Slashdot Mirror
Senate Confirms Climate Denier With No Scientific Credentials To Head NASA (nytimes.com)
On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Trump's NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine, seven and a half months after being nominated to lead the agency. "The Senate confirmed Mr. Bridenstine, an Oklahoma congressman, as the new NASA administrator in a stark partisan vote: 50 Republicans voting for him and 47 Democrats plus two independents against," reports The New York Times. "The vote lasted more than 45 minutes as Republicans waited for Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona to cast his lot." Slashdot reader PeopleAquarium writes about some of Bridenstine's anti-LGBT and non-scientific views: Bridenstine ran a planetarium once, and peddled a debunked argument made by climate change skeptics, claiming that global temperatures "stopped rising 10 years ago." He said "the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept" an apology from then-President Barack Obama for what Bridenstine called a "gross misallocation" of funds for climate change research instead of weather forecasting. In further news, our rockets will now be coal powered, and gay people aren't allowed in space.
Space? This Bridenstine guy will probably turn out to be a Flat Earther as well.
Wait, he's bad bc hes antiscience... but he's also bad bc he believes in physiological procreative gender - which is evidenced in the entire animal kingdom
Come on, editors. Wtf? How is that relevant or helpful to the conversation? Are the people posting really that partisan? What are the new administrator's goals for the agency? Does he have a vision that includes manned space missions? Is he going to burn the agency to the ground? I can't tell. All I know is the poster liked Obama and doesn't like Trump which probably shouldn't be in the summary at all.
Sig not found.
I don't care if he thinks the moon is made out of green cheese, as long as he can reign in the cost overruns and get rid of a lot of the red tape and conservative engineering that has hobbled NASA since the Apollo days and is costing the US it's position of leadership in space exploration. I'm willing to give the guy a chance and not jump to conclusions.
Elsewhere, SJW elected. SJWs upset.
"Climate denier?" He denies that there is a climate? Really? No, that is bullshit.
Anti-LGBT? Gay people not allowed in space? Did he say that? No, we're quoting a random slashdot reader who made shit up.
from the article:
>Mr. Bridenstine, a former Navy pilot who is now in his third term in the House of Representatives, has become immersed in space issues. In 2016, he sponsored a bill called the American Space Renaissance Act, which proposed broad, ambitious goals for the nation’s space program, including directing NASA to devise a 20-year plan. Although it did not reach a vote, some of the ideas were incorporated into other legislation.
Seems like a sensible pick. Good job with the clickbait though.
Could have been worse. He could have been a flat-earther.
NASA doesn't need a scientist. NASA does not really do science and the science they do is certainly not ecological but 100% physics and its application: developing better rockets. They do adminstration, engineering and lots of politics. If they put some science satellite in orbit, they do it typically for someone else. In the case of climate science, usually for NOAA or such. In case of Kepler for astronomers on some collge. For NASA these are just another payload for the federal government like any other.
So: how good a politician is he for pushing the cause of NASA? How good of an administrator is he for leading a big agency and helping his engineers to build better, cheaper rockets, developing cool new mechanisms like VASIMR? We all know NASA did a piss poor job with these things for decades now. These are importan the important topicst for this post, but are sorely lacking in this stupid piece by morons who call themselves journalists. NASA is no fucking LGBT advocacy, it puts rockets into space ffs!
I couldn't care less if he saves the climate and the dolphins or the queers: it's not his fucking job. For battling AGW, kick the assholes who need to do something: assholes in congress and white house, not some federal administrator who has to implement the braindead policy that congress decides on.
Haha.
Yeah, thatâ(TM)s the real crisis here.
Ever met a mentally stable homosexual or transgender?
Fact is that the position is that of an administrator; he doesnâ(TM)t need to understand the science. Just handle the budget.
I agree that this guy is very suboptimal but the summary isn't very fair either especially the unnecessary snark that "In further news, our rockets will now be coal powered, and gay people aren't allowed in space." There's a legitimate criticism about his views on climate change and that should be expanded, especially as a major part of NASA's Earth observing work is precisely to understand the global environment and how it is changing. But the summary doesn't mention the primary criticism of Bridenstine. Prior administrators have almost always had a combination of adminsitrative and scientific skills. For example Griffin had a background in physics and engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin, Lightfoot the current acting administrator is an engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Lightfoot_Jr., Bolden was himself an astronaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bolden. Etc. Putting in someone whose primary qualifications are political rather than scientific is very suboptimal; NASA has suffered enough the last few years due to congressional politics and politics dictating goals rather than science and engineering. The SLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System is a really good example of this. Putting in a head of NASA whose qualifications are political with no real experience is very bad, and that would be bad even if he weren't a climate change denier (which does admittedly make it worse but at this point given who is in charge of the EPA should be about expected for this administration).
