The Spectrum of Responses To Bridenstine's Nomination
Commentary: Bridenstine wins a Democrat’s support for NASA’s top job, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Orlando Sentinel
“Despite our different political parties I am convinced Bridenstine will lead the brilliant scientists, engineers, technicians and outstanding personnel at NASA as it embarks on a new era of space exploration and scientific discovery. He fought for our country on the battlefield and fought for common-sense space policy in Congress. Now is the time for Jim Bridenstine to take command and grow NASA’s capabilities and American leadership in space as NASA administrator.”
Trump’s nominee as NASA chief would literally run it into the ground, Rachel Licker Senior Climate Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists, Red, Green, and Blue
“Bridestine’s public remarks suggest that his current understanding of Earth science is largely informed by politically-charged skeptics of climate change research. Given that Bridenstine would enter into the Administrator position with no formal science education, it is particularly important that members of Congress test his ability to differentiate science from politics.”
Biographical Information and Qualifications, Rep. James Bridenstine
“As a United States Representative from Oklahoma, I have led efforts to improve severe weather prediction and I have come to appreciate how complex Earth is as a system. NASA must continue studying our home planet. Unfortunately, Earth science sometimes gets pitted against planetary science for resources. This is not in the best interest of NASA, the United States, or the world. Mars once had a magnetic field, rivers, lakes, and an ocean on its north pole. At some point, Mars changed dramatically and we should strive to understand why. Studying other planets can inform our understanding of Earth. NASA must continue to advance both Earth science and planetary science for the benefit of mankind.”
Sen. Patty Murray Calls On colleagues To Oppose Trump Nominee To Lead NASA
“In a letter today to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Assistant Democratic Leader Patty Murray (D-WA) urged her colleagues to oppose the nomination of Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) to serve as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”
Keith’s note: Nearly all of this letter has to do with issues that have almost nothing to do with NASA. The incendiary quotes noted in Murray’s letter were not even made by Bridenstine but instead by other people. Murray is not on the committee and is the only senator who has signed this letter. Meanwhile letters of support for Bridenstine are circulating in Congress and among industry representatives. The hearing will consider 4 nominees – Bridenstine and three Commerce Department officials. As such the time for questions for each nominee will be limited. Sen. Nelson is expected to bring up environmental issues and question Bridenstine’s qualifications. Support from Sen. Cruz and Sen. Inhofe (who will introduce Bridenstine) is expected. There will also be support from Democratic members of the committee. In the end Bridenstine has the support and the votes to be confirmed by the Senate as the next Administrator of NASA.
Good endorsement that the climate cultists don’t like him. Anyone going to explain to them that NASA isn’t NOAA?
NASA has been the lead agency (on Earth, actually) for climate research for decades. Historically, NASA does climate, NOAA does weather. In the last decade, NOAA has upped its game in climate impacts and research; often in concert with NASA.
Name one(1) climate scientist at NASA
(sigh) Another anonymous troll. Use Google. They are easy to find. Lots of them up in NYC at GISS.
“CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACYPROMOTING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out
NOTE: The following is one of a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.
Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen’s ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-w…
So tell me, what does such ancient history have to do with Rep. Bridenstine? Other than show that it is impossible to stay out of politics if you take taxpayer money to do your research.
And BTW, you do know he was driven to retirement under the Obama Administration when Charles Bolden was NASA Administrator.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013…
“But those activities, going well beyond the usual role of government scientists, had raised eyebrows at NASA headquarters in Washington. “It was becoming clear that there were people in NASA who would be much happier if the ‘sideshow’ would exit,” Dr. Hansen said in an e-mail.”
That kinda counters the arguments that its only this Administrator that is hostile to climate researchers 🙂
I think Earth Sciences is under SMD, so most NASA work on climate science occurs under an NRA omnibus solicitation, which can (and does) includes academics as well as NASA CS/SSC. You can see some of them at: https://climate.nasa.gov/ab…
Try Google bro
Right on I agree 100%!
Last I knew it was NASA that designed specced, provided and launched and checked out in orbit the satellites that NOAA inherits going forward.
Which, one supposes, puts a lower bound on what you “last knew”.
Pay attention . The latest and most technically rich geostationary weather/climate sat is GOES-R , also known as GOES 16 , launched last November. It was developed by NASA who contracted with ULA to launch it, and NASA did the preliminary orbital checkout before phasing in NOAA to take over full management of the satellite later this November. GOES-16 was, is , and will be operated by NASA’s Goddard SFC.
