Top Flight ex NASA Astronauts and Engineers plea to directorate

Posted: April 11, 2012 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, atmosphere, Carbon cycle, climate, Incompetence, media

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

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

H/T to Joe Olson

Comments
  1. wayne says:

    Bravo! Finally some real men knowing real science in a real physical world come forward.

  2. davidmhoffer says:

    On the one hand, one must greet this letter from very high profile, highly qualified scientists as good news. On the other hand, there is good reason to see this as bad news.

    1. There isn’t a single signatory to the letter who is not retired. That tells you much about the fear to speak out on the part of those who still work at NASA. The fix is in and if they want to keep their jobs, they will stay quiet. The power inside NASA resides with the warmists.

    2. The MSM passed on the story. The story is of little value if it only gets preached to the converted. The MSM is as biased as the power brokers within NASA and as long as they simply ignore stories like this, so does the public.

  3. Hans says:

    Does this signal NASA´s come back to real climate science?
    Better late than never. NASA did publish a good book about climate science in 1978 before the Hansen era. The reputation of NASA is already severly hurt by the GISS violations of scientifc methods and unscientific contributions to IPCC.

    Í recommend:
    Sun, Weather, and Climate [Paperback], NASA, 1978
    John R. Herman (Author) and Goldberg
    The book contains 370 references of which 150 treats
    solar-earth links to climate variables. It gives a very broad survey of climate related topics.

  4. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    Never could figure out why the last 150 years of temperature data cancels out 4.5 billion years of planetary history. “Record breaking temperatures” my ar$e!

  5. davidmhoffer says:

    Hans says:
    April 11, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    Does this signal NASA´s come back to real climate science?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, it does not. Not a single signature from a CURRENT employee. Inside NASA, nothing has changed.

  6. mkelly says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    April 11, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    I fully concur.

  7. Zeke says:

    “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.”

    That is very inappropriate for scientists, when studying and seeking to explain a natural system, to serially and systematically rule out other possible drivers of the system, and aggressively exclude all but one pre-selected, traditional model. When even mention of other working hypothesis is something which would cause researchers and experimenters to fear for their position and employment, than this is truly a sign that the science has left the rails and is in a state of corruption and advocacy.

    Now of all of the scientific unions, associations, institutes, societies, journals, universities and colleges, and education departments, which of them has had the will and wherewithal to behave “appropriately” in response to AGW advocacy masquerading as science? That is my question, because a positive example of good scientific demeanor and methodology would be very instructive right now. And if there are so few, then perhaps AGW revealed the state of science, rather than caused its corruption. Circumstances reveal character, they do not make character.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Zeke: “When even mention of other working hypothesis is something which would cause researchers and experimenters to fear for their position and employment, than this is truly a sign that the science has left the rails”

    What Michael Crichton described as a “Climate of fear”.

    Minerva and Prometheus are exchanging glances and rolling their eyeballs skywards.

  9. hengistmcstone says:

    What can the signatories mean by ” considering thousands of years of empirical data” ? That must surely be a reference to proxies, the reliability of which climate contrarians largely dispute .

  10. tallbloke says:

    Hi Hengist. Not all empirical data stretching back thousands of years are proxies. Some evidence is direct.

    For example

  11. Tenuc says:

    hengistmcstone says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:06 pm
    “What can the signatories mean by ” considering thousands of years of empirical data” ? That must surely be a reference to proxies,..

    Not necessary just unreliable proxy data, but anecdotal too.

    For example remains of Roman vineyards found near York, wooden ships sailing NW passage, paintings of bonfires on the ice at London Frost Fairs… e.t.c. Just a quick look at the written historic record shows that todays climate is no different than it has been experienced in the pat, without man-made CO2.

  12. hengistmcstone says:

    Hi Tallbloke, what do you mean by direct?
    Tenuc: Those are anecdotal accounts of previous climates, I don’t doubt them but they dont give us precise evidence of what the Global Mean Surface Temperature was in any given year.