Stop feeding the madness.
Previous NASA Head Charles Bolden said that it was NASA's foremost responsibility to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science. Now the Democrats are rending their garments because the head of NASA won't be interested in using the scientific agency to push a patrician political issue. Oh darn.
Everyone at NASA should walk out in protest. Everyone at the EPA should walk out in protest. Everyone at NOAA should walk out in protest. Everyone at....
Which means he's probably not the most useless kind of Congressman, and nothing more.
We're not talking about ambition. We're talking about whether we can trust this guy's competence and commitment as the head of NASA.
Pass the torch to the Europeans and Chinese. Better no NASA than one becoming totally beholden to political hacks and religious fanatics, and the resulting misinformation and lies.
nt
put his comments in the subject line.
Putting in someone whose primary qualifications are political rather than scientific is very suboptimal; ...
It appears that Trump is sabotaging the agency.
But if his coal mining base wants to keep their dangerous jobs and eventually die in a deep dark hole or from black lung, that is their right.
If people want ignore the science and act like nothing is happening to our climate or that we can do nothing; who cares? Most of us will be dead before it becomes truly serious. Let the grand kids worry about it - along with the crushing national debt we'll leave them.
While the rest of the World - like China - rockets ahead with renewable and green energy we'll stick to 18th and 19th century fuel sources because America! And when we fall behind well, the grandkids will just have to suck it up because they'll be living in once great prosperous country that used to lead the World in science and technology - instead they'll be living in a backwards theocratic country that puts the word of ancient illiterate goat herders above data and analysis by educated people who spent their lives mastering the material.
History will look back on these days as the point when America hit the tipping point of its decline.
MAGA indeed.
He has neither scientific nor administrative background...not a sensible pick at all.
Is it?
don't hate the player or the American, hate the game. He's just faking it like half of you are. If they wanted competency, they would've gotten someone from Europe or Asia on an H1B visa.
Well it is an administrative position. I think the problem is we put too many specialists in positions to run large organizations. They require administrative skill not scientific knowledge. Being a good scientist does not mean you can budget for shit. This is the same reason schools suck, their admins and boards are largely filled with teachers.
All of that is true, but, thankfully, between W/Griffin and then O/Bolden/Garver, we now have several new companies that are actually pushing low cost launches and missions, as opposed to simply have companies that want to feed off the costs+ funding. SLS has been a HORRIBLE waste of money. CONgress has forced us to spend over $32B on it and Constellation (and that was end of 2017).
BUT, because we DO have cheap launches, it is now possible to go to the moon sooner, rather than later. What is needed is for Bridenstine to push service contracts for inexpensive habitat for private space stations, followed by more contracts for lunar basing. Thankfully, he has been quietly suggesting that is what he will do.
Windbourne (moderating).
Step one: cancel the Webb space telescope boondoggle.
"In further news, [...] gay people aren't allowed in space."
Sure about that? Wouldn't it make more logic to shoot gay people into space to get rid of them on Earth?
Or would sending them to space be akin to letting them to go to Heaven?
I am American and many people are talking about how NASA spends too many taxes on useless and wasteful things like "climate change" and telescopes. So many fellow Americans cannot afford basic life services and we spend trillions of dollars on useless telescopes to shoot into space is ridiculous. NASA needs major defending to return valuable tax dollars back to communities like rural American that is underfunded and ignored by coast sjw liberal elites.
Jokes like that only cater to partisan politics and if we're trying to argue on the merits of an issue rather than the talking-head points, we need to keep it professional, even if that has been hard in regards to american politics for a number of years (decades?) now.
Another tuesday in bizarro world.
I'm guessing next they will put a pedophile in charge of pediatric care. A cannibal in charge of the red cross and Ru Paul will become the next leader of the evangelicals.
I used to be shocked by these things, now I keep waiting for gravity to reverse randomly because why not every other sane thing seems to be broken all at once.
