NASA in Mass Revolt over Global Warming Fraud

Continuing man-made global warming fraud ignites a mass NASA rebellion. Rebels demand U.S. government pulls plug on the climate catastrophe cult. Dozens of top experts including astronauts and engineers trigger meltdown in American space agency.

The shocking ultimatum was made in a letter (March 28, 2012) signed by 50 NASA experts boasting over one thousand years of combined professional experience addressing their concerns to NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, Jr.

The letter reveals fury about “unsubstantiated” and “unproven remarks” dressed up by climatologists as “fact.” The protesters claim that constant junk climate science claims are causing enduring “damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”

Among the dissenters is Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt. Dr. Schmitt famously took part in the Apollo 17 moon mission. The mission’s problems with the Lunar Rover  were recently cited as evidence in a high-profile debate between climatologists Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and critics of the so-called greenhouse gas effect (GHE).

Smoking the Out Space is “Cold” Fallacy

Spencer and other greenhouse gas effect believers (the cornerstone of climate alarmist science) were humiliated in the email discourse for unscientific claims that outer space is “cold” and Earth’s atmosphere operates like “a blanket” acting to “keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.”

However, as Jack Schmitt and other Apollo astronaut moonwalkers demonstrated, the vacuum of outer space is not “cold” but, in fact, has no temperature. Indeed, outer space is Nature’s perfect insulator acting as the true inhibitor of heat loss from our planet (think: Thermos flask). Thus the moon missions demonstrated in the laboratory of outer space that the nonsensical heat trapping “blanket” analogy used by GHE-believing climatologists is pure junk science.

Dr. Schmitt and other space experts want to see an end to such ill-informed musings by climatologists who persist in pontificating and making pronouncements outside their area of expertise. Lindzen, Spencer and their sidekick Lubos Motl were shown the Schmitt evidence and asked: “So do we agree that the vacuum of space inhibits heat energy loss?” Lubos replied, “Not really.”  A stunned Spencer and Lindzen  made no comment.

A Litany of Hansen “Sciencegates”

Schmitt and his compadres are furious about a long list of apparent data crimes and misdemeanors being committed within the once peerless space agency. The unspoken target of their augur is NASA GISS front man, James Hansen.

Hansen’s junk science operation has featured prominently in several of the “gate” scandals of recent times. Among the controversies Hansen’s hellraising triggered was “Australiagate”. Hansen’s NASA GISS was caught combining GHCN data from urban weather stations to cook up an inexplicable two-degree temperature increase tellingly exposed when independent researchers revealed the shocking disparity between “raw” data and the “cooked” Hansen variety.

Then in June 2010 an anonymous whistleblower inside the U.S. Space Administration gave this author the scoop that NASA was deliberately hiding sunspot data to cover up the deepest solar minimum in centuries. The fall off in the sun’s activity actually suggests an imminent new ice age.

Then two NASA climate satellites carrying the ground-breaking Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) inexplicably exploded soon after take off from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Fruitless post disaster investigations raised further questions as to whether these unexplained events were conspiracy or incompetence. They then became linked to other catastrophic failures by a slew of satellites designed to measure climate change as shown here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

NASA Hid Climate Truth for Forty Years

But the worst scandal these 50 NASA rebels want addressing is the space agency’s forty-year cover up of proof that the greenhouse gas theory was known to be bogus –  before the corrupt era of James Hansen. Hansen and his GISS cronies had concocted a graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth whereby the space agency conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation budget.

In May 24, 2010 hidden NASA documents surfaced proving that the U.S. space agency had successfully devised unique calculations for the Apollo missions that safely put astronauts on the Moon. Those Apollo calculations – proven correct by the real world success of the moon missions – showed that the ‘blackbody’ numbers of the GHE didn’t apply in our three-dimensional universe.

Former NASA man and outspoken greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Dr. Pierre R. Latour was once co-worker of many of the letter’s signatories. As far back as 1997 Dr. Latour, a chemical process system expert, proved the futility of applying a human hand on Earth’s “thermostat” by adjusting fossil fuel combustion – it can never work because the chemical process system atmosphere is not measurable, not observable and not controllable. As such, limiting carbon dioxide emissions cannot control the climate. Period.

Dr. Latour, as a prominent member of Principia Scientific International, is delighted that so many of his former  NASA colleagues are standing shoulder to shoulder to squash this enduring myth about the “catastrophic dangers” of this benign trace gas.

It is the compelling Apollo evidence that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect and, if there is no GHE then there can be no such thing as catastrophic man-made global warming. But without a climate catastrophe to confront delusional James Hansen’s life work is rendered meaningless but at least $100 billion in taxpayer climate subsidies could be saved.  But Hansen and his ilk can’t or won’t see reason - dumb is as dumb does and we can still readily find at least 53 crass authority statements preaching that our atmosphere acts just like the glass in a greenhouse.

But now that NASA is in open rebellion hard-pressed taxpayers are due a reprieve from the world’s worst government-sanctioned science fraud. Perhaps then NASA will finally kick James Hansen out into the long grass.

21 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “NASA in Mass Revolt over Global Warming Fraud

  1. Nick

    and those uncovered documents are where?

  2. Nick

    “In May 24, 2010 hidden NASA documents surfaced proving that the U.S. space agency had successfully devised unique calculations for the Apollo missions”

    Where would these be?