  13. Robert Wilson says:

    Tenuc

    Is making an excellent point. I read a really interesting study about this, not sure where but I’ll see if I can find it. They found that the Roman was in fact able to make wine in every country in the Roman Empire. All you have to do is look at a map of the map empire and ask yourself if you have ever seen a bottle of wine from all of these regions.

    If the likes of Michael Mann are happy with their ‘proxy records’, using growing seasons and all this kind if stuff, then they really need to explain away the clear evidence Northern hemisphere temperatures were higher at the time of the Roman empire.

  14. hengistmcstone says:

    Where I come from there are two types of evidence telling us what the temp was, the instrumental record (stretching back about 150 years), and proxy . If the signatories are citing an evidential record that goes back thousands of years , they should be specific about what they mean. Is it instrumental or proxy, what evidence do they claim to have when they write ” considering thousands of years of empirical data”?

  15. tallbloke says:

    Hengist, it’s a letter. They advise the executive to contact two people for further information. We frequently witness people like Hansen making assertive statements with no immediate backing, but I don’t see comments from you criticising that.

    You assume that the “thousands of years of empirical data.” refers to temperature proxies. But that is your assumption. There is more to climate change than global average near surface air temperature, which is a poor metric to use to judge the state of the planet’s systems anyway. Did you read the information at the link I gave? It seems not.

  16. Doug Cotton says:

    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.

    TB – why not contact the above and perhaps get an article from them?

  17. Robert Wilson says:

    Hengist

    You are making a fool out of yourself with these remarks. If you look at the range of disciplines the signatories are coming from it is in incredibly impressive. Much more so than the limited discipline areas represented by your so called consensus.

    Unlike James Hansen these scientists and engineers are motivated purely by the truth, and service to their country as shown by their long service record.

    I believe it is time Nasa got rid of Hansen et al. and replaced them with some of these good men. Until then NASA will be nothing but an echo chamber of the NGO led CAGW scam.

  18. hengistmcstone says:

    Hi Tallbloke, I’m still wondering what you mean by “direct” evidence.
    Of course I assume that the “thousands of years of empirical data” refers to temperature proxies, that’s because I know that the thermometer was invented in the 16th and 17th centuries (thanks WP).
    Maybe I’m wrong, maybe Dr Schmitt and his friends are going to produce a written record of the temperature going back thousands of years, until they do, colour me skeptical.

  19. J Martin says:

    The letter is a start. It might prompt other NASA retirees to come forward. If a second letter were to contain a significant percentage of NASA retirees views then that might give some indication of the likely size of sceptic views amongst current NASA staff.

    Current NASA employees must fear for their jobs, but if it became apparent that a majority of NASA’s retirees were sceptics then that would also suggest that a majority of NASA’s current workforce might also be sceptics and that might embolden a few to speak out, perhaps causing a sort of domino effect within NASA.

    It’s a start. Ever declining temperatures over the coming years will bring more forward. The sun remains on track to deliver a new Dalton or Maunder (or worse) minmium.

    All (bar 3) UK politicians are under the delusion that they are King Canute. No amount of windmill building will make the sun change it’s mind.

  20. Robert Wilson says:

    Hengist

    As Tenuc and I have pointed out there is incontrovertible evidence that during the Roman Empire grapes grew in parts of Europe where today it is absolutely impossible due to temperatures being too low. Vintners have tried all kinds of things, but nothing works. Could it possibly be that 2,000 years ago temperatures were higher? Or is this an inconvenient truth? I expect the CAGW alarmists will try to explain it away with nonsense about grape evolution, ‘hide the decline’ style smoke and mirrors.

    Forget what Tallbloke is saying, either explain the North Yorkshire Roman vineyard or admit CAGW is a scam.

