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.

Comments

The Best People

[bestweasel]

Space? This Bridenstine guy will probably turn out to be a Flat Earther as well.

Re: The Best People

[shilly]

This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.

If you can't characterise the problem effectively, you'll waste your time sneering at a strawman, which is exactly what you've done.

Re: The Best People

[Smallpond]

Yes this. We already have one agency for climate, why do we have to use nasa for it as well. Oh I know, the grand money grab the thing driving all of the climate research.

Yes. What does building satellites have to do with weather and studying the Earth? oh, wait.

Re: The Best People

[shilly]

I know jack shit about him other than *his own words and deeds*, many of which are in the public domain, and which are enough to come to an informed view of him.

But let's just say you were right and I knew "Jack Shit [sic] about him". What more would you know, then? Nothing more than me, correct? So what makes *your* original post qualify as "thinking for yourself" vs mine? Just the fact that you agree with your own views and felt the urgent need to defend yourself. That reflex reaction to defend -- that's not thinking for yourself. Thinking for yourself would have involved a step back, reflecting on what I wrote, and responding in a positive and constructive way.

I feel no such compunction to do any of that in my first response. I was content to point out the (obvious) flaws in your position. But then, I didn't need to, as I'm not the one lecturing other people on how they ought to argue online, so I wasn't the person at risk of being shown to be a hypocrite.

Re: The Best People

[archer, the]

Watch Nova's Decoding the Weather Machine. The science is settled. Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising. Severe weather is getting worse.

The only uncertainty is whether we Americans will get off our collective ass and help fix the problem we helped to create.

Re: The Best People

[joe_frisch]

Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.

If you want a yes / no, you need to ask a very specific question:

Does human activity affect climate? Yes - obviously.

Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.

The real questions are things like:

For various CO2 emission scenarios, what are the likely ranges of sea level, and climate changes in different parts of the world. These are being worked on, but there is still a large range in the simulation predictions.

Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).

If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).

Coal rockets and a gay ban in space?

[dontbgay]

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.

Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space?

[Dutch Gun]

The article answers some of that better than the ridiculous flame-throwing summary.

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 the guy has some plans already in mind. Probably why he got the job.

Mr. Bridenstine has since moderated his public views, saying he supports NASA research into the causes of extreme weather.

During his confirmation hearing, he agreed that human activity “absolutely” contributed to climate change, but sparred with Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, over whether it was “a contributor” or the “primary cause.”

So, in the face of new evidence about climate change and its causes, maybe he changed his mind. We should be welcoming news that people like this are coming around. And no gay people in space? Coal-powered rockets? Really?

In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Bridenstine tried to make a distinction between views he espoused as a politician and how he would act as the manager of a large federal agency. “I want to make sure that NASA remains, as you said, apolitical,” Mr. Bridenstine said to Mr. Nelson.

And more...

Other than the confirmation hearing, Mr. Bridenstine has spent much of the last seven months keeping quiet. He largely stopped making any public statements and voting on bills to avoid conflicts of interest.

He attended the first meeting of the National Space Council meeting, a panel revived by the Trump administration to coordinate space issues between various federal agencies, but did not speak or participate.

And during Mr. Trump’s State of the Union address in January, he brought a guest: Bill Nye “the Science Guy.”

Many people probably don't agree with his views, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be imposing those views on NASA. He's clearly stated otherwise in his confirmation hearings. I suppose there's the possibility he's just lying, but he's on public record, speaking to Congress, stating otherwise.

Re: Anti-LGBT ??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not because he believes in physical genders, it's because he thinks gay people are " sexually immoral," and has been known to allow his religion to trump his reason... publicly.

It's not a great attitude for the head of an organization that has 14,000 employees of all walks of life, and that is primarily science based.

Publicly admitting that he hates some of those 14,000 employees for religious reasons is going to wreck his ability to lead, and get the agency mired in distracting lawsuits.

Re: Anti-LGBT ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we going to have 'morality police' roaming around, like in Iran, arresting people who don't prescribe to a specific set of beliefs?

Yes. If you don't stand up to them, then yes. That's exactly what you will have.

Senate confirms climate denier

[burtosis]

The guy is an idiot. Everyone knows climates are real.

Re: Anti-LGBT ??

[alexo]

But homosexual sex *is* immoral and contrary to the natural law.

Wrong.

If you don't believe that then literally nothing is immoral

Logical fallacy. Instant fail. Thank you for playing.
(I believe this one is called "equivocation fallacy", but I never bothered memorizing their names).

including pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy. You can't pick and choose.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder and has nothing to do with morality. Actual sexual exploitation of prepubescent children is child abuse.

The main arguments against bestiality are public health and that animals cannot give consent. However, if those concerns are proven not to apply, while I am personally disgusted by the practice, I don't give a rat's ass if you want to boink your pet platypus.

Polygamy is a legal construct, as it concerns marriage. It is by way legal in about 30% of sovereign states. If we stick to the subject of sexual conduct, polyamory is legal in most jurisdictions.