Science and politics, the corruption of NASA

[Phier]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...rsement/469366

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.

NASA had no immediate comment.

In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge
modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate
change. “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 (NASA’s) Goddard
Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is
NOT settled,” they wrote.

NASA’s website is filled with stories about the impact of climate change on the earth,
animals, and ecosystems. Most administration officials agree with the
position NASA has taken.

“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 decision or public
statements,” the critics added.
Their letter was heralded by outspoken global warming critic and author
Leighton Steward who said, “These American heroes, the astronauts that
took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there, are
right to criticize NASA’s advocacy of an extreme and unsubstantiated
position.”

In years past NASA was a place to find quality science and non-political data. This changed in recent years as the emasculated program started producing dubious scientific claims (see the arsenic based bacteria for example), and fully embracing the human driven global warming bandwagon.

Well the old guard had a parting shot it seems, and I can't say I blame them, but the disturbing thing here is how easily a scientific organization can be infected with partisan politics. Are we going to the point where the powers that be will control not only the flow of information but the very method of finding it? Science and politics becoming to close is nothing new but its always lead to bad results.

Its one thing if the government says 'get us to the moon' its another if it says 'get us to the moon using a balloon'.

[Jack04]

Seems only fair to offer their reply: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...warming/474416

NASA officials, under fire from several former astronauts for its work on global warming issues, on Wednesday denied that it endorses climate change theories and is instead fostering “cutting-edge" investigation into the controversial topic.

“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,” said NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati in a statement to Secrets.

On Tuesday, Secrets reported that nearly 50 former NASA officials wrote the Administrator Charles Bolden to demand that the world’s premier space agency stop backing global warming in the media.

But Abdalati said that the critics are wrong. Worse, he added, they want to shut down further study into the issue.

“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,” he said in a statement.

“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,” added Abdalati.

Edit: Also, stories on the NASA website pertaining to climate change (from the direct link in the article you quote only, not the rest of the site):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What do polar bears, hummingbirds, clams, bowhead whales and invasive plant species have to do with Earth science spacecraft orbiting overhead 24/7? Soon observations from NASA's Earth-observing satellites of our planet's climate will be brought to bear on understanding how different species and ecosystems respond to climate changes and developing tools to better manage wildlife and natural resources.

NASA has joined with the U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Smithsonian Institution to initiate new research and applications efforts that will bring the global view of climate from space down to Earth to benefit wildlife and key ecosystems.

This is the first time NASA has targeted research investigating the intersection of climate and biological studies. The projects are sponsored by the Earth Science Division in NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

The wildlife species to be studied include polar bears in Greenland, bowhead whales in the Arctic Ocean, and migratory birds and waterfowl in the United States. Other studies will focus on species of commercial interest such as clams, oysters and other bivalves in U.S. coastal waters, and Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico.

To learn more about climatic effects on plants, researchers will focus on the loss of cordgrass marshes in coastal wetlands of the southeastern states. They also will examine the stresses to native tree species, many of commercial value, across the western states and Canada.

"We know very little about how the majority of species and ecosystems will respond to environmental changes related to changing climates," said Woody Turner, manager of NASA's Ecological Forecasting program in Washington. "These projects bring together NASA's global satellite data of the physical environment with ground-based data on specific species and ecosystems and computer modeling to detect and understand biological responses to climate."

The studies will use long-term observations of Earth from space, including data on sea surface temperature, vegetation cover, rainfall, snow cover, sea ice and the variability in the microscopic marine green plants that form the base of ocean food chains.

Below are the 15 new projects and their principal investigators:

Bird Populations and Extreme Climate Events
Patricia Heglund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, La Crosse, Wisconsin
Project title: "Effects of extreme climate events on avian demographics: The role of refugia in mitigating climate change"

Bowhead Whales
Elizabeth Holmes, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fisheries Service, Seattle, Wash.
Project title: "Forecasting changes in habitat use by bowhead whales in response to Arctic climate change"

Clams, Oysters and Other Bivalves
David Wethey, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Project title: "Physiological impacts of climate change using remote sensing: An integrative approach to predicting patterns of species abundance and distribution and thresholds of ecosystem collapse"

Coastal Salt Marshes
Ilka Feller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Md.
Project title: "Sensitivity of coastal zone ecosystems to climate change"
Website: http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/animal_p...rtualTour.html

