This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Transition

Bridenstine Continues Campaign For NASA Administrator Nomination

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 14, 2016
Filed under
Bridenstine Continues Campaign For NASA Administrator Nomination

GOP congressman being considered for NASA administrator in Trump administration, Washington Post
“Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a former Navy pilot who is one of Congress’s leading space exploration advocates, has had informal conversations with the Trump campaign about serving as NASA administrator or secretary of the Air Force, according to an official close to the congressman who is not authorized to speak publicly.”
Keith’s note: Since I broke this story last week quite a number of people have noted that it is somewhat ironic that Bridenstine wants a job that is decided by the White House when legislation he offered (H.R. 4945 the American Space Renaissance Act (ASRA)) sought to strip the ability of the White House to appoint or manage the activities of the NASA Administrator. Since Bridenstine is self term-limiting, word has it that he wishes to stay in the Washington area and is looking for something that will last longer than the 2 years of his last term. However, he lacks any experience managing an organization with thousands of employees and a budget in the billions – but that’s not unusual for a NASA administrator nominee. Also, FWIW self-promoting for jobs like this is usually not the best way to get them. Then again, this year the rules do not seem to apply, so who knows? Either way Bridenstine has certainly put in a lot of time on this topic since he arrived (see spacerenaissanceact.com) and has solid climate denial credentials – both of which should help. Oh yes, in case you want to lend your support, the staffer in Bridenstine’s office who seems to be working on generating buzz on this is Christopher Ingraham @cwingraham

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

18 responses to “Bridenstine Continues Campaign For NASA Administrator Nomination”

  1. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    One point caught my attention:

    “Bridenstine is self term-limiting, word has it that he wishes to stay in the Washington area and is looking for something that will last longer than the 2 years of his last term.”

    The President-elect is not entirely consistent, but he has said quite a bit about “cleaning up” Washington and been negative about political insiders. In that context, being self term-limited could be a point in Mr Bridenstine’s favor. But actively looking for a job which lets him remain a Washington insider would not be.

  2. Mr.Anderson says:
    0
    0

    Installing a climate change denier into one of the the world’s leading climate change agencies is just sad. I get they have a corporate agenda to push, it’s just remarkable how far this will set the field back not to mention the environmental damage that may ensue until a pro-science / pro-fact administration comes along again.

  3. kcowing says:
    0
    0

    She was supposed to endorse Trump in her convention speech. It was on the teleprompter. for her to read. She changed her mind (apparently) and they were not happy about that.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Which in no way indemnifies her from the implications of that appalling appearance. Just means she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Actually, what she said was fairly innocuous, if also fairly pointless. I’ll forgive bad speech-making and rhetoric from an astronaut, since, let’s face it, many professional politicians have done worse.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Point taken. It was her appearance that spoke volumes.

          And to tell the truth I don’t know why I feel so strongly about it.

  4. kcowing says:
    0
    0

    The Trump space policy, such as it is known from 2 op eds and comments by Bob Walker, includes cuts and changes to NASA earth science research. Congress has been seeking that too. So, from a pragmatic point of you, you’d want an administrator that is not in overt conflict with that direction but rather who’d happily implement these changes – not fight them.

    • Mr.Anderson says:
      0
      0

      The science proving climate change is overwhelming. I think it’s sadly humorous that there are still people that deny it–much like that flat-Earth group; their “logic” doesn’t make sense. Now that they have actual power and a champion in the white house, I’m concern this fringe group may set the science back decades just so they can squeeze a little extra profit out of relaxed regulations.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I hate it when I end up defending people I disagree with. But, to be fair, most of these “deniers” do not have doubts about climate change. They have doubts about it being caused by human activity and/or whether human actions can change the, er, change. There is, clearly, such a thing as natural (non-anthropomorphic) climate change. But saying it’s 0% anthropomorphic isn’t consistent with the data as I interpret them.

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          Satellites provided some empirical evidence. World of thanks to NASA and NOAA, BTW! http://www.skepticalscience

          The proof that man-made CO2 is causing GW is like the chain of evidence in a court case.

