Why aren't these former NASA scientists worried about CAGW?

40 retired NASA people some of them scientists, who can now say what they believe and dont have to worry about funding or jobs.

The thousands of active scientists who have to toe the line, or suffer the consequences

Why aren't they worried? I would hardly consider whether someone is worried to be a scientific question, unless it is about the psychology of worry about the given subject matter.

So, does that mean that I am admitting that AGW is not a problem because worry is unscientific? No. The scientific issue is not whether we should worry about AGW, but about the evidence for AGW

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

Whether or not someone worries about this is an emotional reaction and has nothing to do with the fact Earth is warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/11/death-blow-t...

graphicconception

< If I had found it in WUWT then it would be "untrue" and if I had found it in SkS then it would be true.>

To say that something is true or untrue based on if it is found in SkepticalScience or WUWT is an ad hom, regardless of what you see. SkepticalScience is a useful resource, but it is not a substitute for thinking for oneself. Most of it's claims can be verified, but if I believed everything I read in SkepticalScience, that would have to include the anti-Keystone pipeline propaganda that they have been posting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

And if I dismissed everything on WUWT, I would have to be a fan of Barycentrism.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/11/death-blow-t...

I find the contradiction behind your question interesting, too.

Many warmists both here and elsewhere cannot form a conclusion based on any facts you might present. For instance, if I said:

2 + 2 = 4

Most would look to see where I had found the idea. If I had found it in WUWT then it would be "untrue" and if I had found it in SkS then it would be true.

This is further reinforced by the fact that most do not reply to any of the facts presented. They go straight to the source and if it is from the "wrong" team then they rubbish the source. They have a convenient site called SourceWatch that lets them know who is on which team. (Look at the replies so far for confirmation!)

By these means they keep themsleves away from discussing any facts. This, of course, provides an emergency exit for later debates because they can then claim that they never said that because they seldom say anything. They just rubbish the sources from the wrong team.

They like to pretend that there is a logic to this team picking procedure but, in fact, it depends entirely on who is "on mesage". Being paid by Big Oil is a problem for non-believing scientists. However, when Big Oil subsidises UEA's CRU then it is not mentioned. Scientists credentials matter but only sometimes. To be "not a Climatologist" is a way of dismissing anything said by that person. However, James Hansen studied Mathematics and Astronomy. He says the right things so his qualifications are OK even though he has retired. Richard Lindzen, on the other hand talks rubbish we are told because he is retired but probably has among the best academic credentials of anyone in this field.

Same with billionaires wanting to affect politics. Koch brothers bad, Jeremy Grantham (of the Grantham Institute) good.

The NASA scientists make 20 points in their conclusions. Are they all right or not? They look OK to me. Although I would like some more information about what they call the "social cost of carbon".

To the warmers.

I think the point is NOT that these people are some special group that has more knowledge on the climate than anyone else. The point is that you warmers go on nonsensical rant about all deniers being science-denying idiots. People who beleive there was no moon landing and that the earth is 7000 years old. Here are people who clearly break every stereotype that you have set up for deniers.

Now you may rightfully claim that they are not experts in the field of climatology. What you cannot claim, however, is that these are anti-science idiots.

Further, while you make a pretense of being scientific and caring about science, I just saw an official on news talking about addressing climate change to ensure the survival of mankind.

ENSURE THE SURVIVAL OF MANKIND??? This is the scare-mongering BS that I have been discussing. You want to talk about deniers being "anti-science"??? Unless deniers start talking about leprechauns magically turning heat into gold, they are not being as unscientific as this alarmist official.

Sad fact is that while you huff and puff, you know I am right. You figure you can't give an inch, because you may be asked to give a mile. The truth is that the longer you talk about apocalyptic futures, the more you damage your own belief system.

What happens if the temps continue to track with your lower models??? You know, the models that predict little more than linear increase. You know, the models that the temps have been tracking with??? The very ones that predict the same amount of warming in the next 100 years that I have been saying??? What will be the affect on science? Environmentalism??? Do you think people won't remember how wrong you got it and how much certainty you claimed???

