The Hubert Lamb CRU headquarters, center for worldwide global warming and climate change alarmism. The Paris Agreement would have gone a long way toward furthering their Luddite agenda. The Hubert Lamb CRU headquarters, center for worldwide global warming and climate change alarmism. The Paris Agreement would have gone a long way toward furthering their Luddite agenda.

Global warming or global scam?

NASA is in the news again but this time for its scientists who have proven they have a spine. Apparently 49 NASA scientists, many of them astronauts, have strongly objected to those who use the Agency as a political football. Their letter to the Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator, denouncing global warming as bad science and excoriating NASA for propounding the idea, appears at the end of this article.

Global warming exposed

For those who don’t know or remember, my co-editor and co-founder of Conservative News and Views, Terry Hurlbut, was the first journalist to report that the global warming alarmists were deliberately misleading the public. Terry exposed the now famous emails that confirmed that the global warming theory was a first class scam. Terry and those who insisted on empirical data to support the theory of global warming have suffered much ridicule by the media elites. But now those 49 scientists have vindicated them. In so vindicating, they have confirmed something else that Terry found: that NASA had become America’s CRU.

The Hubert Lamb CRU headquarters, center for worldwide global warming alarmism
The Hubert Lamb Building, headquarters of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, UK. Photo: User ChrisO/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.

Whether or not global warming is happening, and if it is, whether carbon dioxide emissions are causing it, is not the point of this article. The point is that no one made non-political scientific evaluations. Since the days of Galileo, we have known that politics and science do not mix well. Ironically, “political scientists” have often used the plight of Galileo to censor the quest to develop honest scientific data that may or may not conflict with popular theories. Nowhere is this irony more clear than in the Evolution/Creation battle. Using Galileo as their poster boy against creation science, evolutionists have successfully censored the contradictions to their theory from public classrooms. They have taken this tactic so far as to fight to keep known scientific errors in textbooks – the most notable is Haeckels’ embryo drawings, which reputable biologists have known to be fraudulent since the late 1800s.

As if scientific censorship isn’t bad enough, political agendas have added to this hysteria. Globalists and those trying to usher in a New World Order have seized upon the global warming theory to propel their hidden agendas. The most noteworthy is UN Agenda 21. If successful, Agenda 21 will swallow up our national sovereignty and subject us to a one world order – all in the name of sustaining the environment and protecting it from global warming.

The Letter

Don’t take my word for it, read the letter below and draw your own conclusions.

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, 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. 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.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.


(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Read more here.


ARVE Error: need id and provider

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

global economy, global warming, United Nations

Comments (23)

  • Whether some of them realize it or not, (baring repentance on their part) those who dishonestly utilize climate change to further their selfish political agendas, will someday possess all the warmth they so dishonestly talked about.

    It’s nice to witness more people speaking out against this malevolent political scam!

  • It really isn’t headline news when 49 people out of about 15,000 send a letter. Not one of the people sending it have any degree of expertise on climate so the whole thing can be dismissed. Yet another example of the deniers trying to defend their indefensible nonsense.

    • You’re the one defending the indefensible. Remember: I’m the one who exposed Michael Mann’s and Phil Jones’ and Kevin Trenberth’s lies for all who had eyes to see.

      • Everything you claimed has been thoroughly debunked. All you did was pick out a few key phrases and blow them out of all proportion. Subsequent studies have shown there was absolutely no fraud. There has even been a study funded by a right-wing think tank that proved global warming was happening. To deny it at this stage is to fly in the face of the facts.

  • The 49 NASA “scientists” who signed onto this letter include 23 administrators (bureaucrats), 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians, none of whom study climate science. In other words, absolutely none of them have any experience with climate science. And, by the way, none of them work for NASA. They are all retired. The letter offers no example of what is exactly that GISS is releasing to merit such criticism. From what I can gather they would like all climate change research to come to a halt if it does not agree with their non-modern ideas of what climate change is all about.

    CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, and that rise is due to humans. Those to facts are undeniable. We have recorded CO2 rises and the 12/13 C isotopes of that CO2 clearly shows that it came from the burning of fossil fuels. Global climate change is the part that people like to argue about, but that isnt the only concern. The ocean is the major sink of latent CO2 in the atmosphere, and all of the added CO2 is leading to much higher levels of oceanic acidification and hypoxia. We are already seeing drastically increased areas of anoxic environments within the oceans.

    Let’s put our thinking caps on for a second. On the climate change acceptance side we have hundreds of thousands of scientists at thousands of research universities in every modern country, as well as most environmental groups. To a lesser extent we also have some banks, who stand poised to make considerable amount of money via “cap and trade” (an idea which I am opposed to), but at most we are talking about several billion dollars n long term gains. Now I cant speak for every scientist, but I can assure you that I am not conspiring with a shadowy organization that has made up global warming as an attempt to impose a “new world order” and socialism on everyone.

