NASA Stands Its Ground On Climate Change Science
Emails: Trump official pressed NASA on climate science, AP
“Once a skeptic about climate change, Jim Bridenstine came around to the prevailing view of scientists before he took over as NASA administrator. That evolution did not sit well with a Trump environmental adviser, nor a think-tank analyst he was consulting, according to newly disclosed emails that illustrate how skepticism of global warming has found a beachhead in the Trump White House. “Puzzling,” said the May 2018 exchange between William Happer, now a member of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, and Thomas Wysmuller of the Heartland Institute, which disavows manmade climate change. Their exchange calls scientifically established rises in sea levels and temperatures under climate change “part of the nonsense” and urges the NASA head – who was copied in – to “systematically sidestep it.” It cannot be discerned whether it was Happer or Wysmuller who put that pressure on the new NASA chief. Their exchange is included in emails from 2018 and 2019 that were obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund under the federal Freedom of Information Act and provided to The Associated Press.” …
… “We provide the data that informs policymakers around the world,” spokesman Bob Jacobs said. “Our science information continues to be published publicly as it always has.” Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email that NASA’s public characterization of climate change as man-made and a global threat “is a disservice to taxpayers and science that it is still pushed by NASA.”
I would suggest everyone read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ before jumping on the climate change bandwagon. Although the book is about the Mann MBH98 paper of twenty years ago, it highlights the sloppy science that underlies the climate change theory. Just the basic ideas of how proxy data are used is enough to cause any first year science major to shudder.
So, because there were errors in the research, let’s let the Earth fall?
I’m fairly sure the Earth will be just fine. We might not be. A bunch of other species might not be. But worse things have happened to live on Earth, and it’s always recovered.
But the problem with errors in research is that they hurt credibility. And I know some very overblown things have been said about the accuracy and precision of numerical models. And I know some people are a bit fast and loose with error bars and the statistical significance of results. I also know that’s not representative of a majority of the work on climate change. And most of the exaggerations are in the press reporting, and perhaps the press releases by the scientists, not in the content of the papers. But that sort of thing does make the whole field look bad, and makes it easy for people to point to the flaws and dismiss the whole thing.
“I’m fairly sure the Earth will be just fine. We might not be. ” This is the fundamental mistake for those who deny climate change. Not only should the extinction of species be avoided, but the disadvantage of any kind of man, because we do not want our grandchildren to have a little warmth. Because we are not beasts.
For geologists this makes perfect sense given that life is just an infestation of a perfectly nice rock.
And I don’t agree that the aforementioned statement is a “fundamental mistake” by deniers, because deniers fundamentally deny that humans are the cause of anything bad, not that the Earth will be fine. And actually humans are just animals (e.g., beasts or other synonym). The rock itself will be just fine right up to the point it is swallowed up the our Sun going red-giant. Life as we humans have known it for 200,000+ years will not be all right. It will adapt and survive as best it can just like it did 65 million years ago.
Actually, I was thinking of more than the rocks. Maybe I should have said “life on Earth” will survive anything we can do to the planet. The last mass extinction was, ultimately, a very good thing for mammals. And there are species which will survive the next mass extinction. I really believe there are some species which just can’t be killed off (kudzu, for example.) Those species might evolve into something interesting, given the chance (ok, not kudzu…)
However, if we prevent our grandchildren from feeling little uncomfortable only then we will have the right to spend time with philosophical arguments.
Both the book and your understanding of the use of proxy data in the construction of the “hockey stick” are 100% nonsense, as demonstrated clearly by people who actually know what they’re talking about: http://www.realclimate.org/…
What exactly are you poking your stick at?
Standing on the sidelines while tossing hit and run grenades (“enough to cause…shudder”) isn’t visibly helpful.
Angry but not surprised, of course. And wondering if NASA will now be forced into line, with the discipline or replacement of staff who refuse to conform.
The Administrator’s transition represents something infrequently seen, namely the ability to publicly revise previously stated views.
In this case, revision exposes the Administrator to a fair amount of unpleasentness, particularly from the Tweeter in Chief. This revision should be taken for what it is: evidence of an actual backbone. It’s likely that many in DC will not recognize it, infrequently as it is seen.
Some argue the tweeter in chief is not a reliable source…
https://uploads.disquscdn.c… S
Given that he’s a Republican appointed by Trump, I’ve been happy with Bridenstine.
Nowhere in the article did it say that Bridenstine had rejected attempts to suppress climate change research and information. I think he’s a closeted climate change denier, despite what he said at his confirmation hearings.
You “think”? Based on what “guest”?
Lack of action — it’s all been just talk until now (and primarily at his confirmation hearing). I can believe he thinks climate change is real, just not man-made climate change.
Lack of action can be a good thing. I’ve seen relatively few reports of climate research being limited within NASA. Certainly vastly fewer than I’ve seen about action at other government agencies. Is Mr. Bridenstine actively campaigning for things like the Paris Agreement? No. But it isn’t clear to me that’s something a NASA Administrator should do. Especially not when it contradicts administration policy.
Too bad we don’t have a “Crimes against life on Earth” or at least a “Crimes against humanity” clause in our judicial code; and one with the highest level of accountability. There are many out there in positions of power and influence that must be held accountable for complicity in the destruction of the planet.
Let the show trials commence!
Yes, show trials, because few who have held power are ever held accountable for their actions.
Catastrophism is not science, it is politics with a veneer of science. It is Scientism, not science.
I suspect that twenty years from now Global Warming Catastrophism will be regarded as an institutional failure, comparable to how we remember the 20th Century Eugenics movement.
The recognition that humans are altering the climate in ways that are inimical to civilization is not “catastrophism.” It is a recognition of reality. To doubt it is as perverse as doubting the Moon landings or evolution.
Suggested remedial education – start with the basics of the scientific process, data collection and analysis, then move on to thermodynamics, and after that we will move on to planetary sciences, including the atmospheric and environmental sciences, geology and ecology.
Then we will move on to the basics of human psychology; because just because you are human does not mean you understand human behavior or thought processes – not even your own.
And, in the mean time I suggest not posting anything until you really understand the subject and can prove your assertions.
Reordered reading assignment:
https://www.psychologytoday…
While the media-favorite-worst-case IPCC RCP 8.5 is surely overstated (it assumes unconstrained coal burning in a “return to coal” that contradicts almost all markets), natural sequestrations and unnatural emissions have been tracked and mostly accounted for, and there’s no question from isotopes that humanity has released the Gts of carbon and soon methane to reach RCP 4.5 by 2100 (http://skepticalscience.com…” overviews the RCPs.) Apparently the upcoming IPCC update will de-emphasize RCP 8.5, independent of Prof. Happer’s concerns about how to improve wickedly complicated QM approximations of the pressure-broadened CO_2 absorption spectrum. Having climate “skeptics” highlight and bound uncertainties in a bona fide debate will be useful if it then unlocks funding for clarification by expert peers.