I wonder how long until we just declare civil war
It is good for Oklahoma!
They get an incumbent out.
Read that lots of incumbents are leaving congress. Perhaps we can get term limits passed now?
That should be hung for treason!
great argument, to a post about ignoring the topic no less.
I dislike him less than most other Trump picks. While he was a climate warming denier he has since acknowledged a human role in climate warming - which is better than what 90% of Republicans have done. He also does genuinely seem to be a space exploration fan which has to count for something. Totally non ideal, but non-ideal is better than appointing someone who wants to dismantle the agency and give away the money saved to oligarchs.
The guy is an idiot. Everyone knows climates are real.
You'd sound the tiniest bit less of a prick if you knew the difference between patrician and partisan. But you'd still sound like a massive prick, though.
Looks like Slashdot has gone from "News for Nerds" to yellowpress-style hit pieces.
and judging by your +5 post it worked. Hell, got me here too...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they matter lots. You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
That's the trouble with corruption, it's a bit on the subtle side sometimes. I remember a story I read in my local paper about a real estate developer who wanted some land but couldn't get it because there were a bunch of endangered goats on it. So he bought the land near by, put up a short fence, and put some sheep on his land who just happened to have syphilis. Sheep jumped the fence, goats and sheep did what animals do (try not to think too much about it) and goats, who are apparently much more susceptible to the side effects of syphilis died. Goats gone, problem solved and he got his land.
It sounds crazy. It was all documented though since somebody was tracking the goats (they were endangered after all). So yeah, sometimes corruption isn't all that obvious.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
almost two decades. That's if you want to accept there was any at all in the 90's with the computer models. All of that is up to debate and moce and more evidence has been released to show the data was fudged. (To be generous)
Second, NASA shouldn't be concerned in the least with "global warming" or "global cooling" or any other bullshit. NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. We have to pay the Russians for that. You think about that for a minute.
Third, without being political, google what the three things the previous president charged Charles Bolden, the head of NASA, to do. I'll give you a hint' none of the three were about space.
Charles Bolden, a retired United States Marines Corps major-general and former astronaut, said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
NASA should not be politcial.
I think having good political and management qualifications is far more important than having scientific qualifications when leading large teams of scientists.
And a politician and manager is far more likely to be able get the scientists at NASA what they need than a scientist in a suit. That's because a politician and manager can listen to the people who work for them and communicate their needs to Congress. And he can do that without letting his own scientific biases and preferences influence his actions.
Way to continue being a platform that distributes propaganda and supports the ever growing division in America. My favorite part of this one is the attempt to shame people into believing climate change is by accusing them of hating gay people. Pure genius.
daily update
Slashdot is no longer legitimate
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 happened while William Robert Graham, an American physicist, was acting NASA administrator.
It is true that in the past administrators have been selected principally on their ability to oversee and execute the programs of NASA. That left leadership on NASA's portfolio principally in Congress because the political skills to advance NASA's mission were a secondary consideration at best. This time, the political ability to advance NASA's mission was the principal concern. Will the oversight and execution of NASA's programs be compromised when left to secondary political appointees or careerists? I think that this is the experiment to find out.
Many think that NASA's prominence is slipping away without political push from repeated administrations. Personally, I am not as concerned about that as some because I'd rather explore our oceans than outer space. But I understand the concern of many including huge numbers of former astronauts. If you go to events at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, it is not hard to meet former astronauts who despair at NASA's erosion over time.
Some people with more left-leaning opinions seem to think of Flake as some kind of hero for his minor rebellion against Trump, but really, he is just as bad.
Here he is, voting with Trump to appoint a clearly unqualified person. What for? Did he get some other commitment from McConnell that McConnell won't deliver on?
There was a story in This American Life about how he was ultimately unable to get a bill on the Senate floor to do something about the DREAMers and/or DACA. He was screwed over by his own leadership.
He is leaving the Senate, but he behaves as though he is just as beholden to Trump as all his other fellow cowards.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I give Elon Musk a hard time, but SpaceX is 100x more efficient than NASA.
Privatize everything.
It sounds idiotic. It is not a shorthand to "climate change denial," as it is a phrase that does not need shortening. Removing "change" changes the phrase's context entirely, and makes ambiguous the part the person being called a "climate denier" is taking issue with - which, if I am not mistaken, is about CLIMATE CHANGE. You can't deny a climate. You can - whether foolishly or otherwise- deny climate change. It's not hard to keep that one 4-letter word in there, people! Jesus Christ!