You claim to care about science, but YOU are going to hinder science for generations with your fear-mongering shenanigans, whilst insulting all the people who are trying to drag you kicking and screaming from the abyss of stupidity and fatalism.

Graphic,

This is why I use their own sources to argue with them. There is truly enough holes in their precious hypothesis, that their data produces inconsistencies.

Love this one:

" We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)"

Deniers do seem to love these sorts of list of people they claim are scientists, when they will invariably turn out to be long retired admin or engineers who know squat about the atmosphere or climate.

O.K. I'll bite first name listed Hal Doiron (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston (1970).

golly what a surprise. Doiron play a denier line of trying to blame Hansen, this ignore the rather basic point that the theory of AGW is held by the entire scientific community many as qualified or more qualified than Hansen, Hansens name is on just a handful of papers of the thousands of papers on AGW, but deniers pretend that is not the case.

George Stegemeier also seems to be an engineer

No other names are mentioned (for obvious reasons)

All backed by what, a puff piece from tame denier blogger James Delingpole, yawn

I mean I get that Americans put a lot of pride in the Apollo program, but honestly the people listed by Watts are about as qualified to comment on climate change as a cab driver or meter maid, has watts gathered a list of 40 of them as well or maybe some Eagle Scouts.

As for faked moon landing sorry the only people I have seen here who pushed that where in fact also deniers (extreme one admittedly) but deniers none the less.

It has been proved time and time again that they could not be faked with the technology of the time (and science proved that) as have enthusiastic amateurs like Mythbusters. I past encounter with denier on this issue I have raised the point of returned Moon samples which prove that the missions happened as they can be compared to the tiny samples that the Russians returned using automation and they are the same if at the height of the cold war you think the Russians would not have been overjoyed to show the U.S. faked the landing given how much they wanted to be first. They didn't because they knew the U.S. faked nothing. I for one cheered when I heard Buzz Aldrin punched a conspiracy nut for claiming he lied.

As for your "former NASA scientists" I guess only a denier would not find it odd, no real scientists are actually mentioned and the only two that are, are engineers who long ago retired. Lets see a full list of those claimed scientists, why are deniers being so coy. Or is this another like the letter to the President claiming 100 scientists but could not find more than a couple of actual climate scientists to even put at the top of the list.

So you've found 40 retired NASA employees, some of them scientists, that aren't worried about global warming? Good job!

Now what about the tens of thousands of ACTIVE SCIENTISTS that are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Dorion says, “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming.”

and

“I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly.”

From his LinkedIn page we get:

--Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston (1970 – he was there from 1964-1970).

--B.S., Physics, Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette (1963).

>>Apollo Program - Developed and validated computer simulation model of Lunar Module touchdown dynamics. Used simulation to support design and development of Lunar Module landing gear, select suitable lunar landing sites and develop landing and landing abort procedures.<<

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harold-doiron/4/19/485

Now, let’s roll that reality-check video:

They guy gets his B.S. in 1963 and his Ph.D. in 1970 – a year AFTER the first moon landing.

So, he was in Houston and could have had some part-time graduate student gig at Manned/Johnson, but the computer work was done by IBM engineers (approx. 3-5,000 of them) working at Marshall (Huntsville), Goddard (DC), and Kennedy (Florida).

There were 10s of thousands of scientists and engineers committed to the Apollo program – and graduate students and entry level professionals were at the bottom of the pile doing grunt-work.

During the mid-late 1960s my father split time between Kennedy and Huntsville (where he had an office down the hall from Wernher von Braun). Like all big government programs, it was organized top-down from senior-level to junior-level to new PhD’s and grad students.

There is no possibility that anyone ever even asked Dorion what he thought about anything, let alone allowed him to make any decisions or be in charge of anything. He may have screwed a few parts of something together and been sent out for coffee and sandwiches, but that would have been the extent of his contribution.

They are embarrassed that NASA has ben converted into some humanitarian AGW cultist organization. But to the point they know that there is no real world evidence to support AGW theory.

because it's not real