MorningSong
13th April 2012, 18:32
Just got this in my e-mail in-box from Mitch Battros:
April 13, 2012
Global Warming Zealots Get Slammed by NASA Scientists
by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
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.
"We believe the claims by NASA and Goddard, 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," the group wrote. "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."
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA's advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
"These American heroes - the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there - are simply stating their concern over NASA's extreme advocacy for an unproven theory," said Leighton Steward. "There's a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA's current and former employees, [and put] the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust."
The letter included a request for NASA to refrain from mentioning CO2 as a cause of global warming in future press releases and websites. The agency's "Global Climate Change" webpage says that "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."
The EPA website says that "Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood." It goes on to say that "The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
What does NASA say?
"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," says the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...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."
Fellow Aspirant
18th April 2012, 04:59
If you take NASA's reply at face value, i.e.
"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," says the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...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."
... they make no claims about human activity being the cause of climate change. It would appear that they have either changed their minds completely or the astronauts are assigning claims to NASA findings that NASA never made. This is obviously a major problem for the validity of this report.
I have no idea who Mitch Battros is, let alone what his scientific credentials are, but the people who are members of the 42+ scientific organizations included in the listing below ARE credible, at least with anyone who wants to examine the issue of climate change using science:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/climate-change-science-_b_1290259.html
And if you want to have credibility in any real argument, you're well advised to refrain from referring to your opponents as "zealots". Inform yourselves.
MorningSong
18th April 2012, 10:40
(Biting my tongue)
I looked at the link and see that you are convinced that "we" are the cause of climate change.....tst tst tst (shaking head back and forth)...
I will only agree to disagree with you, Fellow Aspirant. And I am fine with that.
Google "Mitch Battros" if you don't know who he is. Here's an intro:
Mitch Battros has dedicated his professional life to helping people prepare for the coming Earth Changes. Mitch was among the first to recognize the preeminent role of solar flares and lunar eclipses in producing extreme weather disruptions. He began production of his syndicated television show "Earth Changes TV" in 1995. In November 2002, he switched to radio/internet broadcasting.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/battros-mitch/7209
Mitch Battros presents fascinating, and sometimes shocking, research from the world's top scientists. After years of dialogue with these experts, Mitch has been accepted into the guarded halls of NASA, NOAA, ESA, Royal Observatory, the US Naval Observatory and other highly esteemed scientific bodies. In addition to the latest research on the Sun's influence on our "weather". Mitch also presents ground-breaking evidence
of how the Sun and other celestial orbs produce 'charged particles' and their impact on humanity.
Just as the Sun's solar activity affects the Earth's magnetic field which has a dramatic affect on Earth's "weather" i.e. earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, hurricanes; so does this wave of electrical currents affect the human body's magnetic field. Mitch also reveals a little-known development from modern medicine known as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). TMS provides empirical evidence of how magnetic fields can influence human emotions.
Solar Cycle 24 has begun - and it has been predicted by NASA, NOAA and ESA to be up to 50% stronger than its 'record breaking' predecessor Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever recorded. The Sun will reach its 'apex' (maximum) in late 2011 into 2012.
"I believe it will be the magnetic influence produced by the Sun which will usher in what is described by our ancient ancestors as "the transition" bringing us to a new state-of-being". (Mitch Battros)
He is the author of "Solar Rain: The Earth Changes Have Begun" and "Cosmic Rain".
http://earthchangesmedia.com/
He's one of the "inside men" I trust.
Mad Hatter
18th April 2012, 16:59
Mad Hatter dons his inquisitive cap...
This has to be a troll expedition because your bored....right? Otherwise I stand in slack jawed incredulity that a member of this site with the collection of the evidence presented here let alone the pointers to other offsite avenues of research actually is attempting to hold the company line. Mind boggling to say the least.
... but the people who are members of the 42+ scientific organizations included in the listing below ARE credible, at least with anyone who wants to examine the issue of climate change using science:
Pray tell would that be science as practiced by the IPCC..? You know the stuff, cherry picked data, biased peer review processing, Mikes 'Nature trick', Hokey Schtick graphics, Government whitewashing, raw Satelite data indicating no statistically significant warming in 15 years, more raw Satellite data showing sea level rise on track for what, some three and a half inches over the next hundred years, erasing email evidence, hiding behind commercial agreement structures, then of course there where the programmers comments buried in the computer code behind the modelling, need I go on and on and on... better not otherwise Tuvalu won't sink!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/climate-change-science-_b_1290259.html
Hmm...the Huff Post yet another online rag with how many peer reviewed papers to it's name. I thought you said you wanted to argue the science or did you mean what actually passes for science in this post modern headucation consensus driven world?