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
So does everyone that understands how radio works and how low-powered satellite communication is.
Does that mean we have to have a conversation about the personal social views of everyone that knows what an antenna is?
And you sir are a dumb iPhone user that can't figure out to turn off the smart quotes.
Most managers I've had in my tech career, do not have tech backgrounds, and most don't know what the fuck they're doing. They usually have a degree in Graphic Design. They just happen to have good connections.
"Putting in someone whose primary qualifications are political rather than scientific is very suboptimal;"
That seems to be a logical assertion, but I'm not sure it's proved to be true.
Putting former astronauts and scientists in charge HASN'T seemed to have caused NASA to flourish, has it? Maybe because these individuals *didn't* understand the *politics* necessary to succeed in the intensely political atmosphere of Washington DC?
I mean, the NASA admin isn't designing space craft and piloting rockets: he or she is a BUREAUCRAT, begging other bureaucrats for money and other resources. Seems like a position where a politician might be more successful.
-Styopa
This is Slashdot now... Was this article and summary written by someone who's job is to write clickbait? WTF. There is no sense of factual reporting or summary here. Every adjective is negative, accompanied by a full dose of smug condescension. And all the guys piling on here.... are you taking this clickbait at face value or have you taken a moment to think for yourselves and verify any info. But, oh I've forgotten, the internet is the place for the smug, better-than-you to simply take swipes at others from their basement. This is slashdot.... So proud to be a reader....
- Record high stock market
- Record low unemployment
- Skyrocketing consumer confidence
- Increased US Manufacturing
- North Korea giving up all their nukes
- Record high stock market is easy when companies are allowed to poison people and the environment, in addition to taking financial advantage of them whenever possible. No more Consumer Financial Protections for us.
- Record low unemployment is easy when you inherit most it from your predecessor.
- Increased US Manufacturing and consumer confidence, and NK are all good things, but Trump isn't the only one who can achieve those.
- As for Stormy Daniels, I'm considering it to be slightly better than President Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinsky. I say "better" because, while both were affairs, Stormy wasn't on Clinton's payroll. There was still a lot of hubbub about the Lewinsky scandal.
You did leave a couple things off, however:
- Increased health care costs due to more health problems from pollution.
- Further increased health care costs due to people not getting their health problems treated early, thus requiring them to go to the expensive emergency room.
- Increased property insurance costs due to climate change.
What you want at the helm of NASA is someone who is enthusiastic about the agency, who knows how to schmooze the right people (especially Congress – and yes, you can take this as a pun, presently), who can advertise NASA, who respects the input from the scientific community (he said he would do that), who does not get too much in the way of the inner workings but recognises when NASA screws up and helps set the ship right (yes, NASA screws up more than you think).
Being a scientist is most of the time not a good qualification in itself – those guys sit already one level down. Listening to and accepting advice from scientists (internal and external), on the other hand, is vital for that position. You also do not want a bean counter (if that's all they do), or someone who does not care.
Even if I don't agree with Bridenstine, he is definitely enthusiastic about the job and really wanted it. NASA administrator is not the jumping board to become the next president (or senator). Bridenstine is fairly young. Wanting to lead a 20+ billion USD agency that is full of people smarter than you is a bit nuts. But, because of that, it's also the #1 federal agency in terms of employee satisfaction, and it's still "cool".
NASA could have done a lot worse. This will be nothing like the EPA or CDC, for example. I would predict that NASA will mostly continue on its path (which is having to do too much with too little money to do it). Maybe it even helps that he comes from Congress. Congress holds the purse strings, and one of the worst problems of NASA, which needs to engage in long term projects, is the eternal budget uncertainty.
I'd give him a chance. Just imagine it would not be him but Rick Perry ...
Do your own thing. And overdo it!
After all, Clinton...
Bloody boring. Do people not have brains anymore, only emotion and the need to hate?
If thatâ(TM)s so, then letâ(TM)s go total anarchy.
Well the last NASA admin was an anti-science Warming Alarmist, so it makes sense to provide a counterpoint for a while.
