Rocket Scientists vs. Climate Scientists

[LakeEffectKing]

http://sppiblog.org/news/former-nasa-scientists-astronauts-admonish-agency-on-climate-change-position

[LakeEffectKing]

pretty much sums it up.

Yep....lol

[LakeEffectKing]

http://sppiblog.org/...change-position

H. Leighton Steward

Independent Director

EOG Resources

Houston , TX

Sector: BASIC MATERIALS / Independent Oil & Gas

76 Years Old

Mr. Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry, having served in various senior management roles with The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company, including President, Chief Operating Officer and, from 1989 until its acquisition by Burlington Resources, Inc. in 1997, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Steward subsequently served as Vice Chairman of Burlington Resources, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration, production and development company, until his retirement in 2000. Mr. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Steward is also currently an author-partner of Sugar Busters, LLC, a provider of seminars, books and products related to helping people follow a healthy and nutritious lifestyle, and Chairman of the non-profit corporations Plants Need CO2 and CO2 Is Green, providers of information related to carbon dioxide?s impact on the global climate and the plant and animal kingdoms.

http://people.forbes...n-steward/30522

just another troll thread.

Nah......just trying to help you keep up with the news Trix, that's all. Any thoughts on the letter itself?? Or is your craft of belittlement limited to amature bloggers?

[LakeEffectKing]

this isn't noteworthy. the author of the letter is a denier, bought and paid for by Big Oil, as I already noted.

he refers them to 2 retired astronauts, neither of whom is a climate scientist. so essentially it's a meaningless letter signed by a bunch of people who share Steward's political viewpoint.

I mean you already know that Steward is on record as saying CO² doesn't cause global warming, right?

given this is wholly unscientific on every level, I"m not sure how this is newsworthy unless you are a troll.

There are 49 NASA scientists that put their name to it.....that is noteworthy and newsworthy...sorry.

[LakeEffectKing]

and none of them are climate scientists. it's as if a bunch of dentists sent the same letter to NASA.

Well then, we need to change the old saying......:

'Well, it doesn't take a rocket climate scientist to figure it out'

[PhillipS]

Nah......just trying to help you keep up with the news Trix, that's all. Any thoughts on the letter itself?? Or is your craft of belittlement limited to amature bloggers?

Several things about the letter stand out:

First is the site that posted it - SPPI is not a climate science website, it is a policy advocacy website. It doesn't even pretend to be a neutral, balanced source of information. Here's their climate blogroll:

• Climate Audit
  
• Climate Depot
  
• Climategate
  
• CO2 Science
  
• Global Warming Science
  
• Heartland Institute – Global Warming Facts
  
• Hide the Decline
  
• IceCap
  
• JoNova
  
• JunkScience
  
• The Global Warming Policy Foundation
  
• Tom Nelson
  
• Watts Up with That?
  

That's as one-sided an anti-science list as anybody could put together. It doesn't even include 'lukewarmer' sites such as Climate, Etc.

Next is the letter itself - it lacks specificity (there are no claims about exactly what NASA is allegedly doing wrong). It is vaguely worded, with phrases such as " hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief" - but without any names, or links to names, provided. If there were indeed hundreded of well-known climate scientists publicly denouncing mainstream AGW it should be easy to list, say, fifty or sixty, right? And the list of signers is telling because it only includes a single meteorologist and not even one of those hundreds of climate scientists. Were they all too busy publicly declaring their disbelief to sign the letter?

I have a lot of respect for astronauts and the engineers and rocket scientists who accomplished amazing things with our space program. But I've met and worked with enough of them over the years to understand that outside of their areas of expertise they are laymen - with biases and areas of ignorance like any plumber or hair stylist.

[PhillipS]

There are 49 NASA scientists that put their name to it.....that is noteworthy and newsworthy...sorry.

Well, I don't know that I would call it noteworthy but it is a good example of the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. You seem to be asserting that people should give credence to the letter because the signers once worked for NASA, not because of any climate expertise they may have.

If you feel that a vague letter from 49 non-climatologist retirees is noteworthy would it be more or less noteworthy if I posted a letter endorsing mainstream climate science from, say, 51 insurance salesmen? My letter would have the same number of climatologists and two more signers than the one you linked to so it would have to be more noteworthy, wouldn't it?