And if you want to have credibility in any real argument, you're well advised to refrain from referring to your opponents as "zealots".
Problem here is that science is not about credibility it's about facts, as inconvenient as they may turn out to be. You know the niggly hard to explain ones like when did the industrial revolution occur on Mars since it is also undergoing what is now euphemistically called climate change.... or why IIRC the environmental impact of a 'Hummer' is $8\kg vs the 'Prius' at $21\kg (So what to do with all those batteries at end of life hmm job for the marketing department? )
As for refering to those pushing the company line dogma as "zealots" I agree. Ignorant would be a much better and more accurate description. On the other hand we now have the likes of peer reviewed shrinks running around suggesting those of us who don't believe or won't conform should be medicated or treated. Really. In her particular case the term "zealot" is IMO far more accurate if a little mild but then as the tide slowly goes out these types end up exposed first in the shallow end of the gene pool.
The barrow pushers who stand to be de-funded if not jailed for fraud really where scrapping the bottom of the barrel with the 'No pressure' advert don't you think? In fact I'm not sure an intelligent discussion would be possible with the likes of the throw backs that came up with that little gem let alone argument, but hey lets not let truth get in the way of a good yarn eh...
Inform yourselves.
Same to you. I would repectfully suggest that in your investigation into these matters you introduce into your lexicon the term 'Cui bono' which should help enourmously in broadening your understanding of what is really going on. Things like what mission did the Club of Rome send Maurice Strong out to achieve and why etc. etc. etc.
So if you where not trolling...and you truly do not wish to remain a coppertop, here have a red pill (or three). Should you feel so inclined I look forward to further discussion on any links you have dicovered between Agenda 21 and the current state of play regarding the climate change psyop currently being played out on the masses. IMO the sooner the racket is exposed for what it is the sooner all that filthy lucre can be spent on some of the real challenges facing mankind.
cheers
PS As an aside one of the more amusing points I've seen made in all of the hoo ha surrounding this is the purported damage being done to the reputation of science and the potential for us to head into another dark age... word to the wise, common sense dictates when you find the hole is getting deeper it's maybe time to turn off the backhoe.
Fellow Aspirant
19th April 2012, 00:51
Well, you can "tst tst" all you like, or even use the more conventional rendering of "tsk tsk", but no, I would never "troll" on this forum. I am here to pursue the truth.
The writer of the blog I point to is a guy named A. Siegel. His post includes a chart listing those scientific organizations that back the idea that human activity is responsible for changes in global climate. He provides a chart of over 42 organizations, some of which represent entire nations of scientists who subscribe to the following statement ...
There is a strong scientific consensus supporting the scientific Theory of Global Warming and these key points:
There is warming.
Humanity is contributing to that warming.
This warming will create significant harm if left unchecked.
The consensus, in terms of sheer numbers of humans involved, is overwhelming. That these people are also professional scientists whose careers have been built by dealing with facts and observed data, tips the scales decisively into a "nolo contendre" decision.
Actually, the Huffington Post is, for the most part, a clearing house for bloggers and other journalists that they choose to include in their posts. As to the perception of bias on your part, the article that is the spark for this thread was, in fact carried in its entirety on Huffington Post.
To wit, I have copied, below, an open letter to Arianna Huffington by a science writer who takes great pains to point out the fallacies and dangers of printing such a piece as though it was fact. He is much more learned on the topic than I, so I will demure to his expertise on the matter and simply state that, having read what he has to say, I must agree with him. Thus ...
An Open Letter to Arianna Huffington
How the Huffington Post is still blowing it on science but has a chance to make a real difference
By Shawn Lawrence Otto | Apr 17, 2012 |
Dear Arianna,
Congratulations on the Huffington Post’s Pulitzer prize. That is an important feather in the paper’s cap.
I want you to know how much I value your publication, and how I think the dust up over the antiscience HuffPost article “NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency” is an opportunity for a broader discussion, which you could lead. The story has garnered wide attention in both science and journalism circles. Why is an important discussion.
