Articles Tagged "Walter Cunningham"

In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.

“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,” they wrote. “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.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

Two Apollo-era astronauts and two prominent former NASA scientists will speak at The Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7), taking place in Chicago on May 21-23. The four men were among 49 signatories to a March 28 letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) urging the agencies to cease their "unbridled advocacy" of anthropogenic global warming.

Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the first scientist and last man to walk on the moon in the Apollo 17 mission, and Apollo 7 lunar module pilot Walter Cunningham will talk about how NASA's "unproven and unsupported remarks" on global warming damage the agency's reputation. The astronauts will be joined in the discussion by Harold Doiron, who worked for decades on vehicle stability and design at NASA, and Thomas Wysmuller, a meteorologist for the Royal Dutch Weather Bureau in Amsterdam and a long-time employee and consultant for NASA.

Click source to read FULL report

When it comes to global warming, the public at large doesn't know what to believe anymore. Global warming alarmists have been hammering at us for years; the media is made up mostly of true believers; and politicians, who, in the absence of understanding and knowledge about climate science, have put themselves out on a limb from which it is difficult to retreat. Given the economic interests and the political powers involved, this dilemma will not go away quietly.

Alarmists are appealing to so-called "consensus science" and trying to scare the world into throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars in a fruitless effort to control the temperature of the Earth. In the absence of supporting facts, they have moved the issue into the court of public opinion where politics, media and money play important roles.

The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.

It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.

Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.

Walter Cunningham responds to Robert Curl, who authored an article criticizing Cunningham's Houston Chronicle article, "When You Don't Have the Facts, Appeal to Public Opinion."]

The subjects and style of my writing attracts rebuttals. I usually resist the temptation to respond, but the article by Robert Curl, Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Natural Sciences Emeritus at Rice University and Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry is just too good to resist. His article is typical of academics with all those advanced degrees, and who know what is best for the rest of us—if we would just listen. In typical global warming alarmist fashion, it attacks the credentials, the economic interests or the politics (or all three) of those who disagree with them, and does not cite any empirical data that would prove their critics do not know what they are talking about.

After citing the National Academy of Sciences endorsement of AGW, Professor Curl emphasizes the credentials of the members and claims the NAS is “objective.” Maybe we’re supposed to ignore bad science if the perpetrators’ credentials are good. NAS is certainly a prestigious organization, but, along with several other scientific organizations lately, it has descended into the world of science politics.

What about the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, saying they DO NOT think humans are making a noticeable contribution to global warming, global cooling, climate change or catastrophic climate change?

Editor’s note: This is the first article in a series by scientist/astronaut Walter Cunningham, pilot of the Apollo 7 space mission, who has a master’s degree in physics. Cunningham has served on the Advisory Board for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

There is a war going on between those who believe human activities are responsible for global warming and those who don’t. Contrary to the way the debate is often framed by the media, those who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) do not hold the high ground, scientifically. Their critics do.

Reason, Evidence Ignored

One reason for belief in AGW is the sad state of scientific literacy in the United States today. A 2006 National Science Foundation survey found 25 percent of Americans did not know the Earth revolves around the sun. Such widespread ignorance leaves our society vulnerable to the emotional appeal of AGW alarmists.

Among AGW true believers, advocacy has replaced objective evaluation of data, and scientific data--regardless of the authority of its source or importance in the debate-- are ignored and suppressed, or the messengers are attacked.

The following letter was sent to the Houston Chronicle by a Robert Curl who turns out to be Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Natural Sciences Emeritus at Rice University. He shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996.....your see a follow up to this below from several "skeptics" including Edwin Berry, enjoy!

The Houston Chronicle recently published an op-ed by the former astronaut Walter Cunningham "Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods", Page B10, Aug. 15). The tenor of his piece was that the scientists concerned about climate change were an unscientific fringe group outside the mainstream of science. I quote: "It [anthropogenic global warming] has gained little acceptance among legitimate scientists." Cunningham's article assumed a tone of authority, but obviously his researches into the subject were not thorough.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was incorporated in 1863 by an act of Congress to serve the nation by providing advice on scientific matters. It consists of approximately 2,100 members (out of approximately 1 million U.S. scientists) and 380 foreign associates. Of the 2,480 members, nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. U.S. scientists consider election to the academy one of the greatest honors they can receive.

For 147 years the NAS has jealously guarded its reputation for providing unbiased advice to the nation on scientific matters. This august organization is deeply concerned about the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, and has carried out several detailed technical studies on this matter. You can download free a layman's explanation, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change, from the National Academy's website at http://dels-old.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/ in order to obtain the most authoritative information on the subject.