    On the other side (climate-deniers), we have the small-government minded people, whose argument I think is certainly worth listening to. But of course we also have the major oil and mining companies. Six out of the ten biggest corporations on Earth fall into this industry, including such giants as ExxonMobil (which made nearly 500 billion in revenue in 2011), PetroChina, and BHP Billiton. I dont have a problem with the oil and mining industry, but they have a very obvious interest in denying human-caused global change and clearly have the resources to advance their viewpoint.

    Every single major scientific institution on the planet has accepted that global warming is real and is more likely than not being caused (at least in part) by man. The last institution to cave in was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (who obviously have a very vested interest in denying it) after the majority of its 30,000 members threatened to resign in protest.

    As a side note, Mr. Hurlburt, Mann’s “hockey stick” graph was a very minor portion of his research. If you were to actually read his papers (or the IPCC report that used it you’d find that it was an extremely minor figure that was not really designed to get across much data.

    • Actually, on the global warming alarmist side you have some powerful players of two types. One type are the one-world-government types who want to dictate to the world. The other are those who stand to gain from the shut-off of certain mineral resources in hands other than their own. If you were part of that clique, I would never expect you to admit it. And if you’re not, then all I can say is that the clique are leading you down a garden trail and are using you to excuse their one-world and socialistic ambitions.

      • Who gains from the shutdown of mineral resources? Its the same mining and oil companies that obtain the resources necessary for solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear power. Its not as if Greenpeace owns the solar or wind farms. And who exactly are these one world government types? Do you have any examples? Or evidence? You preach about how global warming is a major scam and the thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities are all part of a major conspiracy. That is quite the claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        Did you miss the rest of what I wrote? The authors of that letter were not climate scientists and had no idea what they were talking about. And there are major other concerns about CO2 release other than temperature rise.

        Exactly what part of human-induced climate change do you claim to be false? That humans are releasing any CO2? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for temperature rise? That temperature changes are a completely natural phenomenon, unrelated to CO2 rise? That temperatures are not rising at all?

        The overwhelming majority (we call that a consensus) of scientists agree that we are already seeing the effects of climate change in declining alpine glaciers, rising sea levels (just ask anyone in the Maldives or the Netherlands) and droughts across subsaharan Africa. It is quite possible that these things are natural and not human-induced. That is a fair debate. So we should encourage research into the subject, instead of preventing it as the authors of this letter (and the editors of CNAV) seem to desire.

        • You ask what part of “human-induced climate change” (anthropogenic global warming) I claim to be false.

          I ask you what part of it you can show to be true.

          I ask why, if even half of it is true, the Fifteenth Conference of Parties in Copenhagen was run the way it was run. With 1400 business jets, renting out every limo on the continent, and all those delegates living it up in the lap of luxury. If you fear AGW as much as you want me to, do you not book your conference in the aviation centroid of the world, which happens to be Tel Aviv, Israel? Do you not charter existing flights and ask the delegates to make their way to various airports that the Israeli national airline happens to serve? And once those flights have landed, do you really allow them to tool around in their chauffeured limousines? Do you not instead have them ride fuel-cell-powered buses that your advance team has landed, or better yet, contracted with Israeli companies to build for you?

          So! Because that conference ran itself like just another expensive junket, don’t tell me that I have to forego my vacations, or go and live in some dingbat dormitory complex after you taken my house and my car away from me!

          • So you’re telling me that because government bureaucrats spent too much (as if that is a surprise) it negates all of the science that has been accomplished?! You’re judging science based off of politics instead of the actual research. Yes, the attendees of the conference were wasteful. How does that in any way affect peer-reviewed, published, and accepted scientific results from the past several decades?

            Here are the facts: Global Co2 levels have risen over the past hundred years. That has been clearly measured. We know that said CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, due to its isotopic composition. Ignoring any sort of global warming, there are major implications for increased CO2 in the atmosphere, including acid rain and ocean acidification and hypoxia. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, and ice cores have shown that warmer periods in Earth’s history have generally been accompanied by increased CO2. We are already seeing major effects of climate change, from the opening of the northwest passage to global droughts to rising sea levels in low-lying countries.