It is a discussion that I think is critical to our democracy.
I too wrote about the NASA 49’s propaganda stunt in HuffPost, but unlike the staff piece, I used facts and context. Ironically, I was speaking at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as the story broke, or I would have sent the piece in sooner.
My story linked the words “gullible antiscience press” to the staff story, which was surprisingly under the byline of science section editor David Freeman. Freeman has a brilliant history as one of the best, and it was an impolite thing for me to do, but it made an important point, which I’ll discuss in a moment.
Some hours after my story went up, I got an email from one of your editors, saying the Freeman story “has since been updated to clarify the way it was initially perceived. Would you be amenable to simply removing the hyperlink on these words, since the purpose of that update was to clear the air of these types of characterizations and set the record straight as to our editorial position?”
I said “Ok.” But I wasn’t happy about it.
I want to let you know why I made the link and why I and many others still don’t think HuffPost’s response was proper or adequate. I know Mike Mann spoke with Lucia Graves in a followup story, which was quite good, but the problems with the Freeman story are far deeper than the removed reader engagement query your editors portrayed as the problem. It’s troubling that neither you nor your staff seem to realize that there is more to the issue.
The problem is that the article is an outstanding example of false balance journalism. False balance arises when an equivalence is made between objective knowledge and a contrary opinion that is not supported by the same level of evidence. This creates the impression that knowledge is partisan and there is a legitimate controversy, when in fact “both sides” do not have equal claim to the truth. One is based on knowledge, and the other is merely an opinion.
This is something climate change deniers are particularly adept at using to manipulate the press. There are no two ways about it: false balance is a false article, and this was a false article. In other words, your paper disseminated propaganda, not news.
This problem arises from an error in the way many of today’s reporters have been trained, and you can do great good by challenging and changing this. Most reporters, and many reporter guidelines, have adopted the postmodernist view that there is no such thing as objectivity. This is false. Science has proven that there is an objective reality. Using it we have doubled our lifespans in the past 140 years, and multiplied the productivity of our farms by 35 times. We have altered the face of the Earth. Failing to acknowledge the fact of objectivity is failing to report on reality.
I would strongly encourage you and David to reject this erroneous view. My book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, goes into much greater detail about this confusion in recent American journalism. The problem is especially important in the realm of science reporting, where it comes to a head, such as in the article in question. Like Jay Rosen, I have been writing about its various aspects for some time.
In this case, the headline started the problem. NASA has not taken any “Global Warming Stance.” This is a false headline. They are in fact by law forbidden from taking any “stances” on policy issues. They simply sponsor and report on science.
That’s not a stance, of equal merit in a political debate with someone’s opinion. It’s based on peer-reviewed knowledge attained from measurements of nature.
Placing the science denialist meme in the headline itself gave the false impression that this was in fact a matter of opinion and not knowledge, something one could take “stances” on. I understand the need to drive readership, but it should never come at the cost of journalistic standards of truth. I’m absolutely certain that wasn’t David’s intent, but am at a loss to explain what happened.
After the false headline, the piece went on to lead with the opinions in the letter as if they were knowledge and left them unchallenged. This is at its core the root of the problem and the reason the article was and remains antiscience, and why it continues to upset so many people. An embarrassment to a science section, and, obviously, it became and embarrassment to your entire publication.
The opening sentence, for starters, suggested that NASA might be “playing fast and loose with the truth.” Unless the Huffington Post has some knowledge to support that opening, it’s antagonistically deceptive and propagandistic — especially for a science section — even more so when written by the editor of said science section. There are plenty of other angles that don’t involve denial of science in a science section.
To suggest that NASA might be playing fast and loose with the truth, while providing no evidence, in the lead of the article, is an insult to NASA scientists and belies a tremendous ignorance of the data-gathering and measurement, the intense pressures and harsh scrutiny of peer review, and the lives and reputations that are placed on the line with scientific publication, and the years-long drive to get every detail right. I am at a loss to understand how an experienced science editor like David Freeman could not know this. I’m sure he does. And yet, it seems, he entirely forgot it.
Instead, Huffington Post chose to lead with a letter organized by a retired energy industry executive, and led by two climate-change denying Heartland Institute guys, that contains no science whatsoever, and to give it, not the mainstream, peer-reviewed science of NASA, the benefit of the doubt. To top it off, in your mea culpa, you say you consider such a propaganda stunt “newsworthy.”