[LakeEffectKing]

Several things about the letter stand out:

First is the site that posted it - SPPI is not a climate science website, it is a policy advocacy website. It doesn't even pretend to be a neutral, balanced source of information. Here's their climate blogroll:

• Climate Audit
  
• Climate Depot
  
• Climategate
  
• CO2 Science
  
• Global Warming Science
  
• Heartland Institute – Global Warming Facts
  
• Hide the Decline
  
• IceCap
  
• JoNova
  
• JunkScience
  
• The Global Warming Policy Foundation
  
• Tom Nelson
  
• Watts Up with That?
  

That's as one-sided an anti-science list as anybody could put together. It doesn't even include 'lukewarmer' sites such as Climate, Etc.

Next is the letter itself - it lacks specificity (there are no claims about exactly what NASA is allegedly doing wrong). It is vaguely worded, with phrases such as " hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief" - but without any names, or links to names, provided. If there were indeed hundreded of well-known climate scientists publicly denouncing mainstream AGW it should be easy to list, say, fifty or sixty, right? And the list of signers is telling because it only includes a single meteorologist and not even one of those hundreds of climate scientists. Were they all too busy publicly declaring their disbelief to sign the letter?

I have a lot of respect for astronauts and the engineers and rocket scientists who accomplished amazing things with our space program. But I've met and worked with enough of them over the years to understand that outside of their areas of expertise they are laymen - with biases and areas of ignorance like any plumber or hair stylist.

The thread was about the letter, not what site I found it at....but if it puffs your feathers, your OT points are noted.

As for your last paragraph...nice subtle shot at plumbers and hair stylists....and if there were any climatologists that wanted to "come out", your side hasn't shown to be very accepting of such opinions. See, a skeptical climatologist, who "hasn't come out yet" (and still has a job) would be ....well....not employed for long...DUH!

[LakeEffectKing]

Well, I don't know that I would call it noteworthy but it is a good example of the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. You seem to be asserting that people should give credence to the letter because the signers once worked for NASA, not because of any climate expertise they may have.

If you feel that a vague letter from 49 non-climatologist retirees is noteworthy would it be more or less noteworthy if I posted a letter endorsing mainstream climate science from, say, 51 insurance salesmen? My letter would have the same number of climatologists and two more signers than the one you linked to so it would have to be more noteworthy, wouldn't it?

Logical fallacy???

LOL! The AGW camp started that crap with the "97% of all scientists...blah...blah.. so, not sure how we shouldn't place some sort of credence in their signatures if we are all playing by the same "rules".....

[Mallow]

LEK, I used to respect your opinions somewhat here... I felt like they were at least a fair attempt to combine reason and skepticism (though with more "skepticism" than I personally believed was reasonable). But after this thread, the views you're expressing here are so far from reality, IMO, that I now question that respect.

You make it sound like there's a conspiracy against "skeptical" climatologists, and that the scientific method is a croc. And you're trying to stick up for one of the dumbest, most unscientific tactics out there--a bunch of scientists in a completely unrelated field hold a different opinion, and their opinion should be respected just as much as the bunch of scientists in the related field... wtf kind of logic is that?

[TerryM]

Why wouldn't the opinions of 51 retired insurance salesmen have more credibility, they after all would have been privy to any increases in catastrophic coverage to come down the line in recent years. How 'bout a paper signed by 51 retired horticulturalists bemoaning the fact that plant zones have moved, or 51 retired crab fishermen, rejoicing in the fact that they now can fish further northward.

I fail to see why retired NASA employees would have any more expertise regarding climate than any other government retirees.

My wife is a retired government employee, formerly with the EPA. Her expertise was related to radiation concerns related to atomic testing in Nevada. Should her opinion on an issue she never was asked to evaluate carry any weight?

This isn't news - it's propaganda

Terry

[Mallow]

I think his climategate2 posts are worse than his posts in this thread, fwiw.

I guess I should feel fortunate I missed those.

[PhillipS]

The thread was about the letter, not what site I found it at....but if it puffs your feathers, your OT points are noted.

As for your last paragraph...nice subtle shot at plumbers and hair stylists....and if there were any climatologists that wanted to "come out", your side hasn't shown to be very accepting of such opinions. See, a skeptical climatologist, who "hasn't come out yet" (and still has a job) would be ....well....not employed for long...DUH!

What shot did I take at plumbers and hair stylists? I said that their opinions are as noteworthy as the opinions of retired astronauts and rocket scientists. How is that a shot in any sense?

