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.
Earth Science

Climate Scientists Are Still Going to Give Bridenstine A Hard Time

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 8, 2017
Filed under
Climate Scientists Are Still Going to Give Bridenstine A Hard Time

Would Jim Bridenstine Be a Down to Earth NASA Administrator?, Union of Concerned Scientists
“Let’s get right to it. Understanding the dynamics of our Earth, including disasters like hurricanes and droughts, has never seemed more important. As if on cue, we have a confirmation hearing for the NASA Administrator nominee coming down the pike. Is President Trump’s nominee, Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), the right fit?”
Florida scientists urge Senate to oppose Donald Trump’s NASA pick, Florida Politics
“Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson have already lobbed objections to Jim Bridenstine, President Donald Trump’s pick to head NASA. Now, more than 30 Florida scientists signed a letter to the state’s U.S. senators, urging them to outright reject Bridenstine when he comes up for confirmation. Among the criticisms that scientists around the nation have voiced about Bridenstine is that he has said that he doesn’t believe humans are causing climate change. “We find it troubling that Congressman Bridenstine has repeated misinformation in his quest to deny climate change, notably in 2013 when he suggested that global temperatures were not rising,” the scientists write to Rubio and Nelson. “Climate and weather are intertwined and while we know that Congressman Bridenstine has publicly expressed desire for better weather prediction capabilities, we cannot predict weather events if we ignore emerging trends.”
Scientists call on Florida’s senators to oppose Trump nominee for NASA
“Both Nelson and Rubio have blasted Trump’s choice, but neither has said whether they will vote against Bridenstine. In their letter, the scientists pointed out that Bridenstine has no formal science education. And while he serves on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, he has no experience running such a large agency and no experience with scientific research. A former Navy pilot, he once ran Tulsa’s Air and Space Museum.”

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

37 responses to “Climate Scientists Are Still Going to Give Bridenstine A Hard Time”

  1. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    Sounds to me like these scientists are grasping at straws, or possibly expressing sour grapes. So what if he doesn’t believe in human caused climate change? It is clear that this administration is going to focus on other things, and so be it, that is what democracy is about. Do they really think an alternative will suddenly change the direction of this administration and suddenly pivot to a pro-climate change agenda?

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      If the situation were reversed, would or should a spaceflight engineer or scientist cease to advocate for the value of space exploration?

      • DJE51 says:
        0
        0

        I think a scientist should hold fiercely to his or her beliefs. However, if their employer wishes them to express their views as their own only, and not the administrations, that is what I think they should do. Everyone has a boss, and although of course I do not believe they should be “muzzled”, they should only express their beliefs in terms that do not infer that they are speaking in their official capacity.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          “I think a scientist should hold fiercely to his or her beliefs.” That’s a scary idea. Scientists should be willing, even eggar, to change their beliefs as new data comes in. We’ve seen too many occasions where old, obsolete theories hanging around because scientists held fiercely to them.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      The facts and data of climate change clearly articulated: “the Earth’s average surface temperature is the warmest it has been in the past 1,400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, CO2 levels are the highest in at least 800,000 years, and the warming is the result of human-caused warming emissions”-not ‘beliefs’.

      CC will cost $Ts (Red Policies), so spend Bs for ‘mooning’ by Oct 2092, and reflect on 600 yrs of a discovery that destroyed planet Earth? and to support Citizens’ United version of ‘democracy’?
      George Carlin’s American Dream. Kneel at the next anthem.

      • DJE51 says:
        0
        0

        I agree about your climate change points, but not sure of the overall point you are making. This administration is going to go their own direction, and so we shall all be observing what direction that is. Right now it looks like they will be directing NASA back to the moon, which is not a bad thing, it is at least achievable in the short term and would bring in international partners as well. The only thing is, it really doesn’t seem (at least so far) that international partners are really that important to Donald Trump. So we shall see if his advisors can convince him otherwise.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      a pro-climate change agenda

      “Pro-climate change”. Bizarre phrasing.

      • DJE51 says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, well, the opposite of an “Anti-climate change agenda”. What I was trying to express was, this administration seems to believe that climate change is not being influenced by humans, so that would be an “anti (human) climate change” opinion. I think we have all moved beyond the fact that climate change is occurring, and so the next fight is, why is it happening?

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          “Anti-climate change agenda”

          Surely climate activists are the ones with an anti-climate change agenda?

          I think we have all moved beyond the fact that climate change is occurring,

          You still get the usual suspects insisting that there’s no warming, when it suits them.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      The listing of GRACE and other spacecraft in their letter leads me to think a prime motivation is the continuation of funding for their projects.

  2. Matthew Black says:
    0
    0

    Much as I’d like any NASA Administrator to support climate change research (disclaimer- I’m not even a U.S. Voter); the Administrator serves at the pleasure of the President – and yes, I know about Congressional approval etc. If the current Administration decides that a genuinely enthusiastic and qualified Administrator would be better put to use finding ways to efficiently(ish) get U.S. Astronauts back to Moon and do other things; not because they are easy, but because they are hard, then…

    …Have at it; Mr Bridenstine!

