Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[RyanT]

@Caveeagle, did you read the paper you posted the link to from Forbes? Here's an excerpt from the actual paper describing the "majority of scientists" that were surveyed.

"How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?"

"To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy.

The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role."

I would hardly call a survey of petroleum engineers in Canada, the "majority of scientists"

 

[Colliam7]

@drrich2In science agencies (NASA, USDA, NIH, etc.), the head typically has some serious science background along the way somewhere. Although the appointees sometimes diverge their careers into politics, historically, they have all at least started out as scientists.

No, not at all true for NASA! You probably should look at the history of the agency - specifically the list of administrators - and you will find that 'serious science background' is actually less common than backgrounds in management, and in the military. In NASA's early 'heyday', in the 60s when the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs took us to the moon, NASA was headed by James Webb, a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in administration. James Beggs, NASA Administrator from 1981-1985, was a naval officer with a graduate degree in business. Sean O'Keefe, administrator from 2001-2005, had an undergraduate BA, and a graduate degree in business. Charles Bolden, 2009-2017, was a Marine officer and pilot. Jim Bridenstine, the proposed administrator, was a naval officer and pilot. Unfortunately, some posts in this thread - specifically including the OP - offer good examples of how misinformation is spread.

 

[RyanT]

@Colliam7, thanks for the lesson, I appreciate it! I did say "typically" but later in the thread said "all." Mistake on my part. In some of the other agencies, the heads are typically scientists at some point in their career, but it appears that NASA is a bit different.

 

[chrisch]

...
It is a sign of your own weakness when you resort to personal attacks and ugliness.

I agree, but it appears to be you that has taken that resort. I did not identify you or any other forum member in my post. Humans contribute to climate change and that is a scientific fact. Arguing otherwise is like trying to deny gravity. I can only assume that people who try to continue to pretend otherwise do not care about the future and ergo their descendants - I have no idea if that includes you or not and so that is not targeted at you at all. We know the oil industry lies about it, just as the tobacco industry lied about cancer and nicotine addiction. However, at least those people (the tobacco lobby) had the opportunity to kill other people and protect themselves. Failure to address the known stimulant of climate change - burning fossil fuel to produce fossil CO2 - will kill everyone.

Even assuming the effects are reversible (let us hope so) the cost of that reversal is many many many orders of magnitude greater than the simple measures to limit or eliminate altogether the contribution made by fossil CO2. Again - this is a financial cost that will be borne by future generations.

Right now there is a massive business opportunity presented by renewable energy. This could provide wealth and jobs for the industrialised world. Mr Trump's desire to place the US at the head of the queue (line out) for jobs and prosperity is fully understandable, but it is the Chinese and the communist party of China that lead the world in renewable energy and will reap the financial and employment benefits that this will bring. Here in the UK we have massive opportunity to harvest wind and tidal power but the government wishes to pursue fracking in order to prolong the use of fossil fuels and introduce this inefficient and idiotic technology. I can only surmise for the same reasons as in the US - failure of our (and the US) economy leading to a massive balance of payments deficit. Getting fuel by the most stupid method ever invented at least stops the money going overseas.

As divers we enjoy the marine environment. This is the first environment that is paying the price of our lifestyles and our lack of regard for future generations. CO2 and climate change is a part of it but also over fishing and pollution are massive features of our modern life. As divers we should be at the forefront of the argument to stop further harm to that which we enjoy. I am sorry if that has offended you in some way - that was not the intent. I simply point out that the future is for our children to enjoy or for them to suffer - we make that choice for them.

 

[Caveeagle]

those that do not care about their children.

The guy is a shoo in for the Trump administration.

So anyone who disagrees with you "does not care about their children".. that would include me.

I did not identify you or any other forum member in my post. Humans contribute to climate change and that is a scientific fact. Arguing otherwise is like trying to deny gravity.

That's just a ridiculous comment. I am actually in the middle on this issue. I recognize the possibility of man-made impact, but also see tons of inconsistency and omission of other facts. So called "experts" predicted we would all be under water by 2015! And the extent and conditions keep changing.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are no shortage of respected scientists who have a conflicting perspective on this. One only needs to keep an open mind and listen to both sides of the debate. Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, Noam Chomsky and Freeman Dyson all have some very interesting things to say that make be believe this is far from "settled science".

I would ask some here: are you willing to keep an open mind and at least consider that "man made" co2 emissions is not the overwhelming cause of climate change? Are you willing to allow a little scientific skepticism and listen to some respected scientist who disagree with you?

