Trump Crackdown on “Politicized Science”: NASA Climate Division to be Stripped of Funding

President John F. Kennedy in his historic message to a joint session of the Congress, on May 25, 1961 declared, "...I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

President John F. Kennedy in his historic message to a joint session of the Congress, on May 25, 1961 declared, “…I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” By NASA (Great Images in NASA Description) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bob Walker, senior campaign adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, has re-affirmed Trump’s commitment to NASA focussing on space exploration, by stating that NASA’s Earth Science Division would be stripped of funding as part of a Trump crackdown on “Politicized Science”.

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

Climate scientists at other organizations expressed dismay at the potential gutting of Earth-based research.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating”.

“It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted.

“We live on planet Earth and there is much to discover, and it is essential to track and monitor many things from space. Information on planet Earth and its atmosphere and oceans is essential for our way of life. Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

I remember growing up, reading science fiction authors like Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn, about the great battles for funding, about how Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) did everything in his power to kill American space research.

His reason for doing so? Like Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Senator Proxmire believed Space exploration was an unnecessary luxury, a waste of taxpayer’s funds. Proxmire wanted to strip the NASA budget to fund welfare programmes.

I never imagined back then that the true enemy of NASA’s original deep space mission would strike from within, slowly eating away an ever increasing share of NASA’s internal space budget like a raging parasitic infection, leaving the original shell intact, but quietly transforming NASA from a space exploration agency into a glorified weather programme.

Perhaps Trump will make NASA great again.

Correction (EW): h/t South River Independent, Jon von Briesen – Senator Proxmire was D-Wisconsin, not D-Illinois, he was born in Illinois.

Advertisements

325 thoughts on “Trump Crackdown on “Politicized Science”: NASA Climate Division to be Stripped of Funding

    • NASA : National Aeronautical and Space Agency.

      Is see no reason why they should not be used for launching satellites but where did the study of climate and climate modelling ever get in here?

      GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
      where did the study of climate and climate modelling ever get in here?

    • Should James Hansen be investigated for committing fraud? Oh yeah. If he did not INTEND to commit fraud I guess he can’t be held accountable.

  1. GISS should be a data delivery organization so others can analyze the RAW data. This would significantly advance Earth science by making data more accessible. NASA has been collecting tons and tons of this data and we’ve already paid for it. All we get to see for it is a bunch of speculative interpretations where a lot of the raw data the speculations are based on is hidden from view.

      • I see your NASA have just debunked our (OZ) Malcolm Roberts claim that it manipulated data !
        According to the ABC .

      • Yes. I’m surprised that Roberts left Schmidt such a large get out of jail free card. Still it was interesting to see Schmidt thow noaa under a bus. No honour among fellow travellers.

      • There could be some efficiencies in having NASA simply collect the data and leave the conversion of the data into disinformation to NOAA and EPA.

      • Forest,
        Making this even stranger is that the voltage measured by satellite sensors over a cloudless surface is proportional to the surface radiant emissions that corresponds its temperature. When the satellite is over clouds, this is measuring cloud emissions and hence the cloud temperature. All you need to do is a simple predictor to track the surface temperature when covered by clouds.

        The LWIR sensors on satellites are tuned to relatively narrow bands in the transparent region of the spectrum. The photons captured by the sensors have passed directly from the surface to space. In principle, once calibrated to a specific surface temperature, the sensor voltage becomes proportional to where the peak emissions are corresponding to the color temperature of the radiation and Wein’s law can be applied to determine that temperature. The color temperature of the radiation leaving the planet corresponds to the temperature of the emissions source, which of course is either the surface or cloud tops (or some combination thereof).

        These temperature are much harder to ‘adjust’ and because of full global coverage, there’s no need to homogenize, which is why GISS doesn’t use them for GISSTEMP. Not enough wiggle room to make the data show what they want it to show.

      • there is no reason that NASA/GISS should be creating a temperature record based on readings collected from surface based thermometers. this has nothing to do with space exploration.

        yet that is precisely what GISS under Gavin is doing. building climate models using airport and ship based temperature data.

        while at the same time, NASA/GISS IGNORES the satellite based temperature data. WHY? Why does an agency charged with SPACE STUDIES ignore space and study land and sea based thermometer data?

    • “GISS should be a data delivery organization so others can analyze the RAW data. ”

      NASA uses NOAA data

      If you want raw data go to NOAA

      and there are other sources besides NOAA

      Skeptics dont even know who collects the data, who processess it and who analyzes it

      • Steve, that’s a pretty broad generalization. Many of us know where the data come from, and who “adjusts”, “corrects”, and “homogenizes” it. You are better than Jon Gruber – stop calling us all stupid.