  3. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Those townhalls at Ames or Glenn, JPL or Goddard, or those talks at universities and high schools, will always be opportunities where hard climate science questions will come up. Unless we end up with an administrator that decides to screen audiences and questions, or just spend the years avoiding certain places and people.

    We have seen where a post Shuttle world decided it just wanted to do whatever kept Shuttle like jobs, where even an attempt to cancel an unaffordable Constellation program was met with SLS and Orion. Worse, no one adds up or reports on costs anymore, as with Constellation. Control or avoidance of information became the defense, rather than rationale. So then again, who knows. Years and years of boilerplate, meaningless responses like “there’s controversy, we’ve had to make hard decisions…blah blah’ may be the future under anyone like Bridenstine.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Or under any Administrator given such decisions are made by the Congress or in the White House. So really this isn’t against Rep. Bridenstine as much as its against President Trump’s policies on it.

  4. Marvin Christensen says:
    0
    0

    JSC forgets that Hqs is in Washington. As long as theres huge engineering projects involving man, their content and even happier when the Administrator is an astronaut who limits discussion on worth. Someone, like Bridenstine, is needed to question why we have fumbled the future and after almost 59 years were going to duplicate Appolo. Nelson and Rubio are protecting the status quo and will use the climate change debate or any other, to stop an Administrator not committed to the manned program at any cost.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, and that is probably why his confirmation is taking so long, they don’t trust him to protect the status quo and especially the SLS when he is Administrator. The Swamp is resisting…

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the Florida Delegation “encouraged” these scientists to protest promising them someone “better”, and they fell for it.

      The VP remarks on using commercial partnerships to return to the Moon is likely not helping as it endangers the SLS monopoly on lunar missions and the lunar gateway.

  5. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    I still think NOAA would be a better agency to fund and operate these earth satellites. Seems like NASA is doing it mainly to get funding.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Except Bridenstine pushed specific legislation to harm NOAA’s ability to do this research.

      Meanwhile the EPA’s grants process is headed by a political appointee who stated outright that he will block climate change research. So of the big-three atmospheric research agencies, that leaves NASA — and, surprise!, Trump’s choice for new NASA Admin is a known climate denier and loyal player in the attacks on climate change research.

      Why it’s almost like it’s intentional.

    • GentleGiant says:
      0
      0

      NASA is studying the earth from space because doing so is fundamental to NASA’s mission, not “mainly to get funding”.

      If you support handing the work over to NOAA then do you also support increasing NOAA’s budget so that they can do the work? If not, how do you expect the work to be done? If so, what is the point of transferring work out of NASA, which has decades of experience designing and operating satellites, to NOAA? The handover will cost the government money and all it will change is that NASA employees will be switched to NOAA and continue to work out of Building 32 at Goddard or will have to drive to Silver Spring instead of Greenbelt. What is the point of doing that?

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Having NASA and NOAA perform duplicate work is wasteful. I thought it would be obvious. Having NASA do the work is a bit like NASA building SLS instead of using launch vehicle from companies like SpaceX. How efficient is that?

        Of course if NOAA takes over programs, funding goes with it. Some in Congress may not give them what they want, but that’s an ongoing battle. Your comments seem more about maintaining the same, not reducing costs.

        • GentleGiant says:
          0
          0

          I am all for reducing redundant efforts but the satellite work that NASA and NOAA perform do not much overlap. For NOAA to take over NASA’s responsibilities would take years of planning and ramping up of NOAA personnel and infrastructure. Or, as I wrote in my earlier comment, it would involve transferring NASA staff to NOAA and have the “new” NOAA staff continue to work out of their old offices at Goddard.

        • tjimmel says:
          0
          0

          Please describe the “duplicate work” that is wasteful.

    • Carlos DelCastillo says:
      0
      0

      NASA dos not just operate “these earth satellites”. What NASA does is a tad more complicated. To understand the Earth, one needs to understand processes in land (there is not “L” in NOAA), oceans, atmosphere, and cryosphere. NASA is the only agency that can do the end to end process that includes understanding the science requirements, translating these into instrument requirements, and finally procuring and operating the hardware. Add to this modeling, data distribution, and all the science funded at universities etc…. NOAA and other agencies are great partners in this venture.
      Now, while we are at it, we should suggest that Air Force should operate those NAVY carriers….
      C

  6. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    “Climate Scientists Are Still Going to Give Bridenstine A Hard Time”

    And vice versa.

  7. MichiCanuck says:
    0
    0

    I think people need to step back and take a deep breath. Science always gets things right, eventually. But the time frame can be needlessly lengthened by pal review and behind the scenes outright warfare that has been conducted by some in the climate community. We need to guard against Lysenkoism. The efforts to silence honest and capable scrutiny of some claims and projections should not be tolerated in science.

    • tjimmel says:
      0
      0

      And after that deep breath, do what? It’s clear that you expect the vast body of evidence that has been amassed regarding the drivers and effects of climate change to be completely reversed or refuted. By bloggers. Once scientists shut up.

