The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming

Posted: 10 Apr 2012 in Politics

Excellent.

Watts Up With That?

Given the high profile story today about the 49 NASA astronauts, engineers, and scientists who wrote a scathing letter to NASA director Charles Bolden, Jr. saying Jim Hansen and NASA GISS are exemplifying the “wrong stuff”, I thought I’d share this poster contributed by WUWT reader NickFromNYC:

View original post

Comments
  1. cmblake6 says:

    That was pure awesome!

  2. […] stuff”, I thought I’d share this poster contributed by WUWT reader NickFromNYC: I found this over at 1IDVET's place, and it is good. Oh, damn is it good! from → Uncategorized ← Our economy is kinda […]

  3. When my Physician suspected I had cancer in 1995, he recommended that I visit an Oncologist. He didn’t recommend I see a Dentist or Cardiologist. Had I done so, I would expect they would have declined to offer a comment on the suspected diagnosis. At NASA, the climate scientists are at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Other branches of NASA no doubt house very capable engineers and scientists who are good at what they do. Apparently, however, some are not quite smart enough, or don’t quite have integrity enough, to realize their limitations. By offering profound public comment totally out of their areas of expertise, as reflected in their letter to you on climate change, they are displaying a lack of intelligence or integrity.
    The assertion that current climate theory fails to account for thousands of years of empirical data on climate change is, at best uninformed, at worst plain ignorant. Of course climate scientists are aware of historical patterns, and have factored these influences into models.
    There are absolutely NOT hundreds of climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts. This is merely hyperbole. Rather, what we have seen is the same handful of individuals, a few of whom actually have some expertise in the area, repeat and repeat their claims. Some media – such as Newsmax and Murdoch media, promote the repeated comments of these individual creating the impression of a large vocal mass of opposition. It just is not there.
    Furthermore, the reference to disbelief is telling. Apparently these individuals think science operates on the basis of belief. Since ‘belief’ refers to ideas that are essentially untestable and are held as articles of faith, belief or disbelief fall outside the realm of science. Rather, science operates on the judicious evaluation of the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007 very clearly that its conclusions were probabilistic –based on degrees of confidence up in the 90% + range. This is exactly what the GISS folks and leadership endorse. The further reference to ‘unproven’ claims reveals these authors as totally ignorant of how science is conducted. ‘Proof’ in the sense of absolute certainty, is not a product of scientific endeavor. Rather, science operates on the basis of evaluating evidence provided by the real (i.e material) world. The best that science can offer is an interpretation of what this evidence suggests. We rely on the evaluation of informed experts to provide reasoned conclusions. We do not rely on the preconceived convictions of individuals with some prior external agenda to drive the conclusions.
    The focus on Carbon dioxide as the primary cause is based on an array of well-developed principles regarding the properties of carbon dioxide as a forcing agent and its concentration in the atmosphere. It is well known that other gases contribute to this phenomenon as well as other natural processes. It is well known and appreciated by climate scientists that influences such as solar radiation, volcanic activity, astronomic cycles, ozone, particulates etc have an impact on climate. These are, indeed, factored into models. These models are very accurate in terms of their tracking climate patterns we have seen for the last 100 years (indeed, slightly underestimate the warming, if they err in any direction). It is quite reasonable, therefore, to use them as a basis for assessing what the future might look like under a range of scenarios. The claim that there has not been a thorough analysis of the impact of natural climate drivers is just uninformed (or ignorant).
    What these individuals have done is exactly what they accuse the GISS climate scientists of doing. By failing to acknowledge that the GISS scientists are the experts, and failing to acknowledge that they are not experts, they have undermined the reputation of the non GISS branches of NASA.

  4. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States says:

    >>> At NASA, the climate scientists are at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Other branches of NASA no doubt house very capable engineers and scientists who are good at what they do. Apparently, however, some are not quite smart enough, or don’t quite have integrity enough, to realize their limitations. By offering profound public comment totally out of their areas of expertise, as reflected in their letter to you on climate change, they are displaying a lack of intelligence or integrity.

    This kind of “you have to be a special sort of expert to understand the arguments enough to have doubts about their validity” is elitist bovine excreta of the worst sort. Even a non-scientist can ask **intelligent questions** which the scientist, if they are actually correct, should be able to frame an answer sufficiently matching with observable facts that it can be understood that, if the answer isn’t there, that the responder COULD clearly answer it.

    This is not the case with AGW/Climate BS. They can’t even make basic reliable predictions about whether it will SNOW in a week, but they claim the power to tell exactly — to the TENTH of A DEGREE — what the temperature will be five or ten DECADES from now?

    Pull the other one.

    I’ve got 30 years of experience with computers, and a number of graduate level applied Math courses under my belt. I’ve got a fairly good idea where the limitations of sims might be, and it’s vastly beyond the capabilities of modern sims to handle anything as ridiculously chaotic as SHORT TERM WEATHER predictions, much less the truly chaotic like long-term climate predictions.

    AGW is a total crock, run by quacks, charlatans, and demagogues claiming powers clearly far beyond their own abilities, and the endless parade of “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” BS supporters like you produce isn’t going to change that.

    When you can plug in existing historical data, and get subsequently kept historical results within a reasonable percentage of the truth, THEN you can claim you might be able to predict what will happen in the future. Until then, you’re nothing but a bunch of lying ephtards and their drooling sychophantic Useful Idiots.

    >>> I didn’t write it. It’s a reblog.
    So you’re not even capable of expressing your own opinion about expressing a professional opinion? LOLZ. “Useful Idiot” it is then, for you?

    • 1IDVET says:

      The comment I was referring to was about the paragraphs remark.

      I know how to write, and I know how to use paragraphs. That was the point.

      You jumping on me because of that shows that you aren’t as smart as you think you are.

      Useful idiot, indeed.

  5. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States says:

    P.S., whenever “one of your own”, like James Lovelock comes out and acks “You know, we might well have overblown our understanding of things”, you jump on them as “selling out” or, in JL’s case, “He’s over the hill”.

    Statements like:
    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago,” he admitted, adding that temperatures haven’t increased as expected over the last 12 years. “There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
    mean nothing to you, because you’ve already DECIDED the answer. The ones who aren’t scientists are YOU and your ilk, not people like the ones behind this letter.

  6. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States says:

    >>> “Apparently these individuals think science operates on the basis of belief.”

    BWAAAAAhahahhaaa, says the guy whose side is constantly, endlessly hammering the notion of “consensus” and “settled science”.

    The psychological term for this behavior is “Projection”.