Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[chrisch]

I was just replying to another member who thought the study was about the science of climate change, and not the scientists themselves, which it was was, even as inadequate as they may seem to you.

With great respect to engineers they are not scientists. Therefore 84% of respondents should not have been asked in the first place. (My nephew is an engineer it is a great profession) The study is worthless.

 

[Storker]

I was just replying to another member who thought the study was about the science of climate change, and not the scientists themselves, which it was was, even as inadequate as they may seem to you.

And my point was that the "scientists" who were included in the study had no credentials in climate science and weren't qualified in the topic they were opinionating on. And to top it up, there was a conflict of interest. Just like homeopaths and faith healers aren't qualified to opinionate on cancer treatment and have a conflict of interest.

Or, IOW:

The study is worthless.

 

[diver0008]

With great respect to engineers they are not scientists. Therefore 84% of respondents should not have been asked in the first place. (My nephew is an engineer it is a great profession) The study is worthless.

They are geoscientists and engineers. And in varying degrees, deniers. I am not trying to defend the study; it is clear in purpose. The whole point, being missed at this point I am going to assume, intentionally, is that there is doubt and skepticism all over. In insignificant schmucks like me, as well as people with their hands in the earth.

What I did find interesting in the study was the framing; it dealt not only with the existence of the phenomenon but also with the mechanisms and solutions being proposed and implemented

I think most people are on board with the reality of climate change, but I think it's important that we listen and respect the many voices and ideas on the hows and whys moving forward; we all breathe the same air.

 

[chrisch]

...The whole point, being missed at this point I am going to assume, intentionally, is that there is doubt and skepticism all over. ..

No I don't think we had missed that point. It is a known fact that the massive lies propagated by the lobby groups are being internalised by many people who really would like the fiction to be fact. Having internalised the lie a lot of people than find it very hard to accept that the truth contradicts their point of view and then find as many echo chambers as possible to try to prove (to themselves, as no one else believes them) that their viewpoint has some scientific basis. Which it does not.

I wish the lies were true. I like my car and I like my motorcycle. I would like to fly to Truk lagoon with a clear conscience. However as long as all these activities are putting fossil CO2 into the atmosphere they are creating climate change, or anthropogenic global warming if you prefer.

I honestly believe we can turn the corner and that widespread use of renewable energy is not hard to achieve. If we can do that then I can still drive and have a pleasant life and so can everyone else. I want that. Maybe we will have to fly a bit less, but let's hit hard at the waste of flying goods and keep that CO2 just burden for people. Maybe you will have to rent scuba kit rather than take it as luggage. Maybe there will have to be a weight limit on the overall burden - the more you weigh the less luggage you can take. None of these are really heavy handed.

Number one priority is the acceptance it must be done and number two is commencing doing something. The laggard nations (UK, USA, Australia) will have to accept if they continue to drag their feet there will be a financial price to pay from the rest of the world.

 

[Storker]

This is how it looks if a qualified climate scientist tries to replicate the conclusions in articles that claim that climate change isn't anthropogenic

 

[Neophyte//]

Representative Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma is the Trump administration's pick for the next NASA chief. There is opposition from both parties, who point out that Bridenstine not only doesn’t believe in humans contributing to climate change, but he has no scientific background. Opponents worry that he will slash funding for climate change studies, since he sponsored a bill in the past that would have cut funding for NOAA’s climate studies.

Read more here (story #2).

What's your opinion of the pick for next NASA chief?

View attachment 426167

Science is really all about skepticism. Declaring that the "Debate is over" is not a scientific method. The debate is never "over", if that was the case, the world would still be flat, the sun would still revolve around the Earth, and earth, wind, fire and water would still be considered the base elements . When the "Human Causes Climate Change" becomes a belief unwilling to accept critique, it's no more or less valid than a religion. The only difference between the scientific community today than that of Copernicus' time, is that we don't burn non-believers at the stake (poor Bruno), although we still pillory them in the square of public opinion.

 

[seaseadee]

The study was looking into the opinions of scientists themselves on the science, not the science per se. This was clearly stated.