  21. tchannon says:

    Definition of EMPIRICAL
    1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
    2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
    3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

  22. Robert Wilson says:

    And also scientists recently did meticulous research to recreate a patch of scrubland in New Zealand as it would have been 1,200 years ago. Inconveniently most things would not grow. Why was this? Too cold, of course.

    If the alarmists spent any time looking at the vast ecological literature on the historical changes in temperature tolerance of plants in New Zealand and Australia they would know the game is up. Instead they rely on Michael Mann’s long debunked proxies that are as useful for telling the temperature in a year as the quality of my morning coffee will be of telling me the temperature tomorrow.

  23. Robert Wilson says:

    Hengist

    As tchannon has just pointed out you clearly do not know the [snip] meaning of the word empirical. Please go away, get an education and then come back and try telling 50 former NASA astronauts and engineers they are wrong.

    And as we all know CAGW fails to meet any of the 3 criterion in Webster’s dictionary for empirical. Mann’s stick is broken, the weather stations are all too close to urban areas, the models aren’t evidence. Time to give it up.

  24. Robert Wilson says:

    J Martin

    I believe this is simply the tip of the iceberg. You must also remember NOAA. The so called 97% consensus is a lie, and I believe the forthcoming mass ‘outing’ of retired NASA and NOAA scientits as climate change skeptics will have devastating consequences for Al Gore’s so called consensus. I expect that the huge number of people who were afraid to leave the woodwork, will now exist the woodwork, grab some woodwork and take up the fight.

    Does everyone else on here, with the exception of this warmest [snip], share my optimism? We really could be on the verge of the destruction of the CAGW scam, which we all hoped Climategate would give us.

  25. Robert Wilson says:

    ‘scientits’? Make that scientists. Unlike the likes of Michael Mann I own up to my mistakes.

  26. davidmhoffer says:

    Robert Wilson;
    Does everyone else on here, with the exception of this warmest [snip], share my optimism?
    >>>>>>>

    As regards the “warmist”, I suggest you draw him out on the issues and assist in educating him. Spitting on people tends to harden their position. I reserve it for those engaged in deliberate propoganda.

    As regards you optimism, sadly, no. The argument should have ended on the fact that the effects of CO2 are logarithmic. The argument should have ended on the matter of feedbacks for which negative feedbacks are ignored and evidence of positive feedbacks is non existant. The argument should have ended on the basis that SB Law dictates that of any warming that does occurr, hardly any will be in the warm areas of earth, almost all of it will be in the coldest parts of the planet and in the depths of winter to boot. The argument should have ended on the historical evidence showing that the earth has been much warmer in the past, despite lower CO2 levels. The argument should have ended on the geological record which clearly shows higher CO2 levels in the past, but that these followed warming rather than leading it. The argument should have ended with the obvious manipulation of the temperature record to erase contrary temperature trends. The argument should have ended with the ClimateGate emails. The argument should have ended with ClimateGate II.

    A few retired NASA scientists write a letter and that ends it? Sadly…no.

  27. Robert Wilson says:

    Sorry Tim

    The constant lies, smearing, cherry picking, document stealing, politically motivated, pseudo-science, ideological, junk data, faked data, manipulated data we get from the other side annoys me a lot, but I will agree to improve the tone.

    [ you were not being heavy –Tim]

  28. Robert Wilson says:

    David

    I agree that much like the Shrek movies we never should have needed a Climategate II.

    But the world is awaking. Do you think these 49 retired NASA astronauts are impressed by the tens of thousands of peer reviewed science that backs up climate change? No, because I should have written ‘peer reviewed’ junk science. Sadly Rick Santorum has pulled out and it seems that the one man with the qualifications and intelligence to not believe in the CAGW myth is not going to be in the Whitehouse. It is a dreadful indication of the state we are in when opposition to the CAGW myth is not the top priority of every candidate. I am a single issue voter and we cannot let the alarmists destroy civilization with their wind farms and electric cars.

