The Politicization Of Climate Science At NOAA Is Underway
Trump White House recruited climate science critics to work at NOAA, Science
“At least three prominent researchers who question the severity of climate change rebuffed the opportunity to take a senior position at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The White House has been quietly working in recent weeks to reshape the leadership of NOAA with a goal of criticizing climate science, according to people who were contacted about the job. The revelation that administration officials approached multiple researchers with long records of casting doubt on human-caused climate change points to a political campaign to undermine mainstream science at one of the world’s leading climate agencies, experts and observers said. After the initial candidates declined the position, the White House turned to David Legates, a geography professor at the University of Delaware who rejects the basic principles of climate science. Legates, now the deputy assistant secretly for observation and prediction at NOAA, has claimed that rising carbon dioxide levels would make the earth more hospitable to humans. John Christy, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, told E&E News that a White House official promised him he would be given a free hand to change the way NOAA approaches climate research.”
White House recommends Ryan Maue, meteorologist and critic of dire climate predictions, for NOAA chief scientist, Washington Post
“The White House has tapped Ryan Maue, a meteorologist who has challenged connections between extreme weather and climate change, to serve as the new chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Two NOAA officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the personnel move, confirmed the appointment is in progress.”
Keith’s note: Meanwhile, the CDC deleted some COVID-19 guidance it posted online regarding airborne transmission and social distancing revisions – because it was accurate. Oops. How did that happen? Oh and then there is this: NIH staffer to retire after he was exposed as the blogger behind anti-Fauci, anti-mask stories. Thus far NASA has more or less escaped the politicalization of Earth and climate science but that cannot go on forever.
So someone who criticizes Climate Change, who challenges the “orthodoxy” of Climate Change, is automatically a “denier” ?
From Sciencemag.org … “Ryan Maue acknowledges that humans contribute to climate change, but he is a frequent critic of those who push for more aggressive climate policy.”
Critics force us to look at our assumptions and to reevaluate our conclusions. Without past critics, like Copernicus (and others), we’d probably still have a geocentric solar system.
Stop with the pseudo-philosophic BS. It’s 2020. If you don’t see the reality of anthropogenic climate change by now you are either brain dead or morally corrupt. In neither case is there any rational argument that will change your mind.
So what experiments have proven that CO2 instead of say cities built by humans or undersea volcanoes have caused the observed climate change?
Go on YouTube and watch the documentary “Manufacturing Consent”. It’s called the ‘denial-for-hire’ industry.
Copernicus actually did science, he did not criticize AND want to shut down astronomy. Deniers want to shut down climate science, not just criticize it.
You seem to be generalizing things. Is someone that hasn’t seen the evidence that supports the claims and wants more evidence and experiments a denier?
More likely that person simply hasn’t been paying attention.
Science deals with facts, and facts are a danger if you want to tell stories that fit a certain political narrative.
For the longest time it was a fact that the sun circled the earth.
For the longest time it was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe.
For the longest time it was a fact that Newton was Right, until a pest queried the idea and proved that Newton’s laws are an approximation and changed our understanding.
Facts change over time.
In addition General Relativity is also being questioned because it doesn’t work with at the quantum level.
Newton was right, just not in certain regimes.
If you’ve got evidence that AGW is not happening, you should present said evidence. As it stands the scientific consensus is that AGW is real and independent of political ideology.
I never said AGW is or isn’t happening.
I observed that because Ryan Maue criticizes some aspects of AGW (without “denying” it) he is labelled a “denier” … which I thought unjustified.
Technically, Newton was wrong in all regimes. And things like special relativity work in the classical regime. It’s just that the difference is so small it’s usually unmeasurable, and since Newton’s laws are simpler and easier to use, most people ignore the tiny error involved in using them.
The same thing could probably be said of natural versus anthropomorphic climate change. I’ve never seen any proof that climate change is 100% anthropomorphic, and given the uncertainties in the data and the modeling, I’m not sure if it’s possible to show that it is. I’ve seen work on carbon isotope abundances which shows most (over 90% if memory serves) in the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels. But if the difference between _all_ climate change being anthropomorphic and 95% of it being so, I’m not sure the distinction is too significant.
