Climate Change Alarmism Is ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out,’ Retired NASA Physicist Says

NASA climate change global warmingHOUSTON—Unvalidated climate models that don’t correspond with physical data and the requirements of the scientific method contribute to unfounded climate alarmism, a retired NASA physicist said at the Heartland Institute’s recent America First Energy Conference.

Since America’s national security depends in part on energy security, unsubstantiated claims about global warming that prevent policymakers from making “rational decisions” with regard to the development of U.S. energy resources have become a national security threat, said Hal Doiron, a 16-year NASA veteran.

The “propaganda” underpinning climate alarmism is “causing tremendous political bottlenecks” that prevent government officials from “doing the right thing” on energy, he said.

Doiron, who helped develop the Apollo Lunar Module’s landing dynamics software during NASA’s moon missions, also expressed concern that the U.S. military has been directly affected by climate alarmist claims separated from sound science.

He criticized the Navy for “preparing for something that is unreasonable and would cost too much money” in the form of “extreme sea-level rise,” which has not been borne out by rigorous scientific study.

Doiron defines unvalidated climate models as those that do not agree with physical data. Public policy and military planning should be based only on models validated by physical data, he said.

“At NASA, we have a policy: You can’t make a design decision on a spacecraft or rocket that is not validated,” he said. “You don’t make critical decisions based on ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ Yet our government has been doing that with respect to climate alarm, because too many academics in universities are writing papers, drawing conclusions from models that don’t agree with physical data.”

Doiron is part of a group called “The Right Climate Stuff,” which includes engineers and scientists from across generations who have taken part in NASA’s most high-profile missions dating back to Apollo.

The group has produced its own “rigorous, earth surface temperature model using conservation-of-energy principles” that operates similarly to the way the surface and internal temperature of a spacecraft is analyzed, the Right Climate Stuff team explains on its website.

The reports produced from the analysis provide more “realistic projections” of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature over the next 150 years that show severe anti-fossil fuel regulations are not justified, Doiron and other former NASA team members contend.

“The scientific method requires that your hypothesis and theories be confirmed by physical data,” he said. “Computer models are not physical data, although I think many in academia don’t understand that.”

When unvalidated models are compared with validated models based on physical evidence, the validated models predict much less global warming, Doiron said. Moreover, the fact that unvalidated models often don’t agree with each other should be a “big, red flag.”

The retired NASA physicist is calling for U.S. policymakers to establish official data on two key metrics; specifically, “the true sensitivity of surface temperature to greenhouse gases” and a “reasonable projection of greenhouse emissions and [the] concentrations rise in our atmosphere.”

Doiron and his team have developed “a new metric” called “transient climate sensitivity,” which measures how much warming can be seen with a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the “way that it’s actually happening,” based on a “very small amount of [carbon dioxide] each year.”

That’s something that can be measured and verified against available physical data, he said. But because policymakers, including military planners, are not operating from reasonable projections, they are not in a position to adequately plan for the future, Doiron cautioned.

Another way climate change alarmism has worked to undermine America’s national security standing is by consuming too much of the military budget at the expense of military readiness, a top naval commander said during the panel discussion.

Adm. Thomas Hayward, who retired from the Navy as chief of naval operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after serving as commander of the 7th Fleet and commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, also addressed the Heartland Institute’s energy conference and sounded concerns.

For the past six to eight years, Hayward said, climate change has been given “a higher priority” than the readiness of the Navy’s fleet. During that time, the Defense Department has spent $100 billion on “just climate change,” while the Navy has spent “$58 billion chasing what is called the ‘green fleet.’”

That means many Navy vessels are using biofuels, but Hayward wonders how many ports around the world are equipped to accommodate Navy vessels that rely on a high percentage of biofuels, and he worries how that would work in a combat situation.

This report has been modified to state correctly how much Hayward said the Defense Department has spent on climate change.

From - The Daily Signal - by Kevin Mooney

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Outside Contributor
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John gurik
2 years ago

I’ve been sceptical for years regarding the global alarmism. Too many, mainly politicians, make too much out of insufficient data.

3 years ago

IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world which the IPCC says is impossible to do.

To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.