And remember, the letter you linked to said that hundreds of well-known climate scientists have already publicly come out with their disbelief. All I'm asking for is a list of that multitude. If the letter writers are honest and correct, the climate scientist names are public information and a list shouldn't be hard to pull together. The only way I see that supplying that list might be difficult is if the letter writers are exaggerating or lying. Don't you agree?

[LakeEffectKing]

LEK, I used to respect your opinions somewhat here... I felt like they were at least a fair attempt to combine reason and skepticism (though with more "skepticism" than I personally believed was reasonable). But after this thread, the views you're expressing here are so far from reality, IMO, that I now question that respect.

You make it sound like there's a conspiracy against "skeptical" climatologists, and that the scientific method is a croc. And you're trying to stick up for one of the dumbest, most unscientific tactics out there--a bunch of scientists in a completely unrelated field hold a different opinion, and their opinion should be respected just as much as the bunch of scientists in the related field... wtf kind of logic is that?

LOL! Wtf views have I expressed here? I post something that has taken place (a letter to the head of NASA), ask a few probative questins, (having a little lighthearted fun along the way) and that loses your respect? Oh well, such is life. I hope I'm not as liberal with any retraction of respect for you when the management of the temperature forecast game falls 4 months behind.

[Mallow]

LOL! Wtf views have I expressed here? I post something that has taken place (a letter to the head of NASA), ask a few probative questins, (having a little lighthearted fun along the way) and that loses your respect? Oh well, such is life. I hope I'm not as liberal with any retraction of respect for you when the management of the temperature forecast game falls 4 months behind.

I'm talking about these posts:

Logical fallacy???

LOL! The AGW camp started that crap with the "97% of all scientists...blah...blah.. so, not sure how we shouldn't place some sort of credence in their signatures if we are all playing by the same "rules".....

The thread was about the letter, not what site I found it at....but if it puffs your feathers, your OT points are noted.

As for your last paragraph...nice subtle shot at plumbers and hair stylists....and if there were any climatologists that wanted to "come out", your side hasn't shown to be very accepting of such opinions. See, a skeptical climatologist, who "hasn't come out yet" (and still has a job) would be ....well....not employed for long...DUH!

There are 49 NASA scientists that put their name to it.....that is noteworthy and newsworthy...sorry.

As I said in my previous post...

You make it sound like there's a conspiracy against "skeptical" climatologists, and that the scientific method is a croc. And you're trying to stick up for one of the dumbest, most unscientific tactics out there--a bunch of scientists in a completely unrelated field hold a different opinion, and their opinion should be respected just as much as the bunch of scientists in the related field... wtf kind of logic is that?

You don't see a problem with that?

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm talking about these posts:

As I said in my previous post...

You don't see a problem with that?

So, by your litmus test, we are to dismiss all other "scientists" that have different opinions, at hand, just because their "science" isn't exactly within the constraints of some arbitrary definition? So, does that include you? Are you a "climotologist"?? Should we ignore your opinions? Of course not.

Whether you realize it or not, you nor any of the fine folks who have contributed to this thread are immune from bias....and if you want to ignore that fact you truly do so at your own peril, wrt understanding how science is to be conducted through it's completion. Challange your own beliefs, and you can at times release yourself from subjective ascertions.

[WxUSAF]

The opinion of non-climate scientists (even Nobel Prize winning ones) on climate change holds no value compared to the view of climate scientists on climate change. This is how modern science works. I doubt the astrophysicists or geologists who don't find climate change convincing would not appreciate climate scientists writing letters to Gen Bolden or anyone else voicing their displeasure at astrophysics or geology.

The "97%" number quoted so often is of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Because that is the only group that matters.

[WeatherRusty]

So, by your litmus test, we are to dismiss all other "scientists" that have different opinions, at hand, just because their "science" isn't exactly within the constraints of some arbitrary definition? So, does that include you? Are you a "climotologist"?? Should we ignore your opinions? Of course not.

Whether you realize it or not, you nor any of the fine folks who have contributed to this thread are immune from bias....and if you want to ignore that fact you truly do so at your own peril, wrt understanding how science is to be conducted through it's completion. Challange your own beliefs, and you can at times release yourself from subjective ascertions.

Simply put, you are attempting to convince the masses that AGW is a political ruse or trick. You don't trust the scientific process.

And no, you shouldn't trust anything I have to say. Verify.

[LakeEffectKing]

The opinion of non-climate scientists (even Nobel Prize winning ones) on climate change holds no value compared to the view of climate scientists on climate change. This is how modern science works. I doubt the astrophysicists or geologists who don't find climate change convincing would not appreciate climate scientists writing letters to Gen Bolden or anyone else voicing their displeasure at astrophysics or geology.

