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

Official Portrait Of New White House Science Advisor Released

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 7, 2019
Filed under ,
Official Portrait Of New White House Science Advisor Released

Trump’s new science adviser says it’s not his job to correct the president on climate change, Vice
“But in an interview in his brand-new office next to the White House, Droegemeier evaded questions about his own views. He told VICE News he has no opinion on the president’s winter-storm tweets and has no plans to talk to him about them. “The main thing for me is to provide the president with the best science advice possible,” he said. Droegemeier said he does believe climate change is occurring, and that humans play a “significant” role in it. But he ultimately landed on a standard refrain often heard within the Republican Party, arguing that humans aren’t the main culprit. “If you say humans are the cause of climate change, that’s incorrect because climate change is due to humans and natural variability,” he said.”

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

10 responses to “Official Portrait Of New White House Science Advisor Released”

  1. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    It’s interesting how the consensus of climate scientists is very different than Droegemeier’s “analysis”.

    • sunman42 says:
      0
      0

      Meteorologist ≠ climatologist.

      • GentleGiant says:
        0
        0

        That’s true in a trivial sense but, speaking as someone with an undergraduate degree in meteorology and a master’s in climatology, a meteorologist would have to be awfully dumb or, as Keith has pictured him, willfully ignorant, to not understand climate science.

        Droegemeier was a faculty member at Oklahoma for decades. He also sat on the National Science Board for twelve years. In both those capacities he would have been repeatedly exposed to various aspects of climate science, formally through the production of reports, informally by having lunch with visiting faculty, and in many other ways. There is really no wiggle room to say that this guy, a well-connected, well-respected person in the profession, doesn’t understand the basics of climate science.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          In fairness, though, isn’t what he said factually accurate? I mean about his role?

          A lot of people would see this as an opportunity to, perhaps, turn the ship of state ever so slightly in a more useful direction; perhaps that is his thinking.

          He doesn’t characterize the relative weight of human vs. natural factors accounting for climate direction, at least as far as I know. Anyone would know that he couldn’t even get his foot in the door without some sort of statement like he made.

          All in all I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same. Except for the company, that is.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure I completely understand you, but I think the President’s Science Advisor should be more than a passive conduit for passing data on the President. At least, I think that’s been true in the past. Kennedy’s Science Advisor had very strong opinions about Apollo in general and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous in particular. When there are multiple opinions floating around, isn’t an advisor’s job to, well, offer advice?

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I’m not completely sure I understand myself. I suppose this: while I could not agree more strongly regarding the role of science advisor, everyone in the West Wing (from what I’ve read) has had to make certain adjustments, given the nature of our President; this includes the Daily Briefing. Most relevant here, it seems to me, is this: the President’s eduction isn’t very deep, and what’s there is informed largely by a peculiar television network; moreover, he does not appear to be curious, and he relies on his ‘gut’.

            That being the case, for the moment, what’s the approach of the assiduous scientist? First: build credibility with The Boss; and how else to build credibility than by providing congruence with that peculiar television network? Maybe he can’t come out and say that climate change is the result of human fecklessness that buries any sort of natural rhythm. He CAN say, though, what he has said.

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    If you say humans are the cause of climate change, that’s incorrect because climate change is due to humans and natural variability

    Now isn’t that just so handy! And of course it is also true; offering another example for the dictionary seeking examples for the word “disingenuous.” Or “deceptive.”

  3. Fred says:
    0
    0

    Actually I’m surprised Trump even has a science advisor.

  4. Jason Clemons says:
    0
    0

    Jack Marburger was faced with the same conflict working under Bush 43.