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

Bolden Concerns: Transition "Turmoil" and Trump Stance On Climate

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 2, 2017
Filed under ,
Bolden Concerns: Transition "Turmoil" and Trump Stance On Climate

Former NASA head concerned about climate data efforts under Trump, Nola.com
“NASA has yet to receive specific marching orders from the Trump administration, but you have voiced concerns. What is on your mind?
I’m having a difficult time adjusting to the turmoil of the first week of the Trump administration. Coming out of NASA and being a former military commander we are very dependent on understanding what is going on in the environment and understanding the need for climate data before we can deploy Marines and sailors and airmen. Finding an administration that doesn’t understand that and day-by-day seems to be curtailing the availability of valuable data to decision makers concerns me.
Can you be more specific?
We provide a lot of (climate and environmental) data through over-flights and satellite data. That’s what I think is threatened if we’re not careful with the policies of the new administration.”

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

13 responses to “Bolden Concerns: Transition "Turmoil" and Trump Stance On Climate”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    That’s a very bold statement coming from the General.

  2. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    He, and WE THE PEOPLE, should be extremely concerned given what is going on in DC.

  3. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. There has been no directive to climate scientists to stop talking, or hide data, or anything. There has only been a desire to focus NASA’s resources more on space exploration, including planetary science and heliophysics and other things that contribute to/interact with earth science and climate research. NASA can also contribute new technology for space sensors that can be used in commercial or other USG agency operational remote sensing systems. But it is not NASA’s job to pay for operational capabilities, it is NOAA’s or USGS’ or Interior’s or somebody else’s. If they want to buy NASA’s expertise, they should pay for it. Hire Goddard through a reimburseable space act agreement.

    And for Gen. Bolden to imply that the Defense Department is counting on NASA earth science to carry out its Defense meteorological satellite program so they can predict the weather so that warfighters know whether they/enemies might get caught by extreme weather phenomena… well that sounds like the Washington Monument defense against budget-cutting. If we stop doing one thing on Earth Science, soldiers will die. I would call it “silly”, except that I presume Bolden was serious when he said it.

    Sad.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I thought you were going to say something else about weather forecasting for the Department of Defense. There is such a thing as the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, That’s a constellation of satellites the military uses for weather forecasting specifically so that they are not dependent on NASA or NOAA or whoever else.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      James, I do not deny that it is sad. But let’s be honest here. First, study of the Earth from space is in the NASA charter, in black and white. Period. There is no debate about that, except from politicians who have not read the charter.

      Second, this is scientific research, not weather forecasting. It has been an area of productive partnership between NASA and NOAA for decades.

      Third, there has been no suggestion from anyone in the Trump Administration or the congressional opponents of climate science like Bill Posey, that one red cent of additional funding would go to NOAA or anyone else to investigate climate change. They want to end it completely, to benefit their supporters in the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the announcement of the GOES-R launch by NOAA administrator Kathleen Sullivan was carefully scrubbed to remove any mention of the climate science instruments it carries.

      Fourth, the position of the Trump Administration is that climate change is a Chinese hoax, although Trump has not explained how the government of China would profit from such a hoax, or how they would execute it, when it would require altering petabytes of data collected by and stored in the US.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I think the Trump administration is going to be pretty confusing. I’ve found that being very clear and precise about details, possibly even pedantic about them, can avoid confusion. In this case, Mr. Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax when he was running for office. As far as I know, the Trump _administration_ (as in after he took office) hasn’t made any statements on the subject. With luck, this may end up being some bizarre campaign rhetoric the actual administration never mentions again.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          I agree that policy is more important than rhetoric. But President Donald Trump has said he intends to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, and EPA director designate Pruitt has said:
          “I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate on whether the climate is changing or whether human activity contributes to it.”

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I expect the Trump administration’s stance on climate change will reflect most of the campaign rhetoric. But I hope the part about a Chinese-perpetrated hoax will quietly go away.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            On 11/6/12 Trump said: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese.”

            On 9/26/16 Trump, in a presidential debate, said “I never said that”.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      “There has only been a desire to focus NASA’s resources more on space exploration”

      James, your comments are usually considered and measured, which is why this one surprised me; sounds more like a dog whistle.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      You might want to give that old Space Act a re-read again, just to refresh on what is and isn’t “NASA’s job”.

  4. Eric Reynolds says:
    0
    0

    About time! Too bad Obama didn’t.