One can interpret your comment a couple of different ways:
1 – The climate doomsayers have a political agenda.
2 – The so called climate deniers have a political agenda.
Which do you mean?
Is English a second language for you?
Yep.
Oh, Maue is a denier all right, being put in NOAA to go
further, to be an obstructionist in one of the last federal agencies that’s been able to hold out against this administrations assault on climate science, and science in general. Some of the threads here think being critical is also
science, and that much is so, but that only applies to being constructively critical in the scientific process. Shutting down science is not being critical. You can’t argue you are merely scientifically critical when you want to cut the funding to do the science, gag order the scientists, cancel the satellites, and reverse what actions we already began, like improved fuel economy standards.
I love the wholly flawed sophomoric Newton analogies,
because oh yes, among the scientists who would challenge that prior understanding of Newton were critics who wanted to shut down physics! No, that’s not what was critical in science back then, nor is it now.
If you want to see a human caused climate change denier
under the light, instead of behind some moronic arguments, ask what they would do, actually do, like (1) investing in ever cleaner energy technology, (2) adding resources to the study of human caused climate change, (3) funding analysis of
how life as we know it will be affected by climate change, (4) closing the last coal plants faster, or (5) encouraging more effective, coordinated international action – and you will hear…crickets.
So, for any of the “critical” scientists here who feel that
being critical of climate change science is being labeled a denier without cause, please list some things you would do with what we know now about the havoc we are wrecking on our environment.
Denying anthropogenic origins to climate change is not denying climate change. Do you think the RNC and Trump would deny climate change if it were not presumed to be anthropogenic (i.e instead, having origins other than human activity).
This Administration denies science on a daily basis, so yes.
So I pose that question for a reason; and I agree with you. It would not matter if it were anthropogenic or not. But not because its “science denial”. Its something else. Irrespective of cause, change that requires the government to act on behalf of the society (eg climate change, CoVId19, BLM, forest fires, migration challenges, foreign relations, et al) seems to be rejected by this Administration. Because to take action implies responsibility? Or because its expensive? Exactly why put a climate denier in charge of NOAA? It seems that its about a blunt dogma of (1) libertarianism and (2) privatization.
How. you can bring BLM and foreign relations into a post about climate change and science is baffling.
Well, the _other_ BLM (the US government’s Bureau of Land Management) would make some sense in the context. They’re responsible for a huge amount of land in the western United States. So forest fires, land management and climate change are related to _that_ BLM and who is appointed to run it.
The US Administration does not deny science on a Dailey basis , and not all scientists believe in manmade climate change , we have had climate change on this planet for millions of years , and we also have climate change on other Planets is that caused by man made climate change ?
Your silly post speaks for itself.
Given work on carbon isotope ratios, I’d have trouble believing there were credible scientists who doubt there is a sizable anthropogenic role. They’ve basically carbon-14 dated the age of the increased carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The extra carbon dioxide has basically no carbon-14 in it, which means it came from _something_ which hasn’t been exchanging carbon with the atmosphere for a long time. Things like oil, coal, and natural gas. That’s pretty glaring evidence that there is something very anthropogenic about increased carbon dioxide levels. And, therefore, something anthropogenic about the climate change we are currently experiencing.
Is called the Suess effect.
The proposed fix is to reduce CO2 production. With the shutdowns in COVID19, pollution was seen to have been greatly reduced, but I have seen no reductions in daily CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Why? Perhaps the majority of CO2 generation is not from humans?
Yes, because it is all about the energy lobby’s money to them; science is an inconvenient truth to be avoided.
I am very disappointed with the tack this thread has taken.
Science is about questioning and proving. If the science cannot tolerate questioning, well, we might as well turn back the clock about 600 years and burn questioners (not “deniers”) at the stake for the witches they be.
I did not state any opinion about AGW, yet I’m attacked as if I did. I only stated that labelling a critic “denier” is not, IMHO, justified. I don’t know Ryan, we haven’t met, and the quick research I did seemed to show that he acknowledges AGW, which I think is the acid test for “denier” status.