Y'all do realize the head of NASA is not actually building rockets, right? And that NASA is not NOAA? No? Oh, well I guess that explains a lot...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
they matter lots. You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
You claim he's anti-science, because he's skeptical of AGW. You do know that those same satellites basically show that any heating is much, much less than modeled, right? So why would he turn off access?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Conservative Christians don't consider "being gay" immoral, they consider gay sex, and in particular promiscuous gay sex, immoral. You aren't born having gay sex. Furthermore, they nature of their objection to gay sex has little to do with sexual orientation, and more with the fact that they believe that people ought to have sex only inside a heterosexual marriage; so they object to pre- and extramarital sex as much as they do to gay sex.
Right... A simple thought experiment disproves this claim. Trump supporters and Evangelicals are generally ambivalent about Trump porking porn stars on the side or engaging in serial adultery.
Now imagine if Trump had sex with a gay porn star! Do you think they would be that understanding?
NASA languished under Obama, Trump has much more interesting goals than Obama could ever dream of - after all, to Obama any agency that was not funneling money directly to friends was rather a waste.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Look at some point you have to point out that flat earther are completely wrong. There is no "two side" of the coins for some stuff, there is 96% + scientific, against a few denier, denier which keep touting the same debunked stuff. Once people start putting denier it is beyond politic , it is simply across the aisle against science. And before somebody attacks me "blah blah you are practicing religion blah blah there is no consensus in science blah blah" they are free to present peer reviewed article showing climate science wrong. But until somebody has anything valid, peer reviewed , reversing the null on global warming, then what we do have as consensus *IS* what we should base policy on, until consensus is reversed or falsified. Would you accept somebody denigrating vaccination at the head of a medicine comity , and would you give the same objection when pointed out the consensus is that vaccine help fight infectious illness ? No ? Then Stuff you when you refuse the same to climate science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
that is used to cloudy the waters and lend legitimacy to an illegitimate campaign. Claims about the degree of warming are similar. It's meant to muddy up the waters and bog the discussion down in pointless details.
.5 degrees or .3 degrees isn't what matters. What matters is it's happening, it's going to impact the food supply which will lead to global chaos, wars.
There are no scientists who disagree that Global Warming is happening who don't work for global companies trying to get out of paying the taxes needed to address the problem. Whether humans caused global warming or not or whether it's
We should be doing something about it but we're not because the wealthy don't want to spend a ton of money on it. The global chaos won't impact them. A lot of them will profit from it since as resources get scares they can sell what's left to us for top dollar. Climate Change deniers, the real ones that fund and fuel the movement, just don't want to pay to address the problem. As always, follow the money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What fucking conversation ? Would you pretend there is a conversation to be had with flat earther ? At some point you have got to admit there is no conservation possible, as the other party already rejected the basis of reason completely. If they were merely misinformed it would be something else. But this is willful rejection of reason. There is no conversation to be had.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Senate confirms former astronaut to head NASA?
Compared to any Clinton, that is a step up.
When the choice is "The Devil" or a Clinton, I'd pick the imaginary evil over a Clinton.
I'm still hoping they repeal the ACA. My entire family is going broke paying those premiums - which used to be under $200/month and are now over $1,000/month.
I get not liking someone else's politics, but name calling is bullying - you don't like bullying, do you?
NOAA requests a total of $414,798,000 in discretionary and mandatory funds for NOS mission functions. This total includes Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF); Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC); and other mandatory accounts and includes a total decrease of $122,947,000 in FY 2018 program changes. In the prior year (FY 2017), NOAA received $502,847.
So we had observations where the temperatures weren't rising as fast as theories predicted.
When observations don't bear out predictions, science would have you look for a new theory. Bridenstine merely joined in with those pointing out that the data didn't agree with the theory, thus engaging in the scientific process.
Maybe the guy doesn't have a background in science, but then he's a bureaucrat running a department with a focus on aerospace engineering. Even so, he was promoting the scientific perspective with his stance.
Yes, there was a pause in temperature change that wasn't and still isn't completely explained. Researchers are employing different methods to try to make sense of it, studying both the data and the theories to see how they might be reconciled. It's anti-scientific to try to paper that over, especially in the course of personally attacking a politician.
There are as many administrative as teaching staff.
It's going to blow his tiny mind when he realises the Earth is not flat! I want to see that reaction!
"In further news, our rockets will now be coal powered, and gay people aren't allowed in space."
I take this this is as true and confirmed as all other news including a sliver about the president?