I don’t get this he seems better qualified than Bolden !!
What’s scary is the facts: 3.5 to 9 degrees F and 1 to 8 ft of global mean sea level rise, where humans have made substantial contributions since the 1900s, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any century in at least 2,000 yrs.
What’s eerie is ‘qualifications’. Using SLS/Orion for a second hidden agenda? “likely few people in Congress more qualified to lead NASA”. Why add “in Congress”? Recently, EPA Repeals Emissions Rule and EPA silences scientists. House ‘Science’ Committee released their findings in Feb 2017 on a 2015 NOAA paper and falsely claimed “scientists ‘manipulated’ data to fita a ‘politically predetermined answer’ – a month earlier, an independent Study Confirms ground breaking 2015 NOAA finding of faster global warming
Yet, it was 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. Decades of lying and duping the masses.
Bridenstine chose to speak about the lack of warming “Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago” to *millions* that only the sun and ocean change temperatures. Hansen, many others, decades ago, warned of the dangers of climate change due to emissions. Past actions, already done. ‘Science’ committees attacked NOAA scientists for ‘manipulating data’. Who defended them in the past or recently?
Bridenstine had access to the data/science for a decades, THEN – either incorrectly made ‘executive decisions’ based on his own analysis (killed renewable for carbon subsidies), or –
selected the wrong folks for advice, – or lied about the effects which would cost $Ts to support his carbon donors.
IOW – not qualified for an entry level position–‘there is no credible evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations including carbon dioxide affect global climate” -2012. ‘Out of the mouth of babes’. QED.
Along with the entire US congress and Senate who have done nothing for years. Much the same as successive Australian Governments. Seems like he is being held to a standard most could not meet !
Stall and delay allowed the Party of Red to become complicit (poor policies): enabling shuttle derived in exchange for corn, oil, etc subsidies, and other programs that make America stride towards mediocracy and below to cater to their donors, not national interests.
Its unethical at best to classify those who voted for health care for all, to save the planet from greenhouse emissions, to tax the top 1%, to cancel CxP when Ares I could not get off the ground, do not tell lies or half truths 80% of the time, allow Admin appointments to gut the environment/ H.C., and use the nuclear option for a SCOTUS who will support gerrymandered districts+Citizen’s United in exchange for Pro Life. No, not all the same, and denying climate change is unethical and likely illegal–clearly not even close to a ‘standard’.
Yes, he is being blamed for 40 years of bad government policy on energy starting with the Carter Administration. Also don’t forget the environmentalists of the 1970’s who opposed building nuclear power plants. If those plants had been built the C02 level today would be much lower. Same for the Australians who were and are even more opposed to nuclear power.
The good news is that CO2 emissions have been flat for the last three years. But folks will probably attack Rep. Bridenstine if he dares to mention it.
http://www.iea.org/newsroom…
IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016
17 March 2017
“Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.”
The IEA, located in Paris, was founded in 1974 by the OECD to coordinate global energy policy.
https://www.iea.org/about/o…
Not all environmentalists oppose nuclear power. I don’t. But I’ve yet to see the Trump Administration put the necessary funding into upgrading WIPP, which has the proper geology for long-term storage, into an operational nuclear waste processing facility. Instead they are talking about re-activating Yucca Mountain, which is not geologically suitable.
Yeah – what would a former Marine Commanding General at Miramar who was awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross and who flew and commanded Shuttle missions before serving in senior positions at NASA know about being NASA Administrator? Much better to have a reserve pilot who ran a museum before running for Congress. Bridenstine is a good choice but that comparative statement is absurd.
NASA is responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research. Climate science is not the primary reason for NASA and besides this research should be conducted by NOAA. NOAA stands for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
From NOAA’s official web site:
NOAA’s Mission: Science, Service and Stewardship
1. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts;
2. To share that knowledge and information with others; and
3. To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
Did you even bother to read National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended) its online here https://history.nasa.gov/sp…
“(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;”
So should we get rid of NOAA then?
Huh? Lets get rid of NSF because they fund astronomy and planetary science (NASA is suppoesd to do that, right) and genomics (NIH is supposed to do that right?) and physics (NIST). Oh wait NSF funds polar research just like NOAA, NASA, USGS, DOA, DOD, fund.
Seems logical in these days of austere funding that we focus to avoid duplicitous funding and try to assign one particular agency specific tasks that aren’t also being done by another agency. Looks like a need for agency restructuring among all those you just mentioned.
On a related note, I find it pretty funny how you always complain about the dueling redundant NASA mission websites. Most recent rant: http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
Yea and it goes to show you that moving everything to one agency does not really affect stove piping and overlaps. The agencies have been coordinating research for years. If you are so smart then why don’t YOU come here to DC and rearrange all of the agency overlaps to reduce redundancy. Then watch how many years it takes to move contracts, programs, personnel and what the final cost of moving everything from one zip code to another is. It has been studied to death. Oh yes – look at how the consolidation of DHS is going 16 years after 9-11. By your logic only on university should do all Mars research.
Huh! I bet Jared could do it.
Oh yes you are in the comment penalty zone for trolling and pissing off the owner of this website.
It would be ideal if the US had a single department of science and technology, but we do not. Each agency has particular areas of research experience and particular facilities, and they do communicate regarding research. NASA has more experience developing spacecraf and space-born instruments, while NOAA has far more surface instruments. The data is shared. That said, I would not be bothered if the Trump Administration wanted to transfer the NASA funding for climate science to NOAA climate science. But I have seen no indication that this is the case. Proposals from Mr. Posey and others in Congress to terminate NASA climate research simply terminate the funding or transfer it to other programs, preferably in their districts.
My concern is Bridenstine, member of Freedom Caucus, will be like the other Trump appointees that want “smaller government” by reducing staff and programs, except large programs that benefit lobbyists but not necessarily provide benefit to the American people. Then issue of climate change which has become a political wedge like gun control.
Someone called me saying he has proof about that face on Mars and NASA is keeping it a secret, he claims to have 100 more photographs of what it really is. I replied if looking for conspiracies, look at various programs of why this country struggles to regain ability to put people into space.
1) Keith, I think it’s interesting that there is such a broad spectrum between one moderate Democrat who knows and has worked with Bridenstine and a very liberal organization that is raising money from attacking Bridenstine. The implication is that everyone to the right of Perlmutter is pro-Bridenstine. Which would be a significant majority of the political spectrum.
2) Yes, NASA’s mission includes Earth Science. But Climate Policy is made more by NOAA, and EPA, etc… not NASA. Climate science is not NASA’s primary mission, nor is the majority of federal Climate study done by NASA. But NASA has that magical aura of credibility and super-intelligence that is a mental proxy for “science and technology” in most American’s minds. So people just assume that NASA is in charge.
3) I wish people would stop quoting Bridenstine from 2011 and start quoting him from 2017, in particular, what he says at his confirmation hearing in a few weeks. But fundraising requires a controversy. Lot of climate advocacy mouths to feed.
WRT 1.) Bridenstine’s past comments on climate change are what they are. But you also have to factor in what he did to represent his constituency (ultra conservative midwest) Vs what he’s going to do in leading NASA. I am already seeing a pivot toward a more balanced stance. He has openly stated that he sees climate change happening with his own eyes. I have heard many times that Bridenstine knows what he does not know and is not at all hesitant to seek out advice. He will soon lead an agency with some of the smartest people on Earth. If he is smart (he is) he will seek out their counsel and inform his policies accordingly. 2. Earth science and climate science are fundamentally linked. NOAA, NASA, NSF, EPA, USGS, DOD all study these things from their own angle of expertise and charter and, by far, the earth science/climate community manages to minimize overlaps and stimulate synergies. Earth is a planet too, Jim. NASA studies climate on all of the worlds in our solar system (and others) that have it. Not to include Earth would be contrary to the agency’s charter and its study of other worlds. Earth is the consummate ground truth for planetary research. 3.) Bridenstine has been silent for a while – he has to be since he is in nomination limbo – so there’s not much that can be done except quote from the record because (again) he said what he said. And until his confirmation hearing starts that is all that we have to go by.
I agree; his position on climate may just be a matter of what his constituents want. If we as the “constituents” of NASA can keep climate change highly visible as a serious scientific issue, he may well go along with that.
That’s an awful lot of slack you are cutting the Congressman.
I think there are members of Congress who have actual philosophical positions, but most just say whatever they think will get them votes, and that may be the case here.
Yes, he has become a pawn in the 2018 elections, with the Democrats looking to use him for fund rising.
I posted it yesterday.