      As they say: Don’t hold your breath.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      Of the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism, conspiracy theory is at the top of the list, you *disgracefully* imply Lysenkoism needs to be guarded against in terms of climate change. What interesting is that it was used in reverse by the carbon industry to feed the climate deniers! Recall that scientists that promoted “lysenkoism” with faked data to destroy counter evidence were favored with government funding and reward to fit into the Soviet media propaganda machine.

      Yet, it was the manipulated data of Roy Spencer or John Christie, who altered the data using the wrong sign in the satellite drift rate to incorrectly show no warming, where comically tragic, the nighttime temperatures were warmer than the day violating all the physics. ‘Skeptics’ or ‘non-believers were duped or lied too, simply stated.

      Breath now…as Pruitt roles back over 30 environmental regulations in record time.. Whats the next hidden agenda?

      Facts: Earth’s avg. surface temp. is the warmest it has been in the past 1,400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, CO2 levels are the highest in at least 800,000 years, and the warming is the result of human-caused warming emissions”-not ‘beliefs’.

      • MichiCanuck says:
        0
        0

        I think you need to do a little more research on the whole range of paleoclimate reconstructions. Most do not have the modern warm period warmer than the MWP or even the RWP. And most show a general decline since the Holocene optimum. And why was the Eemian warmer (with higher sea levels)? When you can explain all of the natural variability that is plainly seen in many proxy records (I like the price of foodstuffs in Iceland and the complaints about cheap imported medieval English wine from French grape growers), then get back to me. And before you bring up incorrect signs, you might want to Google Tiljander or “The Rain in Maine Falls Mainly on the Seine”. Catchy tune.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Do you reject the CO2 data? You can measure it yourself if you are in doubt.

          • MichiCanuck says:
            0
            0

            Oh, I don’t reject it. I embrace it. However, for the true blue alarmists, it is a bit of a problem. I have no issue with the idea that doubling CO2 will cause a 1-1.5K temperature rise (although if there are negative feedbacks, it could go lower). My problem is with the catastrophic “climate sensitivity” figures that require large positive feedbacks and the idea that CO2 drives (i.e. leads) temperature. Unfortunately for them, all of the historical record shows CO2 lagging temperature (you can see it yourself from the Hawaii data) and more spectacularly from Vostok ice core data that has recently been enhanced with new snow data. Throughout the Pleistocene, during the onset of an interglacial, T and CO2 track pretty well, with CO2 only slightly lagging. But when we go into a glacial period, the lag interval grows enormously, as CO2 stays high while the planet goes into a deep chill. I have a soft spot in my heart for a recent hypothesis that argues that CO2 DOES get us out of glacial periods. But it’s not due to the greenhouse effect (too small), but when CO2 drops below ~200ppm, plants begin a massive die-off due to CO2 starvation. This leads to dust that dramatically alters the albedo of the continental glaciation. Then, the next time Milankovic wanders by, whammo, we get an interglacial. But in this scenario, the warming is caused by a drop in CO2. You know, pre-industrial CO2 levels were pretty low. No wonder C4 plants evolved. Not enough CO2.

    • Carlos DelCastillo says:
      0
      0

      I think you directing the accusation of Lysenkoism at wrong crowd.

      • MichiCanuck says:
        0
        0

        Who are the government sponsored scientists who band together to promote each other and to silence any alternative views? Which group gets journal editors fired? Which group forces respected scientists to quit boards of think tanks? Which group sues people who disagree with them in public? Where have you been the last ten years?

  8. George Purcell says:
    0
    0

    Cynical me thinks this has more to do with opposing the tradition Republican funding shift from Earth Science to Space Science than with any real concerns about the Administrator.

  9. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Unfortunately, part of their argument is that the President is wrong about climate change and we need a NASA administrator who will protect us from the White House agenda.

    Let’s be realistic. No President would appoint someone who opposed his agenda. That’s just not in the cards. The odds of getting an administrator who supported climate change research dropped to more-or-less zero when Mr. Trump won the election. So, given the fact that any candidate will share Mr. Trump’s views on the subject, is Mr. Bridenstein qualify in other respects?

  10. Steve Harrington says:
    0
    0

    One of NASA’s missions is planetary science. This helps us understand the atmosphere of all planets including our own. Too bad this valuable research is going to be canceled to protect the doomed fossil fuel business for a few more years.

  11. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    I agree that the NASA administrator has to follow White House policy or he would be …fired. So whose responsibility is it to protect climate change research? I would guess it is up to us, the citizens.

    • DJE51 says:
      0
      0

      Haha, it has already been up to the citizens, and they elected Trump. I agree that most citizens do not elect any leader on any one issue, and so, this is another one of those instances. We can only influence this administration by expressing our opinions, and so, yes, it would be up to the citizens. But in this respect I am pessimistic, (although usually an optimist!) since so few are really committed to either side of the climate debate.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      This is, actually, one of the problems with a strong, central government. If everything is decided on the federal level, one election can dramatically change things. But some states do have their own environmental standards and regulations; some fund various sorts of research, especially at public universities. I don’t think Governor Brown’s idea of California flying its on Earth-observing satellites will happen. But there are quite a few things which can happen at the state and local level. The election didn’t change their views as dramatically as the change in Presidents changed the White House position.