3 years ago

I have not heard a single scientist or anyone else for that matter factor in the world’s population growth. It has quadrupled in the past 100 years. Humans produce carbon dioxide. Look at the graph that shows the annual carbon dioxide that is produced and put it next to the graph that shows human population growth. They match. There should be a huge focus on the world’s population

3 years ago

Science shows that CO2 levels do not drive climate, it’s more of an indicator of change.


Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere


More Glacier Studies Confirm Roman And Medieval Warm Periods Were Just As Warm As Today

New studies confirm: Glaciers in the Alps already had “fevers” during the Roman and Medieval warm periods By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated, edited, condensed by P Gosselin) – See more at:

3 years ago

I looked at this issue up, down and sideways and have found no links of Global Warming due to CO2 except as an indicator. Here are 2 articles that prove that:


Earth’s Atmospheric Gases (the theory)


Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Lloyd E. Tolley
3 years ago

Too many advocates of climate change are totally ignorant of the magnitude and impact that radiation from space has on the earth. Very few people are aware of the sun’s impact. Thus, without a thorough understanding of astronomy, folks should remain quiet.

3 years ago

AMEN! Please mail the article to ALL the “Fake Press”?

Al P.
4 years ago

History teaches–It is the nature of governments, all governments, to expand its power. One of the ways governments do this is to convince enough people that a crises is about to befall them and only the government can “protect them”. Will we ever learn from history?

Van E Hamlin
4 years ago

The entire concept of CO2 being a pollutant is a scam. The real problem facingmankind is the dwindling amount of Oxygen in the air we breath. The percentage must be between 19.9 and 23 %. It is curently a little over 20%. The solution is growing more plants to convert our carbon dioxide resources into oxygen.
We will soon have 8 billion humans plus other oxygen breathing life forms and our air breathing machines sucking up what oxygen is left.

Road Warrior
4 years ago

This planet we call “Earth”has been evolving in various ways since it was formed.It is arrogant of us as humans to assume that we are causing more than a barely perceptible ripple of difference.Ice ages have come and gone,and apparently do so with regularity,depending on which socio-economic power seems to have the public microphone at a given time.There is way too much bad money influencing our air waves of info behind the scenes,for example: George Soros.He has a bad history of hating America.He has caused death and dispair since World War Two in Europe,I challenge anyone to look up how he turned in his own people to Hitler,against God and anything that is right and decent.

4 years ago

Have you noticed over the last few years that weather reports rarely include the AVERAGE daily temperatures? This plays into the climate change hysteria by ignoring the fact that fluctuations over time determine the average. This short-term data collection is predicted to get us to pay attention only to the wild changes in daily conditions. THIS IS CALLED WEATHER. You’d have to be looking at data over a very long period of time in order to declare any negligible changes in CLIMATE.
Even the East Anglia data hoax is hardly ever spoken of today. And to imagine how much of the cost of sequestration could have been alleviated if those funds had not been wasted on this nonsense!

Ivan Berry
4 years ago
Reply to  Kim


4 years ago

Just a scam to make money of people that are dumb enough to believe it. Al Gore has raked in the dough since the beginning of all the talk of Climate Change (and prior names like global warming). Kind of like the Pet Rock, but at least people know what they were getting when they purchased a rock!

Richard C. Heckmann
4 years ago

Great article. However, detractors are going to diss the whole thing bec the article describes the primary scientist quoted as having participated in Apollo LEM software development, which he must have been doing in the 1960’s, approx 50 years ago …. but having been in NASA for only 16 years. “If you can’t get that right, what else have you botched in this article?” they will say. Let’s get the details right.

4 years ago

Nothing in the article says he is a current employee of NASA. Merely that he had spent 16 years there during his career. Obviously if he was involved in LEM development program of the 1960’s, he is long since retired from government employment as is stated in the first paragraph of the article. He now works at Heartland Institute.

4 years ago

They call us “climate change deniers”, but I have never heard anyone claim the climate doesn’t change. We know the climate changes, just as we know that it is not due to humans. But many of us know that this is not only a scheme to “redistribute wealth” to poorer countries, but more importantly it is a scheme for the elite politicians of the world to line their pockets with ultimately, trillions of dollars. They call us “science deniers”, yet they deny that there are only two genders, and believe you can change your gender at will.