My idea is to create a "Homeland for the Gays".
This will give them their own land free from oppression. I have searched quite a bit and decided we could take a small central African country(the Africans aren't doing anything useful with it) and then begin shuttling the gays there by ship and plane. There they'd live in a safe environment and encourage other gays to join them.
Sort of like Israel.
A very short description, but what do you people think?
but I don't think you're considering the consequences of evangelical belief systems. God punishes the faithful for the sins of the heretic. Famous examples include Sodom & Gomorrah and the Flood, but there are plenty other's in the bible. This is why, for instance, Pat Robinson has literally said gays cause earthquakes
Now let's imagine for a second you honestly believe that, rather than tectonic plates, God's wrath is causing earthquakes. Wouldn't it be reasonable to take measures to prevent God's wrath? And let's imagine God declared Homosexuality a sin that incurred his wrath. We can argue scripture but as mentioned above it's a fact that this is what evangelicals believe. And again, God punishes the faithful for the sins of the heretic. Your "sins".
It stands to reason that your being gay represents an existent threat to their continued well being. In a best case scenario you'll be treated as a sick man and given "treatment". In a worst case you'll be locked up and/or killed to protect society from God's wrath.
You ended your post worried that a progressive would punish you for not towing their "party line". But you don't really know that. If asked a Progressive would say, no, they would not do that. They might lie, but at least some of them wouldn't. A conservative, OTOH, is also likely to be an evangelical (again, we're talking likelihood) and they _will_ punish you for your sexual orientation. Just as they would punish any other dangerous person.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Climate change is being appropriated for political objectives, its a highly politicized thing that is far from being just "science". Once policy actions enter the fray, its no longer just about science any more. Many of the big proponents of climate change policy agendas are doing this for other reasons and do not care so much about the climate, and may not even believe doomsday scenarios themselves. The climate change agenda is being pushed to expand the power of government, reduce the rights of the individual, and is tied to ideas that the US is a terrible country, that it needs to be punished and made to suffer, and that reparations need to be paid, and globalist wealth redistribution schemes. This is why third world countries are lining up in support of climate change agendas.
Client predictions are based on computer models which are far from being "fact" and are subject to the impossibility of prediction of as complex a system of the earth 50 years into the future. Establishing cause and effect is also a problem considering that there are many things that impact earth climate so you cannot just assume its due to CO2.
Most of the policies require drastic effects on the well being of people. There are some which could be implemented without major impacts, like multi-use developments with housing and jobs within the same walkable distance. Why don't all these liberal companies like Google put their money where their mouth is and put employee housing on the same walkable complex as their offices. Why dont these liberal companies allow telecommuting? The telecommuting itself would lead to major reductions in fuel use. So why dont these companies do it?
Make America Stone Age Again
China will lead the world into the future.
Critics of the new NASA administrator have moved so far to the hyper-left that they are no longer honest nor tethered to reality.
This guy's positions are no different from those of the people who built NASA, put men on the moon, and made it the world-respected institution it was. America in the 1960s was overwhelmingly Christian and the vast majority beleived homosexuality was perverted/immoral/sinful. No normal American at the time, including the leaders of NASA, believed that human beings were making the planet heat up to dangerous levels with carbon emissions and that the solution was massive new taxes to redistribute wealth to the 3rd world and massive new government regulation.
Furthermore, the most famous NASA administrator, the guy who administered the agency for the moon push, was James Webb (a politician, NOT a scienttist nor engineer) - he was Von Braun's boss (people often mistakenly thing Von Braun was administrator of NASA). Scientists and engineers have been some of NASA's least successful administrators; running the agency and interacting with the White House and Congress takes a POLITICAL skill set.
The left has gone so far to the insane left in the past 20 years that it would now reject EVERY major Democrat hero of American history on these two issues. Not ONE of the following people would meet this modern standard of acceptability to leftist extremists:
President Franklin D Roosevelt (Mr "New Deal")
President John F Kennedy (Mr "We choose to go to the moon in this decade...")
President Lyndon B Johnson (Mr "Great Society")
Additionally, none of the men who went to the moon would have passed these tests, nor would 90%+ of the 300,000 people who wroked on the Apollo program.