          1st: The first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

          2nd: NOAA announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years. (1.5 Trillion barrels of oil burned + coal…)

          3rd: The next piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. The spike for CO2 in the graph dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Except that: 1, real science is never as cut and dry as evidence presented in a court of law (where the presentation is deliberately tailored to make things look cut and dry) and 2, none of your points show that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. The timing could be a coincidence. I don’t believe that, but you’re the one saying everything of indisputable. You need some extra evidence, such as carbon isotope ratios, to show the carbon is coming from fossil fuels. Also, in the third plot, I don’t see the absorption bands for methane and water.

            Please don’t get me wrong. I was simply saying there is a difference between a person who claims climate change does not exist, and a person who claims it exists but it isn’t man-made. That doesn’t mean I agree with either view; simply that, when I call someone an idiot, I like to specify the correct form of idiocy.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            The CO2 levels in point 2 are best explained with a graph.
            http://climate.nasa.gov/evi
            Simply stated, the earth could not absorb what humans produced.
            Note the sharp rise in CO2 (only 150 yrs) vs the 400,000 trend and humans have produced 500 billion metric tonnes of carbon.

            Besides the historical comparison, yes, quite independently, CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has quite a different isotropic composition from C02 in the atmosphere, as extra evidence.

            The climate change deniers and isn’t-man-made folks are simply misinformed and hesitate to form your classification–its not scientific uncertainty in the models, but social and economical unknowns, not to mention not wanting liability.
            http://www.skepticalscience

            That ‘leaders’ who ignore and proclaim their skepticism would be appointed to head NASA, NOAA is unfathomable given the world of good their work has produced. Again, special thanks to NASA, NOAA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/fro

            For the EPA, Ebell has been instrumental in crafting a national strategy challenging research showing that global warming is both man-made and real. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/fro

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Rather than attacking Ebell and other climate deniers, we should be focused on educating and convincing the public and building support for science and objectivity. We hardly need to be reminded at this point that personal attacks on people with irrational views just generates free publicity for their claims.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The CO2 budget is complex but reasonably well modeled. The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by plant growth cycle is clear from seasonal variations in COI2 which are consistent throughout the record. The climatic effects of major eruptions can similarly be identified due to thier sporadic nature. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by fossil fuel production has also been recorded with increasing accuracy for many decades. There is a lot of CO2 entering the atmosphere, it is constant, not seasonal in nature, and fossil fuel production matches it quite well. If there is another comparable source, I would be curious what you would propose. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gm

        • Mr.Anderson says:
          0
          0

          It’s the “not being caused by human activity” part is where I have the issue. I understand where you’re coming from, and I see your point, however, the rise of the industrial revolution, coupled with the increase in green house gas correlates with the rise of temperatures and the melting of the polar ice caps, which is changing global weather patterns. 1+1 = 2 is pretty basic math even these guys should understand.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It isn’t really my point. I was just clarifying what Mr. Bridenstine was quoted as believing. Let’s blame him for insisting this is all a very unlikely coincidence, rather than blaming him for denying fairly solid measurements.

            My personal problem is with turning the whole thing into basic math. The evidence for natural climate change is pretty undeniable. So I have trouble believing 100% of the past fifty years of climate change was due to human action. It could very well be 75% man-made and 25% natural. For all I know, it could be 125% man-made and -25% natural. Since it’s a complex, non-linear system, with feedbacks all over the place, even the concept of splitting it into man-made and natural change may be meaningless. But I’m fairly sure the answer isn’t 100% or 0%.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            There are indeed a range of natural causes for climate change ranging from El Nino to the Milanchovic cycles in the Earth’s orbital motion, to volcanic eruptions and variations in solar luminosity, as well as secondary effects such as increases in atmospheric water vapor (warming) and cloud cover (cooling). A substantial part of modern climate science is focused on recording all these natural variations and incorporating them into the climate model. However the contemporary rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented, and measurements of the heat lost by the Earth at various wavelengths provide strong evidence that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of contemporary warming.

  5. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to install someone in the administrator’s job who actually has some skill/experience at administrating government agencies?