Newsworthy!
Arianna, I very much appreciate your comment in a recent interview about this event. It tells me you really value getting it right, but I think it also belies some confusion on the subject: “To be able to see clearly where truth lies on one side or the other, as it happened in this particular instance, is not to abandon objectivity — it’s to, in fact, embrace a higher standard of journalism,” you said.
I don’t know why you would even hint that there could possibly be a question that it is abandoning objectivity or entertain that anyone could even utter that as a rational criticism worthy of mention.
In fact, it is doing the opposite — it is embracing objectivity, instead of the scourge of postmodernism that has muddied the thinking of a generation of journalism students, whose last science class was often in high school, and which has made them susceptible to manipulation by reality-denying authoritarians.
Take, for example, these well-intentioned new reporter guidelines, pulled from the otherwise often very good quality Voice of San Diego:
Voice of San Diego: New Reporter Guidelines.
We only do something if we can do it better than anyone or if no one else is doing it.
* We must add value. We must be unique.
Three things to remember for each story:
* Context
* Authority
* Not just what is happening, but what it means
There is no such thing as objectivity.
* There is such thing as fairness.
* But everyone sees everything through their own filter. Acknowledge that, let it liberate you. Let it regulate you.
* We are not guided by political identification, by ideology or dogma. But every decision we make, from what to cover to how to cover it, is made through our own subjective judgments.
* We are guided by an ability to be transparent and independent, to clearly assess what’s going on in our community and have the courage to plainly state the truth.
If you believe that there is no such thing as objectivity, as these guidelines instruct, then you can easily become trapped by propagandists. Such a reporter will never dig to get at the objective story of the nation and without that, false balance becomes prevalent and democracy ceases to function.
The founding fathers conceived of democracy within the age of reason. The premise of democracy is the well-informed voter who can discern reality for him or herself and so rejects the authoritarian edicts of a king or pope. That presumes an objectivity that that voter can be informed about. Without acknowledging the reality of objectivity and striving to capture it from the mists of confusion, the press leaves readers simply with the dominance of the most loudly voiced and well-financed opinion, which ultimately leads back to the authoritarianism the founders sought to repudiate.
And this is in fact what we are seeing now, as reporters regard their job as simply reporting on the varying views of a matter, without exercising judgment, as if that were admirable, and neocons adopt the postmodernist doctrine that the winners write the history books, so nothing else matters. That’s a foil to keep the press at bay.
The consequences of this mistake are frightening. Consider the story of David Gregory and the war in Iraq: Gregory was the NBC News Chief White House Correspondent during the run-up to the war. After it became clear that there were no WMD and that the reasons for invading Iraq were unsupported, he was asked why the press corps didn’t push President Bush about the inconsistencies in his rationale for invasion: “I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job,” said Gregory. “I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.”
But if it’s not the press’s role, whose role is it? And without that accountability and reflection on it by the voter, what cost in life and treasure — and to the people’s retention of power? Objectivity is the life blood of democracy, and without it, a democracy risks slipping into authoritarianism and plutocracy.
The fact that much of the mainstream press doesn’t view it as their role to record the objective story of the nation puts science in the especially precarious position of being just one of many warring opinions, and it erodes our ability to make sound judgments as a country.
Climate change is the most pronounced example. But we see it often today in our politics. Irrational, counterfactual statements that once would have ended a candidacy for president now go almost unchallenged in the media. And papers like yours, who say they “recognize that climate change is real and agree with the agencies and experts who are concerned about the role of carbon dioxide” nevertheless print propaganda uncritically, making themselves into tools, and argue that it’s “newsworthy.”
Huffington Post is particularly known among science reporters for often creating a false balance between knowledge and mere opinion, as happened in this case. This has happened with the writings of those who claim that cell phones cause brain cancer, or that vaccines cause autism, for example, and such pieces are equally unhelpful to the ability of your readers to discern objective reality and make good decisions.
One of the news outlets that has recognized this problem and is taking important steps to end this type of practice is National Public Radio. As you know, in February they issued new reporter guidelines that say, in part, “Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.”