While many consider their current LGBTQ-supporting positions "normal" and "good", they ought to remember that many disagree and have an entirely different perspective. The modern acceptance of homo- and bi-sexuality has not been all "sweetness and light" --- it carried a price tag of millions of dead from the HIV epidemic that was difficult to contain while gay advocates made the epidemic a civil rights issue and refused all traditional efforts to contain the then newly recognized disease. What seems to be "progress" to some, is to others turning the calendar back 2000 years to the pre-Chrisitian era where some societies used to accept gay sex as normal. What some see as a positive societal evolutionary step, others see as a retrograde devolutionary step back down toward the pre-civilized jungle; a reversal of the thousands of years long climb of human progress. Just because one group of people (pro- or anti- gay) states that its beliefs/preferences are obviously positive and right, that does not make them so; there's always somebody who disagrees. Without any objective and unbiased standard either side might well be wrong about which direction is "up". Both sides would do better to keep that in mind.
I just hope he doesn't have a brother called Frank.
Frank Bridenstein.
DidyaseewhatIdidthere?
Garry Knight
we get droughts followed by floods that kill crops. Global warming makes weather more extreme. You know this, you're just being flippant.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He's based his opposition to global warming on his religion. If you'd bothered to read the wikipedia page you linked to you'd know it. In science this is what is called "Working backwards from your conclusion". A phrase I learned from this gentleman.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not too many years ago, anyone who denied Eugenics was a "science denier". How soon we forget, the pattern of politically motivated science becoming "proven" science.
Even better would be someone who has good political and management qualifications AND is a scientist. Or if not a scientist, then someone who believes in scientific theories. We've done this before, and could easily do it again.
The fascinating thing about Obama's administration is that it had just about the fewest REPORTED corruption and scandal incidents of any presidency in the last 100 years
Fixed it for you.
If "secret plane load of gold bars to Iran" or "we'll have more flexibility after the election Putin" is just fine with you, you probably need some updates in your CORRUPTION_RECOGNITION submodule.
Just the fact that Clinton was secretary of state for years? Pretty obviously you had THE MOST corrupt administration in history, which you'll understand in five to ten years.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The IPCC was chaired by a railroad engineer, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, and the Left never complained. He even shared a Nobel prize with another non-scientist, Al Gore, in 2007, not because of his scientific work but for his political connections, just like Gore. Protected from corruption charges by political cronies, Pacharui lost their support when sexual abuse accusations were leveled at him, because an accusation sexual abuse is equal to guilt in Leftist theology, and he resigned in 2015.
So, you don't have to be a scientist to hold positions of power in the AGW community. Your only requirement is to remain loyal to the AGW agenda.
Lots of posts in this thread contain what the posters think are funny putdowns about flat earth and other nonsense, but they swallow hook, line and sinker one of the greatest examples of Lysenkoism the Left has ever produced.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
His views on whether or not global warming exists has no bearing of any kind on whether not he'd be a good administrator. He's got more important thing like getting us a mission to Mars.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Trump's NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine, seven and a half months after being nominated to lead the agency.
The Senate was nominated to lead the agency.
Wikipedia says 'The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research.'
What does that have to do with climate? https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Let's go Trump! MAGA!
Science isn't about "belief", it is about evidence.
What we have done with NASA is create an institution that has held back space exploration by decades and wasted vast amounts of money.
Does that mean we have to have a conversation about the personal social views of everyone that knows what an antenna is?
No, just the ones who actually have their hands on the receiver controls.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Bridenstine is not only not good at science, he's only good as a politician because Fossil Fuel companies like him kissing their ass.
What the heck is wrong with Slashdot that this is labeled insightful? Are the Koch brothers hiring people to ruin discourse on this website or are people being "sub-optimal" for free?
Where'd all the smart people go? This getting ridiculous.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I see this being a good thing, or do you want nasa to be run by one of it's own, so there is no external control at all over anything they do ???
Trumpbashers are idiots and criminals who want to manipulate everything to get their way only. STFU snowflakes.
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
Nope. We're pretty good at preventing problems, too. For instance, we've stopped putting lead in paint and gasoline, because we found out they caused problems. Easier to prevent lead poisoning than fix it. Similarly, we've developed a set of rules for installing electrical wiring when constructing homes and buildings. These rules prevent fires and electrocutions. If a fire does start somehow, buildings and homes are also built to a set of rules to increase the probability people get out alive and with minimal harm. Considering the cost of renewable energy is now as cheap as gas electricity, there's no reason not to start switching. We won't be able to *finish* until storage gets less expensive, but we can wait a little longer for that.
