I’m always hoping I can find someone to believe when it comes to debunking Climate Change. I mean, it’s such a bad situation that it’s something I’d rather not believe. Ya know? So let me tell you about the latest.
It started with taking a peak at this Business Insider MAP OF THE DAY: The Three Climate Factors That Are Shaping Spring
It made me laugh out loud. I love it that business can spin the weather we’ve been having into such a positive position and give it such wonderful root causes (volcanic ash #1? read this for the real science).
So for more entertainment I read the comments and something there piqued my interest. It was this statement - “Interesting that the article about the NASA scientists was removed from the front page, in spite of being heavily viewed and commented on…”
Hmmm, how did i miss that? And luckily someone else provided a link to exactly what all these other NASA scientists had said. Here is an excerpt:
“The letter, sent at the end of March, includes former scientists, astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center who believe climate science is “not settled” and wish for NASA to look at all available scientific data before making claims of carbon dioxide’s “catastrophic impact”.”
The Blaze then goes on to post some excerpts from said letter but not the letter itself. But I want to see the source. In my search I come across another site ’WATTS UP WITH THAT” supposedly “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, that appears to have the entire letter and contact information.
After reading the information, doing searches on many of the names, checking out more of the WUWT website, I concluded it is not a serious piece that adds anything meaningful to the topic. Reasons being;
1) None of these are active employees and none of them are climate scientists. However much we want to adore rocket scientists, that doesn’t make them climate SMEs.
2) Many are associated to denier funding sources or websites especially the scientists the letter refers to as their oracles.
Harrison Schmitt is a Geologist, retired from NASA, born 1935, and “Regarding the international scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, Schmitt has said that “[t]he CO2 scare is a red herring”, that the “global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision-making,” and that scientists who might otherwise challenge prevailing views on climate change dare not do so for fear of losing funding.” source AND HE IS A HEARTLAND BOARD MEMBER!!! I’ve written plenty here about the Heartland group so I won’t dredge it all up again. Search on it and decide about them for yourself.
Walter Cunningham is also an old timer, born 1932, an astronaut, fighter pilot, physicist, entrepreneur, venture capitalist, author of The All-American Boys, lecturer, and host of the radio show Lift-off to Logic. “In 2010, he published a pamphlet titled “Global Warming: Facts versus Faith” in which he states: “The current debate is not unlike Galileo’s historic disagreement with the Catholic Church, or the battle over evolution versus creationism. In all three cases, facts are pitted against faith and science against religion. The conflict over global warming has deteriorated into a religious war between true believers in AGW and non-believers, the so-called “skeptics”.” This report was published by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank engaged in “dispelling myths about global warming”. The Heartland Institute has, in its publications, made four points:
“Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.” “The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.” “A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.” “The best strategy to pursue is one of ‘no regrets’.”
In an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle on August 15, 2010, Cunningham argued that the empirical evidence does not support the claims of global warming. The editorial, titled “Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods”, stated his opinion that the global warming debate hinged on four key points. “About 20 years ago,” he stated, “a small group of scientists became concerned that temperatures around the Earth were unreasonably high and a threat to humanity. In their infinite wisdom, they decided: 1) that CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels were abnormally high, 2) that higher levels of CO2 were bad for humanity, 3) that warmer temperatures would be worse for the world, and 4) that we are capable of overriding natural forces to control the Earth’s temperature. Not one of these presumptions (opinions) has proven to be valid.”” source
These are the guys they’re believing in? They are entitled but, as I stated above, I don’t view this as a serious statement worth much consideration.
3) The piece isn’t critical analysis journalism, it’s as bias in the denier direction as this site is in the believer direction - the difference is, I’m not calling this site a science blog.
I was please to see my opinion echoed elsewhere in the news.
Attacks on climate science by former NASA staff shouldn’t be taken seriously
A letter from former administrators, astronauts, and engineers at NASA expressing climate change scepticism does not deserve parity with the agency’s peer-reviewed climate scientists. source
Please read that entire article because Dana Nuccitelli does a much better job assessing than I have.
I got myself all worked up, hoping there had been a real scientific rebuttal I could appreciate but once again, so disappointed that the political spin and propaganda is detracting from the reality. I was played.
Update #1: Is NASA really in an open revolt over climate change? by Eric Burger / Houston Chronicle. (Excerpt: “but there is almost no disagreement among climate scientists that the planet is, and will continue to warm due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. A recent study of warming by previously skeptical scientists, in fact, found that the planet has continued to warm in accordance with scientific predictions.”) But this is lovely - what does Burger conclude? ”Ultimately I believe this is probably part of a campaign to force Hansen out. Hansen has successfully resisted previous efforts to keep him quiet.”