The "97%" number quoted so often is of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Because that is the only group that matters.

So with that logic, should Don Sutherland's opinions on meteorology hold "no value" compared to red taggers? Should amature astronomers quit wasting the time of the "real astronomers"?

[LakeEffectKing]

Simply put, you are attempting to convince the masses that AGW is a political ruse or trick. You don't trust the scientific process.

And no, you shouldn't trust anything I have to say. Verify.

Man, I must have struck a nerve! Write to all the NASA scientists that signed the letter and tell them their opinion means Jack.....I don't have an "in" with them to conveye your frustration.

You guys are like what my poor cat just went through....misdirected aggressive behavior.

[WeatherRusty]

So with that logic, should Don Sutherland's opinions on meteorology hold "no value" compared to red taggers? Should amature astronomers quit wasting the time of the "real astronomers"?

Do you value expertise? An armchair astronomer, cosmologist or studier of climate can potentially offer up valuable new insight, although rare these days. Ideas originating from outside the formal discipline must pass muster from those within to become accepted. Most alternative climate change scenarios have not passed the sniff test, never mind a deep, rigorous analysis by the 'pros'. However, that fact is lost on the general public.

[WxUSAF]

So with that logic, should Don Sutherland's opinions on meteorology hold "no value" compared to red taggers? Should amature astronomers quit wasting the time of the "real astronomers"?

No. That's a completely spurious argument. At best, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Weather forecasting is not a research science. You're essentially comparing amateur baseball players to pro players. Are there a couple amateurs around that are as good as pros? Probably, but not many. But are there many pro football players that can give A-Rod tips on hitting? Don't think so.

[WeatherRusty]

For those who's want is rip LEK for this thread, be aware that his attitude summarizes and parallels that of a great many other's out there. There is a reason the issue is stuck in the mud. LEK and his brethren are winning the war against science using these tactics.

[physicsguy21]

A scientist's educational background matters more than his/her occupation in my opinion. Scientists with education in physics or chemical engineering are certainly worth listening to.

[WeatherRusty]

A scientist's educational background matters more than his/her occupation in my opinion. Scientists with education in physics or chemical engineering are certainly worth listening to.

That's right. However, if they make extraordinary claims in defiance of standard model physics, then they had better be prepared to offer extraordinary proof. Their unsupported opinion means squat.

[LakeEffectKing]

For those who's want is rip LEK for this thread, be aware that his attitude summarizes and parallels that of a great many other's out there. There is a reason the issue is stuck in the mud. LEK and his brethren are winning the war against science using these tactics.

Actually, the reason we are winning "the war" has far less to do with tactics from skeptics, and more to do with the erroneous assessment of who the skeptics (as a whole) are. In essence, the extreme voices on the left aren't muted by those "less extreme"....thus a win for the skeptics....and there really is nothing to stop that dynamic.

[WeatherRusty]

Actually, the reason we are winning "the war" has far less to do with tactics from skeptics, and more to do with the erroneous assessment of who the skeptics (as a whole) are. In essence, the extreme voices on the left aren't muted by those "less extreme"....thus a win for the skeptics....and there really is nothing to stop that dynamic.

Balderdash!

The sciences of global warming, climate change and AGW are not left/right political positions. Public policy clearly is, and that is the backdrop from which your side is coming.

[The_Global_Warmer]

For those who's want is rip LEK for this thread, be aware that his attitude summarizes and parallels that of a great many other's out there. There is a reason the issue is stuck in the mud. LEK and his brethren are winning the war against science using these tactics.

Eliminating the Lay Person who has little to no knowledge of this "issue". That's the majority of the general public. So out of the professionals and arm chaired folks who have knowledge and an opinion on this. The ones who spit in the face of science, do you think the majority know the truth and represent a lie on purpose or do you think the majority is just that delusional that they truly can not see reality?

[Snow_Miser]

I have to agree with Phillip, trixie et. al.

This letter doesn't prove much in the climate science field.

It is nice to know that there are many NASA scientists supporting a skeptical stance, but it would be more impressive if most of them were actual climate scientists.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have to agree with Phillip, trixie et. al.

This letter doesn't prove much in the climate science field.

It is nice to know that there are many NASA scientists supporting a skeptical stance, but it would be more impressive if most of them were actual climate scientists.

It would be more impressive if they actually had real data and evidence to support their position.