If not.. Why is that?

 

[StefinSB]

@Caveeagle, did you read the paper you posted the link to from Forbes? Here's an excerpt from the actual paper describing the "majority of scientists" that were surveyed.

"How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?"

"To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy.

The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role."

I would hardly call a survey of petroleum engineers in Canada, the "majority of scientists"

And that is the modus operandus of people like CE. They throw out a "scientific publication", claim it proves their point, and hope that nobody reads it.

 

[JVos]

Everybody is forgetting that UN scientists were caught modifying the data to show that there is climate change...

 

[J322Y]

I have to consider the opinions of one of the founders of Greenpeace, and the founder of the Weather Channel:

 

[chrisch]

...
I would ask some here: are you willing to keep an open mind and at least consider that "man made" co2 emissions is not the overwhelming cause of climate change? Are you willing to allow a little scientific skepticism and listen to some respected scientist who disagree with you?

If not.. Why is that?

The primary reason is there are no respected scientists that do not accept human activities are a major driver of global warming. There are scientists telling lies about it but they are not respected.

The climate is changing beyond it's natural cycles as a result of many things. Man-made CO2 is just a part of the bigger picture. Other greenhouse gasses such as methane are important as well. Methane has a greater effect than CO2 but the warming we are experiencing is causing frozen areas such as Siberia to start emitting methane as a feedback loop. This allows some people who want to pretend it is nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry to suggest that the man-made CO2 is not the problem, but it is.

Other man-made activities such as the deforestation of large parts of the world also contribute to climate change. Killing billions of trees creates a small amount of CO2 in the short term but removes a carbon sink that makes worse the small amount of increased CO2 as the forests now fail to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

It is, therefore a gross oversimplification to concentrate on just CO2 emission. Renewable biofuels emit CO2 when they are burnt for example. However, such fuels are created by biomass that then re-absorbs the CO2 thus giving no overall increase in atmospheric CO2. Vegetable based oils can be substituted for fossil mineral oil as a source for automotive fuel very easily. Modern diesel engines will burn vegetable oil and so the technology exists to reduce fossil oil dependency dramatically within a very very short period of time. Oil from corn or canola is cheaper than mineral oil.

In short there are many solutions to the current situation which do not require us to turn back living standards to the 18th century. The European obsession with electric vehicles that is now being taken up by China is not a response to global warming but a response to the choking pollution that is killing our citizens who choose to live in big cities. Nonetheless it seems to be the talking point of those who deny the rather obvious changes to our climate and more recently the weather patterns - notably in the Caribbean basin.

The lies continue simply because so much money is represented by the fossil fuel industry. This industry has missed the opportunity to transform itself into a wider energy industry and to exploit the (substantial) financial gain to be made from renewable energy sources. In part this is because the share price of oil companies reflect their reserves and so financial activity finding (and claiming) new oilfields leads to increased share price irrespective of whether or not the new finds are drilled. In turn this money flows into the political class and into the lobby groups and fraudsters who sponsor the fake science to pretend fossil fuels are not the problem. The gullible find solace in such "fake news" and dishonest science as a means to overcome their guilt that they might be harming their children.

Actually - when you get down to it - the solutions are simple enough and bring with them new business opportunities and whole new industries that can build meaningful jobs and prosperity to millions of people. I don't know about you but I personally like the idea of being prosperous and having new opportunities to make life better. I was raised to believe that is pretty much the goal of life and to leave a better world than the one you found. I find it hard to understand therefore why we - all of us - cling to our fossil fuel addiction like a comforter. I can only surmise that taking this resource away from the next generation by burning the raw materials to make so many products is an act of deliberate spite towards the children we pretend to love.

That's why not.

 

[flizzy]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?

I guess I should apologize in advance for interrupting folks piping into the echo chamber of their own "beleifs"

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?

I guess I should apologize in advance for interrupting folks piping into the echo chamber of their own "beleifs"

If you read that first link you will see that it has no evidence that a majority of scientists are sceptical of global warming. It was based on a survey of geoscientists and engineers (most of the latter wouldn't be academic scientist) working in Alberta, where the vast majority will be working in the oil industry.
The fact that even of this sub group 36% believed in harmful anthropogenic climate change, leaving only 64% for the remaining four belief categories that they split people into, in my mind is actually evidence that the majority of scientists do believe in anthropogenic climate change.