Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[RyanT]

And by federal government, I mean the tax payers.

 

[gcarter]

Exactly. So who do you believe? The politicians who want to be re-elected (and who are pandering to corporations worried about their profits) or the scientists? Academic scientists (the ones doing the bulk of the climate change work) get paid the same no matter what they say. If I publish studies showing that climate change is happening, I get paid "x" dollars. If I publish a study showing that climate change is not happening, I get paid the same.

Likewise, if scientists say (don't build in area x, it will increase flooding, as they did in Houston), they get paid "x" dollars. If they say, (have at it, build where you want), they get paid the same. But, if the scientists are ignored, who pays the price? Hint: the homeowners and federal government does.

Although I agree in general, I think you are being overly simplistic and ignoring the fact that ability to secure research grants / funding is also pretty important. That can be quite political. An academic that cannot attract research dollars to their institution due to an unpopular research focus is not exactly the most employable.

 

[StefinSB]

Yes. A world with massive government overreach controlling every aspect of their lives driven by erroneous predictions of climate-driven disaster is the 'on the other hand' argument. Talk of 'carbon credits' (more new taxes!), inflicting onerous and costly new regulations on industry in a country that already has an ever-growing massive deficit and so vast a national debt I cannot imagine anybody credibly expects it will ever be paid, to be managed by the same government that created those problems, severely jeopardized Social Security, and at the local level my state's in a pension crisis from underfunding and other issues to the estimated tune of 30 to 60 something billion dollars.

But the same U.S. federal government that has such an appalling track record of catastrophic mismanagement is going to take over climate management. A government whose highest office is held by someone I imagine some of you consider a nut! I think we should replace the bald eagle with the ouroboros as our national symbol; a serpent or dragon consuming itself tail-first (and ours is getting hungrier all the time).

I get that the threat of massive coastal flooding, sustained elevations in sea levels, etc..., is a worrisome concern. But some of us are cautious about going 'forward,' when we don't know where 'forward' is going to take us (and we're not too sure where not going forward is going to take us, either). If the problem is what it's purported to be, pouring our resources into costly measures that don't significantly address it will leave us worse off. It may well be that 'something must be done,' but it's not so clear just what all the details of 'something' are going to be.

Richard.

Yeah sure. Better to be controlled by corporations that only have maximizing their profit in mind than the, "shudder", government. Gotta love libertarians.

 

[diver0008]

Better to be controlled by corporations that only have maximizing their profit in mind than the, "shudder", government.

Chances are that 75 to 80% of everything you use in your daily life comes from one corporation or another; Apple, Microsoft, Samung, Google, Starbucks, Hollis, Scubapro...

Don't let a few bad apples make you think the whole lot is rotten.

At least corporations give you a choice on whether you want to give them your money. Governments, not so much.

 

[EdC]

Likewise, if scientists say (don't build in area x, it will increase flooding, as they did in Houston), they get paid "x" dollars. If they say, (have at it, build where you want), they get paid the same. But, if the scientists are ignored, who pays the price? Hint: the homeowners and federal government does.

I believe this falls under personal responsibility, or a fool and his money are soon parted. If no one was buying the houses then they wouldn't be being built. Same story as New Orleans, don't buy a house that is at or around sea level if you don't want it flooded. I realize that the flood maps are proving to be inaccurate but maybe a little common sense would point you toward higher ground.

 

[Caveeagle]

Yeah sure. Better to be controlled by corporations that only have maximizing their profit in mind than the, "shudder", government. Gotta love libertarians.

What corporation is threatening control over you? I see tons of work being done towards resource conservation and improved efficiencies in the corporate world that I work in. Here lies the major point that drives me.. corporations are generally accountable to financial and economic realities. This is simply not true for our government who gets away with overspending their budget every freaking year without any consequences.

I would be in jail if tried to get away with things that are considered normal in our political world. Why did Enron get taken apart legally, but states like Illinois, Michigan and California are given a pass and will probably get bailed out when they crash and burn like Greece and Puerto Rico.


Government corruption is rampant. I am really no fan of our current President, but Democrats just almost elected the most corrupt person I could imagine. And their runner up is a socialist with Marxist tendencies.

The postor boy for AGW and CC seems to be Al Gore, who gets $150k per speech and flies around on a private jet. And how accurate are his past predictions?

Somebody said it's about trust.

 

[RyanT]

I believe this falls under personal responsibility, or a fool and his money are soon parted. If no one was buying the houses then they wouldn't be being built. Same story as New Orleans, don't buy a house that is at or around sea level if you don't want it flooded. I realize that the flood maps are proving to be inaccurate but maybe a little common sense would point you toward higher ground.

But you just said:

And so because most people myself included don't have the training or experience to really dig into the data to make thier own conclusions it comes down to trust.

So the average person doesn't have the training to dig into the science, but they do have the training to dig into civil engineering to predict their risk of flooding? Most people don't even know where to find flood maps. And if they do, they don't have the training to estimate their risk of flooding based on statistical flood probabilities and storm water mitigation projects.

Also sure, you would think that you would just look for a house on higher ground. That is also not a financial reality for everyone. Many of the more affordable housing developments are not built in the best locations.

So who do they trust? They trust the city planners who approved the housing developments and are supposed to be looking out for them. Except the city planners are not looking out for them because they are ignoring the science.

And personal responsibility or not, the tax payers are always on the hook to help pay for the billions in storm damage that could have been mitigated if city planners restricted development in the lowest areas. But hey, that would be a financial burden on the developers.

 

[EdC]

So the average person doesn't have the training to dig into the science, but they do have the training to dig into civil engineering to predict their risk of flooding? Most people don't even know where to find flood maps. And if they do, they don't have the training to estimate their risk of flooding based on statistical flood probabilities and storm water mitigation projects.

Also sure, you would think that you would just look for a house on higher ground. That is also not a financial reality for everyone. Many of the more affordable housing developments are not built in the best locations.

Are you equating deciphering weather modeling data with knowing if your feet get wet when it rains? Most people know what sea level means. And if waterfront property is where the poor people on the gulf coast live then that is a startling revelation to me. Am I now going to find out there are homeless camps in Malibu!

 

[RyanT]

It is also important to understand that as city development spreads (e.g. urban sprawl), it is not necessarily the lowest lying areas that are becoming more flood prone. As we put more impervious surfaces down, the water literally has not place to go. So even areas that historically would not have flooded are now prone to flooding. This is exactly what happened in Houston during Harvey. Much of the flooding occurred in part due to the fact the Katy prairie on the western side of the city was developed and paved over. Historically the prairie served as a massive sink, taking up water. Now, there is no place for it to go. This development was done in spite of warnings from scientists. But they were dismissed as "having an agenda."

 

[RyanT]

And if waterfront property is where the poor people on the gulf coast live then that is a startling revelation to me.

I didn't say waterfront. Again, if you look at the flooding in Houston, many of the areas that were impacted sit at elevations 50' or more above sea level and are located 30+ miles from the Gulf or Galveston Bay.