  29. pyromancer76 says:

    Davidmhoffer expresses my sentiments and my sadnesses, too. Thanks. I, too, am looking forward to the lid coming off, to those most guilty of non- or anti-scientific “behavior” brought to a kind of justice, and to the cowards slinking away with little acknowledgement of their implication in the fraud. However, until I see the funds moving in the opposite direction, no longer massively supporting the CAGW fraud, I cannot believe in the ending of this “scientific” nightmare.

  30. gallopingcamel says:

    The real tragedy here is the lack of response from Bolden.

    He has been appointed to preside over NASA at a time when the parts that represent American leadership in space exploration are being dismantled while the useless parts such as the Goddard Institute of Space Studies remain.

    Bolden’s shame is that he will cling to GISS even while the rest of his empire disappears.

  31. gallopingcamel says:

    Those of you who are trying to explain history to Hengist are wasting your time. He will never believe that it was ever warm enough in Scotland for growing grapes for wine making.

  32. gallopingcamel says:

    Hengist,
    Here is a preview of a two hour documentary showing what historians know about the “Little Ice Age”. I recommend that you take the trouble to see the whole History Channel presentation which will explain why you drink beer rather than wine:

    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v158890018kQaxQaK?h1=Little+Ice+Age%2C+Big+Chill

  33. gallopingcamel says:

    tchannon,
    I love the idea that there will be Scottish wine once again!

    Thank God for global warming; let us have more of it!

  34. tallbloke says:

    If you want to make a small fortune:

    Start with a large one, and set up a vineyard in Britain. 🙂

  35. Robert Wilson says:

    tchannon

    So, we are now approaching temperatures that existed during the Roman Empire? I used to think there were questionable things about the Roman Empire, but if they were able to put up with those temperatures they were clearly more robust than the warmists who fear a clearly puny increase.

    I believe we now must ask the warmists this killer question.

    Why is there no Riesling in Stirling?

    [Reply (Rog)] Same reason there’s no Hock in Knock, and no Pfieffer in Fife, though there is in Rutherglen – Australia. http://pfeifferwines.com.au/ 😉

  36. Robert Wilson says:

    I believe there was a study by a guy called Sokal back in 1996. Very relevant to what is going on here.

    Fossil evidence suggested that about 20% of the species existing in a forest in Sweden during the MWP today exist no further North than France. There is a brilliant scientic review of all of this evidence. Will try finding it and link to it.

  37. Wayne Job says:

    I am impressed by the start of the letter,very American in its politeness, then it becomes a dear John letter. I am of the same generation as these unsung heroes of the space race and applaud them for their ongoing courage, as the system the way it is they are likely to cop some crap.

    I do like the idea of a previous poster to contact these gentlemen and request a post for the blog.

  38. tempestnut says:

    This letter is hopefully the start of a process that will lead to a rehabilitation of science’s reputation. In the eyes of the public, science has let them down with a range of so called experts backing politicians when they make unpopular policy decisions, that latter turn out to have been false.

    My view that I came to back in 2007, was that climate change and demonising of CO2 had nothing to do with science, and was always a political movement. The only thing that was going to cure the world of the CAGW con was a change to politics. That change to politics was not going to happen until the money ran out.

    I am confident we are in the death throes of CAGW. But it’s not because we have just won the scientific argument. We have always been right on that and not one tiny scrape of evidence supporting the notion that CO2 causes DAGW has ever been presented. It should, as has been said already ended there. But it didn’t, and we have indulged in endless arguments about temperature, which even if it had risen 5 degrees is still not proof that CO2 has anything to do with it. This is a point that many sceptics still don’t “get” any more than some “luke warmers” do. We are now winning the argument because the money has run out (Big time) and Joe public is slowly reengaging in politics.

    All the effort that has been expended by the sceptical websites has contributed in a vital way, not by winning the argument, but by raising the awareness of the public as to how science has been corrupted and conspired with Government to waste money. This will come back to bite science in the future as they compete for scarce funds, and will put our politicians on notice that the public will not just accept the word of an expert without proper explanation.

