This blog is inspired by a post from Barry Ritholtz. Mr. Ritholtz, in his usual top-down, holistic approach to issues, attempts to put into context a claim that 49 'NASA scientists' dispute their agency's position on Climate Change. He easily infers that the number is insignificant in the context of the total number of NASA employees who are scientists and engineers, and notes that such out-of-context assertions are all too typical of the Climate Change Deniers' cohort. But that is inference, however correct.
More interesting and revealing is the letter itself, as replicated in Business Insider. The following quote essentially summarizes the substance:
" The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. "
The premise here seems to be that GISS specifically and NASA generally have gone out solo on a weak limb of scientific data, ignoring that NOAA, the IPCC, and numerous other professional and business organizations ( other than energy companies at all levels of that food chain ) accept in large measure the credibility of the theory of climate change and the human element of contribution, as well as the growing and accumulating statistical and anecdotal evidence.
But that's just the beginning. What exactly will these folks look to for objective evidence? Senators Sessions, Inhoff, Graham?
H Leighton Steward, Chairman of nonprofit Plants Need CO2, speaks to the scientists' and astronauts' concern about NASA backing an unproven theory. Kinda reminds me of the other one that NASA once backed.....about being able to send people to the Moon and get them back alive. It was a theory until proven in practice. And it was a theory that had a few incremental failures on its way to validation, with the cost of a few lives, if I remember correctly.
Then there's Chairman Steward's flagship organization: Plants Need CO2. This title is a give-away for Denier Dementia. Yeah, plants need CO2 Every so often they need water too, and some modulation of temperature, none of which Texas has received in the past three years. But not to worry, it's just a normal drought cycle. It will end....eventually, whenever that may be. And besides, Governor Perry is praying to God for deliverance from drought. Not to worry. It's not Climate Change. He said so!
Which reminds me. If you look to the signators of the letter, all but five of the group are identified with the initials JSC: Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. How do you say ' cabal '? Perhaps they should step outside their capsule and see that their state is burning?
If you look at the list of titles associated with these 49 ' scientists ', there is a sprinkling of scientists, a handful of astronauts, a number of engineers and other technicians. All very smart individuals, no doubt. But not necessarily climate scientists. Maybe one of these scientist / technicians may have been among the few who warned of the risks to Challenger's last flight, and were ignored, much as James Hansen is largely ignored by decision-makers regarding the trajectory of Spaceship Earth. I don't know.
This I do know. " Failure is not an option " is an inspiring slogan, and no more. In the case of Climate Change, failure is an option. If we must wait for ' objective proof ' of the theory of Climate Change before acting, climatic failure may be the proof that makes action pointless.
Houston, you have a problem.
Onward.
20120414
Copyright 2012
Recent Comments