Elk and Caribou
Mark Hebblewhite, University of Montana, Missoula
Project title: "Global population dynamics and climate change: Comparing species-level impacts on two contrasting large mammals"

Global Biodiversity of Land Vertebrates
Walter Jetz, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Project title: "Integrating global species distributions, remote-sensing information and climate station data to assess recent biodiversity response to climate change"

Habitat Modeling
Jeff Morisette, U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins (Colo.) Science Center
Project title: "Using the U.S. Geological Survey's 'Resources for Advanced Modeling' to connect climate drivers to biological responses"
Website: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/RAM/

Hummingbird Diversity
Catherine Graham, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, N.Y.
Project title: "Combining remote-sensing and biological data to predict the consequences of climate change on hummingbird diversity"
Website: http://www.hummonnet.org/index.html

Migratory Species
Gil Bohrer, Ohio State University, Columbus
Project title: "Discovering relationships between climate and animal migration with new tools for linking animal movement tracks with weather and land surface data"
Website: http://www.movebank.org

Migratory Fish Habitat
Mitchell Roffer, Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Services, Inc., Melbourne, Fla.
Project title: "Management and conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and other highly migratory fish in the Gulf of Mexico under International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate change scenarios: A study using regional climate and habitat models"
Website: http://www.roffs.com/NASA_NMFSBluefinTuna.html

Native Tree Species
Richard Waring, Oregon State University College of Forestry, Corvallis
Project title: "Mapping of stress on native tree species across the western United States and Canada: Interpretation of climatically induced changes using a physiologically based approach"
Website: http://www.pnwspecieschange.info/

Plants, Prey and Predators
David Mattson, U.S. Geological Survey Colorado Plateau Research Station, Flagstaff, Ariz.
Project title: "Spatial responses to climate across trophic levels: Monitoring and modeling plants, prey, and predators in the intermountain western United States"

Polar Bears
Kristin Laidre, University of Washington, Seattle
Project title: "Climate change, sea ice loss, and polar bears in Greenland"

"WhaleWatch"
Helen Bailey, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, Md.
Project title: "WhaleWatch: A tool using satellite telemetry and remote-sensing environmental data to provide near real-time predictions of whale occurrence in the California Current System to reduce anthropogenic impacts"

Wildlife and Ecosystem Management
Andrew Hansen, Montana State University, Bozeman
Project title: "Using NASA resources to inform climate and land use adaptation: Ecological forecasting, vulnerability assessment, and evaluation of management options across two U.S. Department of Interior Landscape Conservation Cooperatives"

I'm not sure you can argue that any of those are politically motivated (unless you deny that climate change is happening at all, regardless of cause).

[Phier]

But Abdalati said that the critics are wrong. Worse, he added, they want to shut down further study into the issue.

But thats not true.

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

[Surgeon]

These days I no longer find it surprising when it turns out that government agencies have corruption and political agendas. It was probably like that since the beginning of them.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Regardless the climate is still changing and we should try and do something about that, right phier?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Regardless the climate is still changing and we should try and do something about that, right phier?

The Earth is less tolerant of life now than it was during its warmer periods. 65 million years ago the poles were covered in rainforest and even deserts were conquered by plants.

The two main downsides to warming are more energy in the climate system which will cause more weather disasters, and that farming will have to adapt to changing conditions. But I say bring it in on. It's a pity I'll never see the huge expansion of the biosphere this will bring.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Regardless the climate is still changing and we should try and do something about that, right phier?

The climate would change if man had never existed. Its always changing.

[chilon]

The climate would change if man had never existed. Its always changing.

Not necessarily in the same ways.

[visser300]

Regardless the climate is still changing and we should try and do something about that, right phier?

But human ain't the driver.

Earth's climate constantly changes for 4 billion years ago. It will change in human lifespan. Why should we worry? Instead, we should invent some techs to help us to survive in the next ice age.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I'm just saying its pretty damn hot and inhospitable in most of the United States. It should be colder in the 48 states... 30 Celcius in the summer at the most.

[Vizsla]

There was a time when a thread like this would have been jumped on by lots of angry Warmists in minutes.

Are people bored or did they stop believing in anthropogenic global warming?

[Mangalore]

There was a time when a thread like this would have been jumped on by lots of angry Warmists in minutes.

