Say it ain’t so, Jack

Dear Dr. Schmitt,

Like many of my colleagues, the space program inspired me to pursue a career in science.  The final lunar landing took place during my senior year in high school. It seemed like I was the only kid left who was not jaded by moon walks and paid attention as you explored Taurus-Littrow with Gene Cernan.  The next year I went off to college and majored in physics, looking forward to working in a field related to space exploration.  That led to graduate school at Caltech, where I ended up in the division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, where you got your degree 20 years earlier.   Every day I walked past a giant mural of you collecting rocks at Taurus-Littrow.  Your heroic image motivated me to work hard and play by the rules.  Maybe someday I would have the opportunity to do something a fraction as cool!

Fast forward 20 years.  I’m now in Albuquerque, working at Sandia Labs, getting to spend part of my time running computer models of planetary impacts.  I came to see you at Page One bookstore, where you were autographing copies of “Full Moon,” a new book of beautiful images from the Apollo program.  Some of the best were taken by you.  In others, you are the subject (including the one that was turned into the inspiring mural at Caltech).  I asked you if I could take a picture of my then two-year-old daughter with you, and you graciously agreed.  She sat on the table in front of you and I snapped the picture with a crummy camera.  It’s blurry and in a box somewhere for Kobie to find and cherish long after you, everyone else who has ever walked on the moon,  and I are all gone  Everybody I know who knows you says you are a very nice guy.  Based on my one meeting with you, I would have agreed, but for your subsequent behavior.

Fast forward another 10 years.  You are now involved with the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank.  Not only does the Heartland Institute actively attack scientific findings that might be used to support government regulations of industry, it censures, criticizes, and demonizes scientists whose research supports those findings.   Many of its supporters engage in smear tactics and defamation campaigns against scientists, and authors of Heartland Institute publications refuse to play by the rules of science which include integrity, honesty, and peer review.

In 2009, you gave a presentation at a Heartland Institute conference, where you described yourself as a “denier” of human-caused global warming.  This rejection of fundamental physics is troubling enough, but you went further, stating that “No definitive evidence… exists in support of the hypothesis that the industrial revolution has driven carbon dioxide levels up more rapidly than otherwise expected for a response to long-term temperature increases.”  This is a rejection of basic observational facts and simple logic.

Your presentation descended into an attack on scientists like me and my colleagues who develop and run climate simulations, saying that “claims that these models represent the use of physics to produce predictions are intentionally misleading.”   In fact, these models do make use of fundamental physics.  The conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are laws of physics, and define the governing equations that are implemented by the models.  The same laws of physics, in fact, that govern our simulations of planetary impact physics.  Contrary to your beliefs, we know from theory, laboratory measurements, and observations that carbon dioxide changes the radiative balance of the atmosphere.  More energy is coming in than is going out.  The laws of physics dictate that the atmosphere must be getting hotter.  But you have accused us “intentionally misleading,” a euphemism for “lying”.

In 2009, you also submitted a white paper to NASA, entitled “Observations Necessary for Useful Global Climate Models” in which you stated “Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage.”  I wrote to you, politely pointing out that this was not true, and directing you to the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  You responded, but never made the necessary correction.

You have chosen not to abide by the rules of science by allowing this critically important statement to stand uncorrected. I do not know if your false claim about Arctic Sea Ice was intentionally misleading or not, but this gives the appearance that you put your political ideology above scientific integrity. Please say it ain’t so.

You made it clear in your Heartland Institute presentation that you have a strong ideological objection to policies that might be implemented if scientists are correct about global warming.  You also talked about your own policy preferences, asserting your belief that “fossil and nuclear fission and fusion fuels” are the “driving forces of freedom” and dismissing efforts to develop clean energy as “siren songs of solar energy.”

Just because you disagree with policies that might be pursued because Arctic sea ice is disappearing does not mean it’s not disappearing.  The rules of science require that you correct your mistakes, and your political appointment by Gov. Martinez to a state office requires that you have scientific integrity.  Please demonstrate your integrity by withdrawing your accusation that I and my colleagues are lying about how climate models work, and by correcting your false statement about Arctic sea ice in your NASA paper.

Our policies must be based on careful assessment of the scientific facts.  The facts must come first.

We cannot afford to have an energy secretary who is willing to create his own facts to justify a predetermined policy preference that favors fossil fuel industries and rejects clean energy.

Giant mural in South Mudd (Geophysics and Planetary Science) Caltech

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate denialism. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Say it ain’t so, Jack

  1. middleagemanbob says:

    RIGHT ARM!!!! Maybe all that cosmic debris impacted his mind in that little box as he flew back to the Mother. How can he look back at her from so far away and not want to do all he can to protect her. My take is that the guv has her sites on the Galisteo Basin and needs a stooge to help. Proper use of resources indeed. Thanks for you wonderful plea. I am inspired to be patient by your polite request of the j man.

  2. Pingback: Climate Change & Love | Laura Paskus

  3. This made me cry. It’s so beautifully written. so patient and kind. I’ve often looked at NM for an example of what could be in Texas regarding drilling practices. It seems you are now in a race with us to the bottom.

  4. John Mashey says:

    This is especially sad, given thelikely fate of NMwhich will vary between bad and worse.
    See USGCRP impacts on US, specifically SouthWest.. 30-40% less precipitation (under higher emissions scenario), and since higher temperatures means higher evaporation, the combination is no good. Jfleck @ Inkstain has a fine blog often focused on NM water issues.

  5. Ellen K says:

    Thank you so much for writing this, and for so clearly voicing the concerns so many of us feel about this appointment. Remember the Senate still must confirm him, so now’s the time to drop a heartfelt email to your state senator.

  6. Jim B. says:

    Well done. I wish I could say that I’m surprised by the new gov’s appointments and actions to day, but hell we all knew it was coming. And its likely to get much worse.

  7. Pingback: Skewed views of science and other bits « Greenfyre’s

  8. Mike Gugliotto says:

    Great letter Mark!

  9. Bruce Bush says:

    You’re a heck of a lot more polite to lying Rethuglican pigs than I can stand to be, these daze!

  10. Gerald McBride says:

    It’s really a shame when right wing politics is allowed to trump science. Anyone who reads the literature will realize that the scientific consensus says that global warming is real and a result of human activity.

  11. Fritz Taylor says:

    This letter reminds me of somany places where conserative (reactionary) misuse of science ruins the lives of so many. Another example is how “cigarettes don’t really hurt smokers” (not to mention secondary and even tertiary effects to now smokers. I just said, “goodbye,” to my girlfriend’s 80 year-old father. He was quite the athlete in his day–golf in the early morning, tennis in late morning and afternoon, bowling, ping pong or billiards into the evening. Yes! He was in terrific shape until 5 years ago when a 10 pound bowling ball was too much and he was confined to bed until today or tomorrow when the doctor says he will die. To the end, he craved the smoke that had brought his act life to an agonizingly slow breathless close. That almost inperceptable
    squeeze and the ever so soft “bye” were all this man could manage. This, because of the romantization of smoking when John was a medic in WWII and Korea and to the present, and,more to the point, because, the whores of science and politics continue to “believe” and try to get the smoking public to believe that those pure-white coffin nails have not ruined the huge number of lives than they have. Good bye, John.

  12. Pingback: Gullible denialism | puckerclust

  13. Pingback: NM governor appoints another denier | puckerclust

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