            Nobody is forcing you to forego your vacations or take away your house or car. That is paranoia, plain and simple. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what we do to curb global warming at this point, because the carbon that is already in the upper atmosphere is going to stay there for a while, and China is going to keep pumping it out regardless of what we do. But most of the ideas that are being put forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are beneficial to our standard of living. For example, is it really such an absurd idea that houses should be built with solar panels on their roofs, to not only save carbon emissions but also make your home self-sustainable and free from influence of the government or power company (you could even use that electricity to power your electric car [American-made of course, such as the Chevy Volt or Tesla]). Or that we can reduce pollution from coal and petroleum plants (not to mention cars), providing us with fresher air?

            Coal and petroleum have been being used as a fuel source since before ancient Rome. Why are we still using such a backward technology? We could get all the energy we needed from the abundant power of the sun or from nuclear energy.

          • I am telling you that the way they came to the conference, and the way they ran it, flies in the face of everything they say they are afraid of.

            And don’t talk to me about peer review. I know how peer review works. A bunch of people agree on a paradigm, and reject anything that challenges it. I have the e-mails. Phil Jones admitted that they were legitimate. And they speak repeatedly of professional sanctions against any who dare challenge their paradigm. I also remember creating my own temperature graph, that didn’t look ;anything like the hockey stick. Furthermore, my graph illustreated the Blizzards of 1977, and the Hockey Stick didn’t. I also know that they never admitted the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age.

            I could name any of a number of practical objections to most of the things you mention. To take just one: solar panels wear out and require replacement after 15 years, or 25 at the outside. And then, too, are we talking about a company called Solyndra, Inc., that went belly-up after squandering a lot of US government funds?

            Now here is something I find ironical in the extreme. A liberal supporting nuclear energy? Tell that to the Great Egghead of the House, Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California. His position on nuclear energy I can sum up in two words. They are “no” and “nukes.” I happen to think that his objections are meritless, or at least easier to work around than he cares to admit. I also happen to know of a design that could provide at least forty years of cheap and safe nuclear power while we see whether controlled fusion is feasible. But the only reason that the Obama administration let a company called The Southern build a new nuclear plant in Georgia, was to bribe Georgia into quietly burying an eligibility challenge in that State. And the environmentalists hated him for doing that. They, too, are Johnnies One-Note on nuclear energy: “No nukes!”

            And: the sun does not shine brightly enough (nor through the clouds), nor the wind blow hard enough, to satisfy all of any country’s energy needs. Even in Israel, where you see a solar panel for every apartment, they know that. The only way to make that work is to build satellites with vast photovoltaic arrays, tow them into geostationary orbit, and set them to beam their energy back to earth. But guess what? Obama destroyed the space program! We can’t even lift our own astronauts to our own space station anymore!

  • As a side not, how exactly is Ben Gurion airport is the aviation centroid of the world?
    Its a lovely airport (Ive been there several times) but isn’t very big. Dubai International is in the same geographic region and handles over five times the annual passengers as Ben Gurion.

    Also, you mentioned that “subsequent studies” on climate change fraud were a lie. Did you follow the results of the climate science study funded by the Koch Brothers? Even that study, which was lead by (former) climate-change skeptic Richard Muller, found that there had been no major problems with research in the field of climate science. And that was a study done by the Kochs.

    • If you tot up the flying distances from any one airport in the world to all other airports, and assume that you have available an aircraft that can fly halfway around the world if it must (and thus reach any airport non-stop), you will find that for one airport in the world, those travel distances add up to the shortest sum. That airport is David Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. That is what an aviation centroid would be.

      The overall travel centroid, meaning the city with the shortest as-the-crow-flies distances to all other cities, is Jerusalem. But you can’t build an airport of any size in those hills.

      And again: the Koch brothers. Well, I could say to you that we have the Koch brothers, and you have George Soros. Instead I will remind you that neither CNAV nor either of its co-editors receives one penny from Charles or David Koch. Any suggestion that we do, is slander.

      • First off, if a George Soros-backed study found that there were major faults with climate science, I would do well to look into it, since it would clearly show a lack of bias. Same goes for the Koch Brothers.

        I could go through and address each of your points one by one (the Hockey Stick graph does include the Little Ice Age, but it doesn’t matter because that graph was of very little importance to Dr. Mann’s research; Solyndra was one of many companies that were given loans through that program, a program that was widely accepted among the GOP members of Congress; most scientists are not members of Greenpeace or other environmental groups and are completely fine with nuclear power; opposition to nuclear power comes from both liberals and conservatives, it has to do just as much with ‘NIMBY’ than with which side of the political aisle you are on; a one square kilometer solar farm provides the same amount of electricity as a similarly sized nuclear power plant [given 1300watts/square meter of sunlight and a one gigawatt plant); Obama raised NASA’s budget his first two years in office, and helped to spur commercial spaceflight companies such as SpaceX which will be taking our boys to the ISS within a few years).