Are people bored or did they stop believing in anthropogenic global warming?

probably just bored feeding the trolls.

[Phier]

There was a time when a thread like this would have been jumped on by lots of angry Warmists in minutes.

Are people bored or did they stop believing in anthropogenic global warming?

While its always fun to have people without science training use their wikiPhD's on matters they have only a discovery channel understanding of, its not really a question about global warming really.

Its a question about a government policy makers and supposedly independent scientific institutions being in a form of collusion. The US has already lost a couple of billion in loans to "green" companies which just happen to be Obama donors. We also had NASA knowing prior to his election that it was going to be gutted by Obama, and it wasn't just canceling the manned program, but far more devastating has been the breaking of up talent. Its not like you can just restart something of that magnitude instantly.

Its when scientists get picked for their advocacy instead of their science.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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,

Thats the letter in full btw.

I think its important to point out here as Dr James Hansen (director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies) thinks that the science is 100% settled and that people like me are being supported by "tremendous resources" (thats a quote of his btw). Its laughable and its a lie.

The science is by no means settled and I'm glad so many at NASA are not on board with a rubber stamping of science like this.

[Vizsla]

Its a question about a government policy makers and supposedly independent scientific institutions being in a form of collusion. The US has already lost a couple of billion in loans to "green" companies which just happen to be Obama donors. We also had NASA knowing prior to his election that it was going to be gutted by Obama, and it wasn't just canceling the manned program, but far more devastating has been the breaking of up talent. Its not like you can just restart something of that magnitude instantly.
Its when scientists get picked for their advocacy instead of their science.

You do realise that having made such a statement you’ll now be being investigated to show how you’re being secretly funded by Big Oil or the Koch brothers, don’t you?

While its always fun to have people without science training use their wikiPhD's on matters they have only a discovery channel understanding of, its not really a question about global warming really.

He says, wilfully ignoring the difference between its and it’s. My gonads just wouldn’t be big enough to make a statement like that with grammatical errors in, even if they made me look cool.
No offence intended.

[Phier]

You do realise that having made such a statement you’ll now be being investigated to show how you’re being secretly funded by Big Oil or the Koch brothers, don’t you?

Lies....

They simply donated to my "charity".

He says, wilfully ignoring the difference between its and it’s. My gonads just wouldn’t be big enough to make a statement like that with grammatical errors in, even if they made me look cool.
No offence intended.

But I find the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies. I can't be all bad.

[chamaeleo]

While its always fun to have people without science training use their wikiPhD's on matters they have only a discovery channel understanding of, its not really a question about global warming really.

Then what's this doing in the Athenaeum?

If you want to debate the science, fine. If you want to debate the politicization of NASA...this should be in the Mudpit.

And for the record: I've worked in the field while earning my MS in hydrogeology, so save the condescending attitude for when I let slip with a profoundly stupid medical opinion.

Its a question about a government policy makers and supposedly independent scientific institutions being in a form of collusion. The US has already lost a couple of billion in loans to "green" companies which just happen to be Obama donors. We also had NASA knowing prior to his election that it was going to be gutted by Obama, and it wasn't just canceling the manned program, but far more devastating has been the breaking of up talent. Its not like you can just restart something of that magnitude instantly.

Absolutely agreed, 100%. It's really sad, seems like the only way scientists can receive funding these days is to sell out to either corporate or political interests. The era of discovery for discovery's sake has truly ended.

At the risk of going off-topic...you're really oversimplifying the Solyndra bit. You see, the Chinese are also subsidizing their green industry (and no campaign contributions were even necessary):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By Cassandra Sweet
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

The U.S. Department of Commerce has found that Chinese solar-panel makers obtained illegal subsidies from China's government and plan to impose duties on solar panels and solar cells imported from China, SolarWorld AG (SWV.XE) said Tuesday.

The U.S. unit of Germany-based SolarWorld (SWV.XE) and six other U.S. firms have accused Chinese suppliers of solar panels and solar cells made from crystalline silicon of receiving unfair government subsidies and selling their products in the U.S. at prices below the cost of production. The companies have asked the government to impose antidumping tariffs and countervailing duties on the Chinese products of as much as 100%.

The U.S. Commerce Department, which has been investigating the case, is scheduled to issue a preliminary decision Tuesday on the merits of SolarWorld's case. The International Trade Commission also is pursuing an investigation.