Sometimes when we don't see what we are looking for, we miss the point.

This is a fair point. I quit reading when I realized it wasn't what I was looking for. What I was looking for was actual science that refutes climate change. An analysis of the survey opinions of researchers does not do that. Even if the researchers were scientists working on climate change research instead oil industry researchers, it still is only an analysis of OPINIONS. That doesn't constitute actual climate science research.

 

[RyanT]

Science is really all about skepticism. Declaring that the "Debate is over" is not a scientific method.

Indeed it is. And of course in any discipline that relies on inductive reasoning (pretty much all science outside of mathematics), there is always room for additional inquiry and skepticism. With that said, when tens of thousands of independent studies from different disciplines, conducted over a couple of decades, all continue to point in the same direction, it's a pretty good indication that we got it right. There is no absolute proof that smoking promotes lung cancer. If you dig hard enough, you can even find a few dissenting physicians and studies. I think very few would claim, however, that the link between cancer and smoking is far from settled.

 

[Skeptic14]

I've failed to stay out

If you don't think anthropogenic climate change is true, then read the science directly (multiple independent papers) and decide for your self why the scientists actually got it wrong.

I've done this, and I feel the evidence that the science isn't settled when it comes to anthropogenic climate change comes directly from the lack of accurate climate models. If the science of global climate and climate volatility were truly settled we would have models that made accurate long term predictions, and we don't.

Does this mean that there are no anthropogenic forces? No.

But it does mean we are not currently able to discern anthropogenic and natural perturbations sufficiently in our planets climate to make accurate models.

I hold a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and actively work as a University research scientist. I also have strong backgrounds in chemistry and statistics.

While I think you are sufficiently credentialed to speak intelligently on this topic, being an evolutionary biologist doesn't make you a climatologist.

At least that's the kinda thing I have always heard in past debates when I've linked to physicist or chemist that were skeptics of claims of AGW.

Credentials, diplomas and letters before and after names do matter, but just as important is the content of what a person says.

 

[diver0008]

Indeed it is. And of course in any discipline that relies on inductive reasoning (pretty much all science outside of mathematics), there is always room for additional inquiry and skepticism. With that said, when tens of thousands of independent studies from different disciplines, conducted over a couple of decades, all continue to point in the same direction, it's a pretty good indication that we got it right. There is no absolute proof that smoking promotes lung cancer. If you dig hard enough, you can even find a few dissenting physicians and studies. I think very few would claim, however, that the link between cancer and smoking is far from settled.

I think at this point the debate is more about how much is within our ability to control, and the degree of sacrifice to be made. A lot of so-called deniers don't so much deny climate change itself, but question how much is caused by factors beyond the human ability to control or manage. Many people, like myself, do not see any climate change where they live, even though we hear about it a lot. The CC industry needs to purge the radicals and hire a better PR firm that gets beyond using fear for the future and guilt for the past for acquiescence, and relying on graphs and charts.

When there is abundant (and often hysterical) rhetoric demonizing people who may not have both feet in the pool or are not as vociferous or even concerned about it as it matters in their daily lives, the options for them are to either ignore or push back. The average Joe may be told and even convinced to accept that what many experts are saying is true, but he most probably has more immediate issues in support of his family to contend with, so telling him he that has to make sacrifices for something imperceptible will understandably elicit some resistance, particularly if the people doing the telling fly in private jets, ride in limousines, and write blank cheques.

I think that is what is happenning to a great degree; people don't like being threatened with doom and gloom and being told that they are to blame and must pay, so they get gravitate towards the so-called deniers. CC advocates lump them all together without understanding the nuances of concern or trepidation. They seem to expect everyone to think exactly like them; this is not a reasonable expectation. In anything.

Make it easy on people. Make suggestions on what they can do in their daily lives that can help. And be patient. There are 7 billion people on this planet, all with different and often conflicting interests, abilities, and ideas. Things are not going to change fast. They never do. 80% of humanity still believes in Gods and war and poverty are still with us after millennia. We have a long way to go, and I'm not quite sure we will get there.