4 years ago
Reply to  Aardvark

Aardvark: You’re too kind, by my last count, there were around 63 ‘different’ genders that “CA-style gov’t” wanted to impose fines on anyone for mis-applying (“without circles and arrows on the weird one’s forehead, ‘splainin’ what it was, to be used as evidence against us”). That’s even more than the name misapplications of global/ice age/cooling/warming/climate/anthropogenic that “they” also seek to legitimize (like invaders, that ‘they’ want to become ‘undocuments’).
Simply “ORWELL in action” – control the lexicon to control the peons. NewSpeak, anyone?

William Peterson
4 years ago

Is GOD allowed to enter his opinion? While The earth remaineth, and cold and heat, and summer and winter,and day and night shall not cease.

4 years ago

The past president using as his “evidence” of Global Warming that 97% of Climate scientists agreed – an old figure that was gained (I read) by polling so-called climate scientists – which included in the numbers – graduate students, climate activists and some scientists and was then reported and accepted as gospel. And with that sort of “proof” we have spent in a very few years over $150 billion on Global Warming – oops! Climate Change by the DOD and on US Naval equipment that is considered “green”??? The loons have been in charge!

4 years ago

Used to live in Maryland, family had a place on the Chesapeake Bay. Around 1980, things started to change. Bay grasses disappeared, Rockfish stocks went down, crabs became scarce. Maryland became the 5th most densely populated state in the U.S. More people means more problems. Fertilizer runoff poisoned the bay and it may never recover. Lesson learned: Liberals flock to large population centers and we moved south where there are no stop lights for 20 miles in any direction. They (that Libtards) can have Chicago, NY, San Francisco, etc. I’ll stay where I am, under the radar.

4 years ago

The “rise” in our atmosphere’s temperature is more than accounted for by the simple fact that many of the stationary weather collection devices which used to be located in open rural areas are now in urban settings due to worldwide urban sprawl. Remarkably, the climate “scientists” I have talked to agree with this fact, but claim that the urban heat island effect is not statistically relevant. In other words, they have to play down proven science in order to continue supporting their phony science!

George M
4 years ago

No matter what anyone calls it, it has nothing to do with climate, but how to take away the wealth of capitalist and give it to another group (dems, communist etc) it does nothing for 97% of the population.
Elitist 2%, capitals 2%, communist 3% Russia, China and other such countries). These groups only think about themselves.

William Passas
4 years ago

There is little doubt that climate change is happening. We do not know what is really causing it. Is it a short term or long term cycle? What factors need to be considered? What we know:

1. The primary source of warming is the Sun. Is it on a warmer or cooler sunspot cycle?

2. Forests and Jungles take in carbon dioxide and give off Oxygen. We know that we have half the trees now compared to one hundred years ago because of deforestation. How much CO2 less are the trees absorbing?

3. We are installing efficient sun heat absorbs called Solar Panels. Instead of reflecting radiant heat we are capturing it on earth. What how much more heat are we absorbing?

4. Windmills are absorbing energy from the wind and slowing down the winds. The windmill energy is converted to electricity and heat. The slower winds reduce evaporation which have a cooling effect and reduce rain making. How much heat is created and with fewer clouds to reflect sun light how much more solar energy reaches the surface? Do Windmills contribute to the drought we are experiencing?

5. Hybrid and Electric cars use energy that is currently created by Coal and Natural gas plants. The plants create electricity, heat and CO2. Cars are very inefficient machines that generate more heat. They do reduce CO2. But how much heat do they generate compared to carbon burning engines?

6. The Oceans absorb CO2. The Oceans are warmer and cannot absorb CO2 as well. The Oceans have a huge surface so what is the net decrease in absorbed CO2?

7. The Ice Caps are melting. There is less solar energy being reflected. What is the net increase in energy reaching the earth?

8. We know that volcanic activity can make sudden changes in Global temperatures. Overall, do we have more or less volcanic activity around the globe? What impact has that had compared to when? If the surface is warmer does that mean that the bottom of the crust is warmer making the solid crust thinner? Do we get a warner surface as result with more volcanic activity?

9. We know we have more people on Earth. We breath Oxygen and exhale CO2. What contribution to warming do we represent? Do we want to reduce the population?

An integrated model of all the current factors with a projection to the future needs to be developed. There had been big swings in the past when people were much smaller in numbers and not industrialized. The Ice Age and Little Ice Age were like refrigerators on the North and South Poles.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x