The Commerce Department made an expected preliminary decision Tuesday about SolarWorld's claims that the Chinese solar companies received unfair government subsidies, SolarWorld spokesman Greg Stanko said. He also said the department said it would levy duties on Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (STP), Trina Solar Ltd. (TSL) and other Chinese solar-panel makers.

-By Cassandra Sweet, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-439-6468; cassandra.sweet@dowjones.com

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/artic...10638.html</a>

BELOW COST. How the hell can a domestic company compete with that? Especially considering Chinese labor rates?

China is in full-blown economic warfare mode. They're doing whatever it takes to corner the solar market, taking drastic losses in the short term to run their competitors out of business. The cost of solar PV dropped like 30% last year, thanks mostly to Chinese panels.

We either subsidize, like EVERY other country on this planet, or send the jobs to China. Plain and simple...

You can whine about Greenie greenbacks in politics all you like, but compared to Oil and Gas industry contributions: it's mighty insignificant. And complain
ing about chemists' opinions on climate running counter to those of your laid off NASA bureaucrats? Way to go:

What you are in this sort of thing is a public opinion pawn.

[Phier]

Then what's this doing in the Athenaeum?

If you want to debate the science, fine. If you want to debate the politicization of NASA...this should be in the Mudpit.

Because its for those who are interested in science. I already know what the mudpit holds.

And for the record: I've worked in the field while earning my MS in hydrogeology, so save the condescending attitude for when I let slip with a profoundly stupid medical opinion.

I've worked in the field as well so I can be plenty condescending with my paper.

I only got out of it into medicine because I saw the writing on the wall of where environmentalism was going.

You can whine about Greenie greenbacks in politics all you like, but compared to Oil and Gas industry contributions: it's mighty insignificant. And complain
ing about chemists' opinions on climate running counter to those of your laid off NASA bureaucrats? Way to go:

NASA was purposefully gutted so its plenty valid, a scientific pogrom of sorts which will take years to really recover from if NASA gets back to, you know, space exploration. And please don't talk about oil and gas contributions being somehow dwarfing the money on the other side, its not even close. One of the biggest lies in science is the great 'oil and gas' conspiracy. Almost all the money is on the AGW side, most of the best known skeptics are self funded. When Anthony Watts wanted 40k (or somewhere around that) from a conservative group for server funding to finally OPEN the climate database, AGW people were shouting like they finally found the link. Its hilarious when you think of the budgets on the AGW side.

Hell I could actually fund out of my own pocket the skeptic side.

[Gaidin]

I'm just saying its pretty damn hot and inhospitable in most of the United States. It should be colder in the 48 states... 30 Celcius in the summer at the most.

Tell me you don't think that a year or few years(even a decade!) of hotter temperatures is exactly a big or strange thing in the study of climatology. Please. This is like me saying a semi conductor, as a part of a digital circuit, being half a volt off every now and then does anything to effect the work of a processor. I'd get laughed at by my professors.

I think the point is that NASA should be concentrating on what it stands for, aeronautics and space. Studying the Earth's climate, while a noble pursuit, shouldn't be the goal of NASA, especially when it comes to advocating a politically-charged topic. You can say NASA was involved in politics in its genesis with trying to beat those damn Ruskies to space and the moon, but it was more about simple goals, those being getting a man into space and ultimately setting foot on the moon.

NASA is more hilariously intricately linked to climatology, biology, astrobiology and other such fields than people would wish to hope given they make it a point to study the climates of and possibility of microbial life on any planet or moon they manage to get a probe to. Insisting they focus on just aeronautics and space alone is taking a false stance on what their fields of research, and thus the research they're in a position to comment on, actually are.

Phier does have a point that they're going the wrong way with what, I will admit, feels like a political stance. But saying they're not an agency to legitimately comment on it is not true.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Tell me you don't think that a year or few years(even a decade!) of hotter temperatures is exactly a big or strange thing in the study of climatology. Please. This is like me saying a semi conductor, as a part of a digital circuit, being half a volt off every now and then does anything to effect the work of a processor. I'd get laughed at by my professors.

You just witnessed me ranting about the extreme and humid temperatures in the states. Congrats on getting suckered into writing a response that asks if I am an idiot.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I am just a little bored and dont care anymore. And the summer sucks over here in Stockholm - it ing rained today, seriously?