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
The chosen ones? Be serious. It's just an example. The problems we will face through inaction are too numerous to list here. The more we can do today, the shorter that list will actually be. As for local people needing help, I am more concerned about those who will have problems because of my actions. If someone gets hooked on opiates, I know I wasn't involved in that. (Yes, that is just one example.)
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Thousands of people smarter than either of us think this problem is one of the most important. We aren't going to go bankrupt doing it. We'll actually be better off once we do. Not only will we reduce future climate-related problems, we'll reduce future health problems. No more pneumonia cases or asthma attacks caused by air pollution from fossil fuel combustion. Yeah, the last president understood. This problem takes more than 8 years to solve, and he can't do it with half the government fighting common sense.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
You're assuming I want to fix Virginia's problems. You're wrong. I simply want to reduce the size of the problem they will face as much as possible.
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
It's only "vaguely defined" if you are unwilling to listen. We already have inexpensive solutions to mitigate some of what's coming. The more quickly and more broadly we apply these solutions, the smaller the problems will be.
Letâ(TM)s hope he âneeds to see Marsâ(TM) before any other human, fuck him right off this planet.
We all know this guy will get rid of everyone who doesnâ(TM)t agree with him so when fired come to Australia SA and start a new NASA
To hunt for angles and, gasp, possibly heaven.
#maga
Golly! Who knew that a government agency could be used to further or impede a political agenda? Or that people would have hopes or fears that that might happen?
Gosh!
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Finally, someone who cares about getting to space in charge of the space agency. Since when did being an environmentalist become a prerequisite for NASA.
Climate CHANGE Denier. No one is denying thereâ(TM)s a climate. I hope.
Senate Confirms Climate Denier With No Scientific Credentials To Head NASA
Funny how so many are still holding onto the political power grab called Climate change. Calling him a denier is like saying he's a Flat Earth denier. I know a lot of un-vetted opinions are still being stirred up by liberal media sources but it's funny how the "settled science" isn't so settled when there isn't a lot of money to be made by agreeing with certain political paradigms.
Some people still believe Aliens made the Pyramids, the Holocaust didn't happen, Che' Guevera and Adolf Hitler ain't such bad fella's.
The only settled science is that politics and money define what's settled and what's not.
As for response to this. Haters gonna hate and believers gonna believe.
NASA should build "Ark B" now and offer all the "really special people" (Jim Bridenstine, Trump, etc) the first ride in it. Seriously. There are no down-sides to this plan!
Science agencies should not be run by people who deny science! First the EPA, now NASA, all so we burn more coal.
Will someone vote these Republicans out of office? The whole world is watching while we dismantle our scientific institutions for the Koch brothers. How many billions do they really need?
There was a mile of ice over half of the USA. It melted on it's own due to the Sun. You know that bright object in the sky that warms all the planets.
It will be nice to have someone focus on space flight instead of a climate scam that has made Al Gore so rich that he owns multiple homes that use more power then 23 other people and he flies around the world claiming we will destroy the planet by flying around the world.
Forget about the climate change issues. Does this man know anything about space exploration
Yes, heaven forbid that someone who disagrees with you NECESSARILY must be a Koch brothers shill. And must, ipso facto, also be stupid?
Do you understand that you - precisely - are an example of EXACTLY the sort of seething, emotional, corrosive toxicity that's wrong with adult discourse in the US today?
What's so funny is that "your side" excoriated former-president bush for his grade-school simplistic "with us or against us" mentality.
Try this, just once: assume that the person that disagrees with you on something is a) another rational human being who simply sees things differently and b) also wants the best for humanity and their society as you do. THEN write your comment?
-Styopa
Ask each person 1 by 1 if they believe in God. Kill anyone that says yes.
Either 'God' will come and stop you, and you will have proof. Or all the idiot believers will be dead and the rest of us can go about our business.
Because you can't prove something you have to assume it's 50/50? What kind of bullshit is that?
Because you can't prove whether or not I ejaculate microscopic black holes, there's a 50% chance I do?
You are an idiot.
Whats up with that, LOL the deniers site for deniers to link to with their alt-facts.
You had best not argue with him. According to you there is a 50% chance he's God.
He did budgets during Truman's term.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton