisation, the more so when they are leading lights in a particular pressure group.

posted 04-13-2012 08:16 PM              

Remember Galileo, gentlemen.