    Now what I like about Tallblokes Talkshop is the fact that at long last we can join up all the thinking, for it is not just climate science that is suffering at the hands of politically inspired consensus science, but a whole range of discipline’s, and they are all interrelated is some way. One example that Hengist could use is to read http://www.dinosaurtheory.com So much information, so many questions.

    The issue of earth quakes and vocanoes is one that I think will come to the fore over the next few years if a number of theories are correct. Interesting times

    Peter

  39. Robert Wilson says:

    Everyone

    The one thing this post and the other discussion forums show is that not only do climate realists back up what they say with facts, but they will also check the sources of what other people say.

    The spirit of critical enquiry and fact checking is alive and well here at Tallbloke’s site. Unfortunately this is not so at place like NASA.

  40. Robert Wilson says:

    Tallbloke

    I definitely recommend you googling “Sokal 1996.” Some pretty interesting stuff by this guy. If you thought what climate realists thought about warmists was true, then you’ll love this.

    [ This will probably do http://www.skepdic.com/sokal.html –Tim]
    [ Thanks both, I’ll take a look soon. UPDATE: Heh. busted. Nice work Tim — Rog] 🙂

  41. Robert Wilson says:

    Tim, Rog

    It’s pretty astonishing. It seems that there are people out there who can be fed all kinds of nonsense and won’t check whether a word of it is true. This is how the likes of Michael Mann and Phil Jones have gotten away with it for so long. The warmists are as credulous as the people Sokal hoaxed.

    [Reply] Your kind of nonsense got chewed once and spat out. Bye. 🙂

  42. tallbloke says:

    heh, nice.

    “He also claims that “physical ‘reality’ … is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”

    Somewhere I have a book called “physics as metaphor”

    It’s actually a damn good read, which investigates how the medieval mind conceptualised the cosmos and observed reality in terms and categories so different to our ‘modern way’ that you wonder how they could understand it as a coherent system of internally consistent thought.

    But that is how humans collectively do things, and it is as true today as it was then.

    The joke is on Mr Wilson, because ‘the climate consensus’ epitomises exactly the same social process of mutually reinforcing uncritical acceptance of any bias confirming tripe which ‘Nature’ and the Guardian are happy to print without proper fact checking, just as Sokal showed. E.g. glaciers to melt by 2035, Gleick’s phony strategy document etc etc .

  43. Barry Woods says:

    Tallbloke

    On Twitter @wilsonrobertj

    Is boasting about hoaxing a denialist blogger.

    Which has just confirmed to me that he is not worth me wasting any further time with him

  44. tallbloke says:

    Barry: I hope he gives the link to this thread, so everyone can see how he got busted by Tim.

  45. tchannon says:

    Rog, sure you’ve got it right over the comment RW made. It doesn’t read like that.

    [Mr Wilson’s tweet doesn’t leave much room for doubt 🙂 “@wilsonrobertj: Can I hoax a #denialist blogger into accepting any old nonsense? Yes, I can. #alansokalhasnothingonme #climatechange http://t.co/ivOKZ26C — Rog]

    [ I wondered if there was more off the obvious record. Since I know next to nothing about tweet, I duck out. –Tim]

  46. hengistmcstone says:

    Gallopingcamel, Your comment at 4.01am is wrong. If you read my earlier comment at 10.24pm you will see I say I don’t doubt it (the Roman vineries in York).

    But I do doubt that these 49 scientists have the empirical data going back thousands of years they claim.

  47. tallbloke says:

    Hengist: Let’s look again at what they said that you disagree with:

    “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.”

    Now, what sort of data might they be talking about?
    Hand written records, certainly. Harvest yields, flowering times of specific species, extreme weather events etc.
    Various kinds of archeological evidence, sure. Hippo skeletons in the sahara, grass varieties preserved in frozen mammoths etc
    Paleo evidence, tricky, but some is useful. Evidence of changing heights of treelines on Scandinavian mountainsides for example, are strongly indicative of relative temperatures over long periods.