  3. really interesting!!!!!…im sure the fringe conspiracy theory loons that dont think we went to the moon will have a field day with this and the global warming faithful

  4. while they drive their once and done done hybrids

  5. Pingback: Space & Weather | Pearltrees

  6. Jimmy Jingo

    “Spencer and other greenhouse gas effect believers (the cornerstone of climate alarmist science) were humiliated in the email discourse for unscientific claims that outer space is “cold” and Earth’s atmosphere operates like “a blanket” acting to “keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.”

    This statement is blatantly inaccurate. Anyone that follows the climate conversation in earnest knows that both Drs Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen have long been outspoken CRITICS of man-made global warming hypothesis.

  7. Jimmy Jingo

    John,
    I thoroughly read the link and what is clear to me is there is a diametric difference of scientific opinion regarding the very existence of a greenhouse effect, and not just with Dr Spencer. But I knew this already.

    Even Dr Spencer credits Claes Johnson’s assertions by stating he cannot readily disprove them, which I find to be somewhat less of a pontification than a scientist acknowledging another scientist’s assertions. When you state “discredited greenhouse gas hypothesis,” are you referring to AGW, or to the existence of a greenhouse effect?

    • johnosullivan

      Jimmy,
      Empirical evidence from satellites shows no GHE warming in the atmosphere. Moreover, recent peer-reviewed studies prove there are fundamental errors on GHE ‘physics.’
      http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
      At what point does the world quit all this GHE junk science? Read more here:
      http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/208-how-apollo-17-nasa-and-boeing-refute-greenhouse-gas-believers

      • Mydogsgotnonose

        The reality is worse. Every bit of the science is wrong. The 1861 Tyndall experiment [and its 'PET bottle' equivalent] have been misinterpreted: there is little direct thermalisation, probably pseudo-scattering, indirect thermalisation at cloud droplets, or emission to space.

        Then we have imaginary ‘back radiation’, claimed to give 15.5 times more IR absorption than reality, 2.6 times total heat input, a perpetual motion machine. The aerosol optical physics of clouds from Sagan is wrong so the ‘net AIE’ supposed to hide AGW is the real AGW/GW. And finally, present GHG warming has been exaggerated by a factor of 3.7 by Hansen et. al. 1981, a stupid mistake no professional should have made.

        The main reason for this foul up is that Meteorology teaches incorrect physics, ‘downwelling IR’, and imagines it measures it by pointing a radiometer at clouds etc. In reality, such devices shield the detector from radiation from the other direction, causing the signal to appear. Its only use is as a measure of temperature: it can do no thermodynamic work. Even professors of physics believe this guff but no process engineer like me does,and we’ve called a halt to this farrago. There is probably no net GHG-AGW,

    • Cheapdate

      For what it’s worth, there is no “difference of scientific opinion regarding the very existence of a greenhouse effect.” The basic physics of how bodies in space radiate heat has been known since the turn of the last century. The radiative equilibrium temperature of an airless, Earth sized, rocky body at the Earth’s distance from the Sun would be about 60 degrees colder than actual temperature of the Earth. The difference is the Greenhouse effect. It’s caused by gases that selectively absorb and emit radiation at different frequencies, carbon dioxide and water vapor chief among them. Without these gases and the resulting greenhouse effect, our planet would be far too cold to support life as we know it. But anyway, carry on.

  8. Pingback: OBAMA-STYLE SCIENCE DOWN UNDER | Cognitive Dissonance

  9. Three cheers for the NASA rebels. The satellite data shows, beyond question, that the geomagnetics z shift anomalies at the core-mantle boundary and the gravity anomalies match each other and the big surface temperature anomalies, while the ground data shows the seismic velocity anomalies match those too. Meanwhile the AQUA satellite CO2 anomalies, 300-plus maps now, match nothing at all. Not even where we keep our cities. The heat that is shifting is from down deep, from shifts in the liquid core currents. I suspect NASA astronauts can read maps, even if most climate scientists cannot. That is where the debate needs to go – to the maps. Always knew there was a reason for sending up jet-jockeys, and here it is. Peter Ravenscroft geologist, Queensland, Australia.

    • Joe Stroud

      Thanks Peter,

      Thats good information, I personally haven’t seen before. Do you have any links I can follow up. Sounds very interesting.

      Cheers,

  10. Lonny Eachus

    While I am intrigued, and perhaps even inclined to believe the accounts in this article, I note that the claimed “Apollo” documents are neither linked to or referenced. I find this to be a glaring omission… a bold but bald claim with no substantiation.

    Please correct this, or prepare to be (justifiably) disbelieved.

    • johnosullivan

      Lonny, the quote first appeared in the paper “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,” by Hertzberg, Siddons and Schreuder. It is a bold claim and easily refuted if false by NASA. I have personally contacted Dr James Hansen to challenge him to dispute it but neither he nor anyone from NASA has deigned to reply.

  11. Lonny Eachus

    To clarify my earlier comment:

    The “mainstream climate scientists” (quotes used for a reason), rely on unsubstantiated claims, often bad science, and rumours. If they are to be properly discredited, it will be with facts, and not more unsubstantiated claims. So show us your facts. Or shut up, literally. Anything else does your membership an injustice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s