Fifty former NASA astronauts and scientists chided NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies for their unsubstantiated remarks on climate change. In essence, they warned that NASA’s reputation for solid science was being compromised with unproven claims on climate.
The feisty fifty signed a letter indicating displeasure and disappointment with their former employer. The fifty scientists, engineers, experts, and astronauts had plenty of experience in the internal workings of the hallowed institutions. They found public remarks on catastrophic global warming unsubstantiated and called for NASA administrator Charles Bolden to cease such claims.
We don’t read much about the letter in the news, however. NASA infused the news instead with “hot” March 2012 temperatures, stoking the hype on a catastrophically warming earth.
NASA is a known data manipulator. Because the world is cooler than global warming advocates want it to be, temperature data that NASA collects is continually being “adjusted” to make the past look cooler so that the present looks warmer. In government climate data circles, the past is even harder to predict than the future.
The purest, most reliable data comes from satellites, which record temperature data over land and over vast ocean areas where measurements by any other method simply do not exist or are corrupted by human activity such as cities and other land use. NASA scientists have been caught making repeated “errors,” always making things look worse than they are.
Skeptic Roy Spencer debunked NASA’s declaration that March 2012 was the warmest month in recent times in the U.S. He showed that the world as a whole showed a mere 0.11-degree temperature rise for March, a trivial change compared to NASA’s alarmist claims. In fact the month was cooler than the average of the last ten years.
The matter of climate change, if there is such a thing, is much more complex than expert scientists, nevermind ordinary people, can understand or predict right now. The science is unsettled. Climate change may involve complicated natural effects from cosmic and terrestrial sources ignored by the climate fanatics.
Rather than to declare catastrophic future effects to be caused by mankind and “remedied” by debilitating economic policies of higher taxes and controls on our lives, let us let the phenomenon be studied without the corrupting effects of scientific dishonesty and the government funding machine that supports it.
Otherwise, get used to government deciding what light bulbs you cannot buy and much, much more.