        But primarily I just have a question for you. I really don’t understand how the editors here at CNAV, as well as a good portion of the American public, think that they are better at science than people who actually do science. This goes not only for climate change, but most branches of science.

        What would it take for you to admit that there was certainly a strong possibility that humans were causing major effects on our environment that could be detrimental to our well being? Is there some piece of evidence that could come forward that would allow you to admit that you were wrong?

        • Because we’ve seen the e-mails. And they tell us that there was nothing to it, the authors of those e-mails knew it, and they were doing the Saul Alinsky thing all the time, and under the imprimatur of Her Majesty’s Government.

      • You sidestepped the question, Terry. Muller was a leading climate change skeptic, and ran an independent study, funded by the Koch brothers, that was going to run the number free of any bias towards what the outcome would be. The Kochs were glad to fund it because they were certain this would be superb, objective evidence to support the denial of climate change.

        To his credit, Muller did perform sound science free from the bias of his sponsors, and concluded that climate change is real. A key quote from him afterward:

        “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

        So you can quote-mine stolen emails out of context, or you can perform real science and come to your own conclusions. Muller chose the latter path, and affirmed the conclusions you and others deny without scientific basis.

        • Ah, the Koch Brothers. Your favorite targets, because they have the moxie to speak up against an overbearing, overreaching government.

          Just for your information, this site doesn’t see a dime from Koch Industries. Neither does any Tea Party activist with whom I have spoken.

          And furthermore: I could simply say that George Soros paid him double what the Kochs were offering. Which, for all I know, he probably did. Instead I will say that you have not shown that mankind can affect the climate in any way, shape or form.

          • The Koch brothers were mentioned because they funded the survey, and given their portfolio of companies, have a vested interest in keeping their markets as deregulated as possible.

            You also need to stop putting intentions in the heads and words in the mouth of your commentors – I never made any statements about them being targets or CNaV being on the take, and refuse to get pulled into that non sequitur.

            Journalists also don’t go around accusing people of taking bribes without evidence. A respected climate-change skeptic did the painstaking work to verify the facts for himself, and was convinced not just of the conclusion, but of the professionalism and ethics of the researchers he had questioned.

            You disagree with what that implies, but rather than doing your own work, you commit libel against the messenger. I’d appreciate a future essay where you explain how “bearing false witness” is an acceptable practice for your style of journalism.

          • So you’re saying that those whom a regulation would directly harm, have no right to defend themselves against it.

            That kind of thinking causes as much harm as the regulations themselves to the general body economic, if not more.

            As to “putting intentions into people’s heads”—hey, I just play the percentages, as any detective would. I say what makes sense, and I recall the pattern of accusations. Every time the Koch Brothers come up, the one bringing it up trots out the canard that the Koch Brothers finance the Tea Party movement and have its leaders, if not all its rank-and-file foot soldiers, on their pay rolls.

            All that you have shown is that at the moment you do not stand by the canards that many on your side of the issue have made. And I reserve to myself the absolute discretion on whether to interpret that non-stance as principled or unprincipled.

          • Hmm, I thought “and given their portfolio of companies, have a vested interest in keeping their markets as deregulated as possible.” was pretty clear, but let me be even more clear then.

            The Kochs, like anyone else, have a total right to lobby against regulations they see as detrimental to their business or well-being.

            There is a problem with transparency, though, in that thanks to Citizens Unites people with their level of resources are able to influence legislators and policy while obscuring their involvement and backing. People with wealth should not be banned from being able to use that wealth in legitimate ways, but it should be done “in the open sunlight” of full disclosure, not through shells and gimmicks to keep the degree of influence in the dark. That goes for everyone, by the way – freedom and transparency should be applied to all parties, not just some.

            Oh, and you can “interpret my stance” any way you want; just don’t put words in my mouth, because I don’t do it with you or anyone else here.

            And speaking of words, I believe you owe a retraction or at least a “hey, just kidding” regarding your statement about Robert Muller probably taking money from Soros to compromise his professional ethics. It takes a great deal of integrity to change one’s position when confronted with contrary evidence. Accusing such a man of being on the take without proof, just because his hard facts challenge a position you don’t want to change, is just pathetic.

          • This is why the very moral premise of “government regulation” is questionable. And it is why this site exists: to defend the rights that you would have the government violate with impunity.

            The only time that people like you acknowledge anyone’s “professional ethics” is when those people agree with you. When they don’t, you spin all kinds of conspiracies. And all the while, you have your own financier who demonstrably funds dozens of media organs. Why should he be above suspicion?

            You’ll get your retraction when the inner and outer cores of the earth cool down and lose all the heat they gained in the Global Flood. Not before.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top