Climate Change Deniers Knock Bridenstine For Listening To Actual Scientists
‘Turncoat’ NASA chief Bridenstine says he changed mind about climate change because he ‘read a lot’, Climate Depot
“Another reason why he was quickly captured probably is that he knows nothing about science. In justifying himself, Bridenstine referred to “The Science” as having convinced him. Whenever anybody talks vaguely about “The Science” as his justification for believing in global warming that is a sure sign that he in fact knows nothing about the issues involved. He is just appealing to authority, which is almost always a dumb thing to do.”
Keith’s note: Hilarious. When Jim Bridenstine was nominated to be NASA Administrator he was derided (mostly by people on the left side of the political spectrum) for having no scientific background i.e. anti-science and of being a climate change denier. As Bridenstine talked to actual climate scientists at NASA he became convinced that the scientific basis of human contributions to climate change was real – and said so. Now the political right derides Bridenstine for having no scientific background because he listened to actual scientists.
In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice, New York Times
“There are exceptions to the retreat from science. In April, scientists bristled when Jim Bridenstine, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is not a scientist, took over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. Bridenstine had questioned whether human activity is the primary cause of global warming. But last month Mr. Bridenstine testified before a Senate committee that he had experienced a climate-science conversion. Asked if he believed greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the warming planet, he responded, “Yes.” His own agency, he said, has found it “extremely likely that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, and I have no reason to doubt the science.” Mr. Bridenstine described his views as an “evolution.” Moments like these are not the norm, however.”
Jim Bridenstine has too many years in Congress talking about global warming and climate change being false for me to believe that he has changed due to a few recent words. His past as a congressman still outweighs his present position as a NASA administrator. And then there is also the fact that he chose the radio show of one of the biggest climate deniers in existence as one of his first media appearances as a NASA admin.
Don’t get me wrong, I have an open mind on this, and I am willing to accept that he has changed, I just need a little more evidence.
I agree. And one thing he could do right now to show that this isn’t just talk is to restore the value of NASA’s climate web site:
https://www.theguardian.com…
Or he just doesn’t care either way. This sort of moral flexibility would easily allow him to both deny climate science as a Congressman and embrace the science as the NASA Administrator.
I agree. In my opinion this is not even an issue. As a representative of a conservative district, Bribenstine’s job required he reject climate change or quite possibly be voted out. His current job requires someone who accepts climate change, and he has no problems doing so. What he can do to ensure consistent funding is the real issue.
Bridenstine’s job as a Congressman was to do what he felt was in the best interest of his constituency, not simply accede to their beliefs.
If he truly believed in anthropogenic climate change, then he should have voted his conscience, and if that meant he was voted out of his job in the next election cycle so be it. If, instead, he kept his mouth shut (or, worse yet, parroted the climate change denier’s mantra) simply to keep his job, then he is spineless and doesn’t deserve to be NASA administrator.
Now, if his opinion truly “evolved,” as he states and some people believe, then that is a different issue. But time will tell, as I’ve said before talk is cheap.
I have talked to Bridenstine about this. This is not some sudden conversion but rather the result of nearly a year of talking to a wide range of experts.
Works for me.
An ancillary issue: how do we leave sufficient room for our leaders to evolve without calling them flip-floppers?
There never will be since its too easy for opponents to use against them.
It’s easy when the person who’s being called a flip-flopper doesn’t do anything except talk.
(Hey, here’s something he can change to show he truly means what he says:
https://tinyurl.com/y9b3vzj8
But I won’t be holding my breath.)
In other words, like the well trained Naval Officer he is, he listened to the experts and adjusted his thinking. This is a good sign for tenure as NASA Administrator.
In other words, when he decided to put his name in the hat for the job of NASA Administrator, he pulled his fingers out of his hears and actually listened to the experts. No doubt he heard what he expected to hear.
But as a Republican Congressman, it was his job to keep his fingers firmly in his hears any time an expert started talking about the actual science of climate change. This is morally bankrupt, IMHO, but not unexpected in the least.
and in other news…
https://twitter.com/elonmus…
The difficulties he is having over at Tesla are giving me pause. BFR looks grandiose and exciting, but so did Tesla 5 years ago. I remain optimistic, with a hint of skepticism.
A month or so ago, I read an interesting explanation for the problems Tesla is having and the success (so far) of SpaceX. They are in two very different industries.
Specifically, how much money have automobile companies invested in finding out what customers want, delivering that, and finding ways to do so at the lowest cost (to the manufacturer)? Lots, and for about a century. In contrast, how much have launch vehicle manufacturers spent on those same things? Relatively little (especially when it comes to reducing costs, if they are working on a cost plus contract.)
The author argued that this means it’s easier to get into the business by introducing some innovation and outcompeting a launch service provider. In comparison, trying to break into the auto industry with a new innovation is very hard. Outcompeting ULA or Arianespace is very different from outcompeting Toyota or General Motors.
Yes, unlike NASA, it is the market making the decision and firms in a market driven industry must stay competitive, unlike the launch industry where they knew the government will ensure both major contractors would stay in the business.
While I agree with this, it’s interesting to note that the Tesla Model 3 is outselling all other luxury mid-sized sedans. With the fully optioned cars that they’re producing, this seems to be a valid comparison.
I recently watched the Top Gear review of the Model 3 (they got one for several hours from the dealership in NYC). Even ignoring the electronic gadgetry and the fact that it is an all electric, they were suitably impressed with the Model 3 as a vehicle.
Yes, they need to get their production numbers up because they have a *huge* backlog of orders to fill, but they are selling every single vehicle they make.
Tesla’s car problem has nothing to do with consumer preferences in the slightest. They are building well-regarded cars that folks want to buy., at at huge premiums.
They have already beat Toyota and GM and all of the rest- at least in terms of design engineering.
Tesla has supply-chain and factory floor issues. They are having trouble actually making the cars that demonstrably people want to buy.
Indeed, we can hardly say, “They can’t keep up with demand, therefore it’s are a unwanted product.”
It’s like the old line “No-one goes there anymore because there’s too many people.”
I wasn’t actually commenting on Tesla versus Toyota or GM. I was commenting on the nature of their competition; ULA versus Toyota.
However, I think those supply chain and factory floor problems at Tesla get at the three points I listed.
Delivering what customers want: With their backlog, Tesla is clearly having trouble delivering the product their customers want.
Identifying what customers want: Availability is one of the things many customers want. If it takes a year on a waiting list (or however long) to get a Tesla, some people might buy from Toyota instead.
Doing so at the lowest cost to the manufacturer: I’ve seen a number of stories on Tesla’s financial difficulties, which are attributed to their production problems.
If a more conventional automobile company decided to produce cars with all the same features as a Tesla (all electric and everything else), they probably could have done so more smoothly. They have plenty of experience with getting production and supplies from contractors up and running, how much it will cost (so they can budget for it without financial problems) and worrying about production ramping up to match demand. Since some of those companies are not shifting to all-electric cars, we’ll see. But that’s the sort of thing I meant when I said the car industry was very competitive.
But consider the same issue in the launch vehicle industry. What if ULA suddenly decided to follow SpaceX’ example (not just reusable first stages, but getting away from hydrogen, using simpler, more manufacturable engines, automating many aspects of launch operations, etc.) Do you think they could pull it off? I don’t think they are geared to even think in terms of keeping up with the competition. So that’s one problem SpaceX doesn’t have to worry about.
His heart was never in Tesla, he just got pulled in to protect his investment in the firm. And unlike space launch, it’s a much rougher industry. Just look at the problems Tucker, Kaiser and DeLoren had breaking in. All were smart experienced entrepreneurs as well, but got ground underfoot when they threaten the majors in the industry.
Tesla’s problems have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it’s a ‘rough’ industry, unless you refer to inherent supply chain issues.
They need a guy like Tim Cook – who was, in many ways, as responsible for Apple’s success as Steve Jobs and Jony Ive; he’s a supply chain guru.
Musk is having problems NOT because he threatens the industry majors. He’s having problems because mass producing something like a car is HARD; in a way it’s much harder than building rockets.
His Achilles heel was his hubris in thinking that it was easy. Ironically, it was also his strength (without it he would never have even tried). It’ll be interesting to see if Tesla can survive.
Having read everything I can find either by Mr. Musk or about him, I’ve just never seen anywhere that he underestimates the difficulties present in car making or rocket making.
He consistently, month after month, overestimated the production number for Tesla’s Model 3. Either he underestimated the difficulty in mass producing vehicles, or he was lying to his investors. I assume it wasn’t the latter (although I wouldn’t put that past him either).
(Don’t get me wrong. I admire Musk. And a little hubris in a visionary is not necessarily a bad thing…)
The problem with producting Tesla automobiles appears to be related to using w-a-a-a-y too much automation on the assembly line. Robots. Not so much Elon Musk’s management. Even though robotic assembly is du rigeur in the automotive industry , you still need that human touch , especially with something as complex and elegant as a Tesla, if the end result is quality fit and finish, robust redundant functionality , and safety. Tesla isn’t your grandad’s UAW-driven carmaker. It’s the first of the next , not the latest of the old. A Tesla just looks like a car. We are reinventing the transportation business presently . There will be issues and impediments and a long learning curve to mature. I am amazed that Tesla can come anywhere close to building 3,000 cars per week ! 500 per day , 20 per hour, one every three minutes. As a lifelong Volvo owner/driver I am watching what they are doing alongside Tesla and the other majors. . Volvo is going all-in to all-electric in the coming 3 years. As a matter of fact, they ALL are reinventing the wheel.
And here I thought the only method known to change a mind of anyone appointed to senior management in the Trump administration was an actual brain transplant. Having said that , I invoke my First Commandment of political scruples…. ” Thou shalt not believe what they Say without watching what they Do “
Do you think that our leaders ought to show progress as they learn about a particular subject?
If only. How do you propose we get through to the likes of James Inhofer, Lamar Smith et al. Inf act, here’s a link to an analysis thats ays nearly half of the combined members of the Senate and House could be placed in the Climate Change Deniers camp. Bridenstine shows promise, but he was starting from deep in negative territory. https://motherboard.vice.co…
Actually I was wondering how much leeway we give to people who, like (apparently) the Congressman has.
The term ‘flip flopper’ has been used as a whip in politics.
Take “climate change” to NOAA and let NASA get back to SPACE exploration and utilization.
Have you read NASA’s charter? NASA is supposed to do this – by law.
Glad to see that you consistently reply to that nonsense.
You must have some kind of keyboard shortcut to paste that reply. It is SO tiresome.