    So yes, empirical data over thousands of years.

    Arguments over interpretation? Of course! That’s why the science isn’t settled, just as these people are saying. They want an end to categorical statements falsely derived from uncertain science.

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

    What’s not to like?

  48. tchannon says:

    http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/courses/geog347/articles/decline_human.pdf

    The date 1951, a whole different attitude to the title.

    There is a great deal past and present, verified, wrong, to be done and so on.

  49. hengistmcstone says:

    Their statement that they have ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ is clearly a categorical statement falsely derived from uncertain science. You speculate that this will include hand writtten records, what thousands of years old, telling us what an observed temp was ??? That would not be the observations of a scientist but of a hierophant.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Hengist: you’ve lost the argument and you are floundering.

    The statement that there is empirical data going back thousands of years isitself an empirical fact.

    Only you decree that it must be temperature data. No-one else does. It’s a straw man you’ve created.

    Hand written records go back thousands of years in China, the middle east and Egypt. There is useful data in them which helps us draw out inferences relevant to the study of what climate was like thousanads of years ago in those places. Coupled with proxy records, interpretations can be made. Interpretations which are of course in dispute from both sides of the aisle. Which is why the science isn’t settled. Which is why these NASA scientists and engineersand meteorologists are saying Hansen shouldn’t be making categorical statements. Especially considering that we don’t need thousand of years of records to be able to point out his hypothesis is contradicted by contempory observation, experiment, and theory.

  51. hengistmcstone says:

    Tallbloke, I haven’t made a decree simply a logical construct. If we’re going to sock it to the warmists that the Roman Warm Period (or the MWP or any other period you care to mention) was warmer than the present day it stands to reason that temperature data will be fundamental to your argument. Now we learn here that temperature data doesnt matter much – because you haven’t got any …

    Yes hand written records go back thousands of years, but they weren’t telling us the temperature, because they didn’t have thermometers.Duh.

    We could go on like this ad infinitum but it’s difficult to make comparisons between your ancient account of a heatwave versus my ancient account of something else. That’s why temperature measurements are the yardstick. How about a post telling us that Noah’s flood was in some way evidential to the skeptical side of the argument ? 😉

  52. tallbloke says:

    Now we learn here that temperature data doesnt matter much – because you haven’t got any

    Not just us, no-one has. Except the paleophrenologists who believe their own treemometer data of course. Personally, I think Loehle’s non-tree-ring multiproxy for the last millenium is pretty good, though of course, the opposition don’t.

    How about a post telling us that Noah’s flood was in some way evidential to the skeptical side of the argument ?

    Reductio ad absurdum – you lose. Your forfeit is to plant twenty rows of vines in Northumberland.

  53. tallbloke – congrats on collecting hengist as your resident troll from “the response unit”. Be gentle, please, because he is unusually stupid.

  54. tallbloke says:

    Always good to get a tip from the MiB. 😉

    Don’t worry, I’ll take good care of his de-programming and rehab schedule.

  55. diogenes says:

    I hope you are nbot disappointed that you only get Hengist as your troll these days rather than the “eminent” J Bowers

  56. danngermouse says:

    At the end of the last Ice Age one could, apparently, walk across the English Channel to France, should one wish to. Mesolithic remains are found by Dutch fishermen, for example, trawled from the North Sea seabed. So the ice retreated, the planet has warmed and within the larger cycles there are clearly fluctuations. Yawn. As you know, ice ages follow a roughly 120 000 yr cycle, corresponding perhaps to the Sun’s movement around the Galaxy. Thus it would be foolhardy to deny cosmic influences on the Earth’s climate. What we need to establish, is what impact human activity is having on said climate. This requires real science, not bickering. In my book, CO2, methane, water vapour are GHGs. These have increased within the last 200 years or so in line with industrial activity, hence anthropogenic climate change; the earth is warming.