Arianna, I know you are personally committed to reality-based reporting, and to public service. I know you value science and understand the politicization of climate change. So I urge you to take this unfortunate incident as an opportunity to lead. To remake Huffington Post into a gold standard.
Please loudly publish revised and clear reporter guidelines for your staff pieces. It will help your credibility as a paper and not just an advocacy outlet. And please read my book, which deals with this issue in far more detail than can be contained in this letter. I’d be happy to ask my publisher to send you a copy — please let me know.
Arianna, with the new prominence of Huffington Post you have a special opportunity to help wrest America back from the brink. Seize it.
Thank you for your consideration,
Shawn Lawrence Otto
While scientific "debate" always continues and there are debates over many elements within and around climate science (How fast will the Arctic Ice melt? Is there a point of no-return where humanity will no longer be able to avert catastrophic climate chaos? Is Global Warming fostering more tornadoes? Etc ...), the scientific community has a very solid understanding of and agreement about the basics. That strength of agreement, if truly understood by the political elite and public, creates serious challenge for those seeking to forestall action to mitigate climate change. Thus, when hearing of "consensus," we often hear from self-proclaimed "climate skeptics" that there is great uncertainty and that we should teach the "scientific debate" (here). Here is a rather simple table to use to consider the extent of that "debate."
Table 1: Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions on whether humanity is driving climate change
2012-02-23-Screenshot20120223at12.19.46PM.png
Consider a simple truth about the incredibly complexity of issues, interconnections, and feedback patterns/cycles in these interactions of energy and climate change issues:
anyone who asserts that they know everything about energy and climate change, definitively, and knows every single answer is, well, simply not someone worth listening to about these complex domains.
Thus, a critical skill set is developing a sense as to who to trust and who is untrustworthy for consideration.
And, this "skill set' can be used as a guide for where one might have uncertainty.
Greg Craven, youtube star extraordinaire and author of the highly recommended What's the worst that could happen?, laid a hierarchy of authorities for considering a difficult subject area where one might not be expert but where you wish to figure out an answer via the thoughts and opinions of others. Quite roughly, in order, you could have from high (implicit) to lower (need to be confirmed) trust as follows:
Professional societies
Government Reports
University Research Programs
Think Tanks
Advocacy Organizations
Individual Professionals
Individual Lay People
And, if an institution speaks in a way that contradicts its normal bias (like a tobacco company stating that smoking tobacco causes cancer or a fossil-fuel company stating that CO2 is a major threat to humanity and we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels), then it should be given stronger weight.
Craven lays out why professional organizations are at the top of the credibility spectrum:
professional societies are organizations that exist not to advance a particular agenda but to simply serve the communication and training needs of a particular profession. ... With these groups, bias and political leanings are going to be small as can be expected in any human endeavor.
The level of expertise is fairly high because these groups are made up of people who know more about the field than anyone else; furthermore, fur such an association to come out with a statement, most of the members would need to agree with it, so what you're getting is general agreement from a whole bunch of experts -- no small thing. And, the longer an organization has been around or the mroe prestigious it is, the bigger the reputation it has to protect. You can be fairly confident that an organization has been quite thorough in making sure it doesn't say something that later makes it look silly.
Now, "argument from authority" is a touchy subject. Just because the American Medical Association says today that X causes Y disease doesn't mean that it won't turn out that further research will uncover that X is unrelated to Y. Even so, when trying to figure out how to avoid Y disease, today, would we find it more likely that the AMA or a community glee club would have more relevant information and advice? "Authority" doesn't mean certainty but, as Craven lays out, there are reasons to give some credence to such perspectives.
To apply this hierarchy of credibility, the first section might be laid out like this:
Table 2: Structuring a Table re authorities re humanity have a role in driving climate change
2012-02-23-Screenshot20120223at12.21.28PM.png
Table 1 above is an attempt at filling in Table 2.
And, with that truly independent association of people who have zero interest in perpetuation of a fossil fuel economy standing out as a clear exception, how does the Association of American Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) introduce its recommendations about climate change?
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.
And, for those who still are wondering 'but what about all those scientists who challenge that consensus,' spend a few moments with Peter Sinclair looking at 32,000 (pseudo-)scientists challenging those institutions in the first column:
Note: This is a modified reposting of Considering Institutional Authorities and Climate Change.
MUST READ! Massively powerful LA Times editorial on climate science education.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.