I wonder what Voltaire would make of this ?
This attack on Ryan is appalling. He was one of the most academically competent recent PhDs from FSU. His twitter feed is a must-check-regularly site for any of us who are actually qualified in atmospheric physics especially during hurricane season.
Since you do not use your real name it is impossible to verify the claim you make about yourself i.e. “for any of us who are actually qualified in atmospheric physics especially during hurricane season.” Have a nice day.
I’m a professor of Space and Earth Sciences at a Florida university who also worked for years at JSC. Your ad hominem attacks on Ryan are appalling. FSU is the top group for hurricane research in the US.
You claim to be a professor but you won’t bother to use your name. Unless it is “Jax to Space”. Anyone can claim to be anything in a blog comment section.
As for the nominee Science notes “Last year, Maue told E&E News that he agreed with Michaels’ concept of “lukewarming,” which rejects dire predictions of global warming. “Lukewarming is not climate denial,” Maue said, adding, “Most of us on this side of the issue believe in lower climate sensitivity. We don’t believe there’s going to be 5° of warming; we figure it’s at the lower end of 1.5°.” The vast majority of climate scientists believe the world could warm 1.5°C above preindustrial levels within the next two decades and accelerate through the end of the century, with some estimates placing warming above 5°C. See https://www.sciencemag.org/…
While climate change alarmists may call someone a denier, others may call that person a realist. The situation is, in my opinion, that climate modeling is in its infancy, and at this point cannot predict future warming that agrees with satellite data. Reasons for this include inadequate computer speed and poor understanding of the physics. Until climate theory agrees with theory, consensus or not, the quality of climate science is too poor to rely on, and therefore should not be used as a basis for government policy.
Meanwhile the oceans rise, the forests burn … while you wait for climate modeling to mature. Are you a climate modeler? If not then how do you know the state of its maturity?
I have an aerospace doctorate with 175 publications and am familiar with scientific papers. A good summary of the state of climate modeling is on the website of the Princeton Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, discussing the results and limitations of climate modeling.
But you have no actual expertise in climate modeling, correct?
Neither do you or most people. Having a technical background allows many to understand and question theories in other technical subjects.
Oceans have been rising for centuries. Where have you seen an increase in the global rise in sea level?
Meanwhile a friend has had to go back to Santa Rosa for past two years (or more) to help his mom evacuate approaching fire. It wasn’t that long ago nobody thought a small city would be under siege. There’s talk about Northern Passage and Russians grumbling about territorial waters in Arctic Ocean. Before nobody gave that area much thought because it was always solid ice.
Policies recommended to counteract AGW have benefits far from the primary goal. There’s huge benefit socially moving to alternate energy sources and electric cars, for instance.
The phrase “fiddling while Rome burns” comes to mind. We don’t have time to quibble about how FAST this is going to happen. Ask any teenager if they think we should putter about debating this, or get down to some serious work yesterday.
So when would you have policy? Leaving the party soon, so not worried about someone else having to clean up?
Ryan Maue’s problem is our problem. Irrespective of climate science talent and administrative smarts, he is a White House appointee at a time when the White House has a dogma to ram down the country’s throat and an agenda to dismantle government’s federal stewardship role. Maue now owes Trump and Trump gives no quarter to internal opposition: promote his agenda or get fired. Maues is in a conflict of interest by definition, discrediting his leadership before it begins.
As for the idea that the Administration denies science as a matter of principle. That’s rhetorical and not useful to the conversation. It’s not science that’s the issue, its science that does not support the President’s agenda. Maue is a scientist. If the issue was science per se, then appoint lawyers to run NOAA, Nasa, EPA, CDC, NNSA, DOE, etc. Even Rick Perry has a degree in science.
Your statement about chronic science denial by the Trump Administration being “not useful to the conversation” is pointless. They do it. It affects the conduct of science and this undermines the public’s confidence in science. Your suggestion about appointing lawyers is just trolling. You have made your point, “private citizen”. Troll elsewhere. Have a nice day.