      • Skeptics dont even know who collects the data, who processess it and who analyzes it
        ====================
        an arts major that can’t even master a spell checker is hardly a credible authority.

      • Not your best work Steven.

        First, Schmidt in his letter to Roberts directs him to pages which describe adjustments and/or homogenisations performed by GISS.

        Second, the suggestion that NOAA starts with raw data is just plain false. NOAA uses pre-adjusted figures. Examples are Reykjavic and Rutherglen but I challenge you to identify a single location where NOAA uses raw data.

        Third, your form of argument about skeptics is simply pathetic.

      • Steven, just to remove doubt, you do acknowledge the difference between data and the output of NOAA don’t you? I’d hate to think somebody in your position would describe any collection of numbers calculated or otherwise adjusted as data.

        I’m asking because of your use of the tautological term “raw data”. Once you process data you get something which is not data.

    • co2, the “raw data” may have been corrupted to “politically correct climate data, etc.” Once the databases became a tool of politicized science, how will we ever know what they have done to the “raw data”? There may be no “raw data” in many of the NASA databases.

    • CO2Isnotevil-san:

      What REALLY ticked me off was NASA sitting on their Antarctic ICESAT data for 23 years because it showed Antarctic land ice has been growing at 100+ billion tons/yr since1992, which was not conducive to the CAGW narrative of “unprecedented” land ice loss..

      NASA funding is a self-licking ice cream cone. The more dire they make CAGW predictions, the more government funding they get…. Not a bad gig if you can get it..

      It’s sickening.

      NASA went from “one giant leap for mankind” to “one giant cheat of the funding kind” in just 25 years… Houston…. We have a problem…

      • Todays Daily telegraph UK,24/11/16states ‘Explorers records show Polar Ice is not retreating’ ,but is the same extent as 100 years ago ,from the records of the polar explorers Scott,Amundsen&Shackleton

      • Griff, applying the term data to something produced following adjustments and calculations is a complete misnomer.

        That misnomer is one of the great tragedies caused the slackness of those who call themselves climate scientists. It will take at least a generation to restore the primacy of the scientific method.

        In plain English GISS doens’t do data. It doesn’t even consume data. It’s calculations and adjustments all the way down.

      • Griff,
        No. They have already admitted that the original, really raw, unprocessed, unadjusted, unhomoginized, data has been lost. All they have now is processed (or “value added” as they put it), and slightly less processed.

      • Paul Penrose commented: “…They have already admitted that the original, really raw, unprocessed, unadjusted, unhomoginized, data has been lost….”

        It can be restored. Maybe not from their files but it can be restored.

  2. Sooner or later we have to leave earth and travel to other solar systems, I guess we won’t think that deep space exploration was a waste of money at that time.

    • Please tell me just why we would want to do that. And, if you believe that travel to another solar system will become necessary, shouldn’t essentially all the money be placed into R&D on how to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light. I don’t see too many promising ideas on that front so why do any funding for this lunacy at all. Also please note that this note is coming from a PhD in Aerospace engineering who fully supports hear earth exploration.

      • I’m not a PhD in Aerospace engineering but I don’t think it sounds like a good idea to just accelerate to the speed of light (and perhaps beyond) in a random direction.

      • Dr. Lanier:
        Your professors seem to have neglected to teach you about space-time/general relativity. Imagine a 40yr journey (according to the astronaut’s watch) almost at the speed of light (achieving it by accelerating to maintain 1g on board). They accelerate for 10yrs, then decelerate for 10yrs, turn around and come back. They then accelerate as before and decelerate the final 10yrs. When they get back, things on earth have aged about 600 centuries! How is that for a mission?!

      • how to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light
        ======================
        Einstein’s relativity (time dilation and length contraction) shows that the speed of light is not a barrier to space exploration. A constant 1 G acceleration space shift can reach the other side of the observable universe within a human lifetime. The 1 G force of “artificial gravity” on the passengers will remain the same as if they were on planet earth.

        To the observers on earth, the space ship will appear to take billions of years to make the journey. But to the observer on the ship, the journey will take some 70 years, while the billions of light years traveled will be length contracted to less than 70 light years, such that the ship will always appear to travel at less than the speed of light.

        Thus, the speed of light is not the barrier to space travel. The problem is how to generate sufficient energy to maintain 1 G acceleration, and the fact that you can never return to your “own” time, due to time dilation. While you age some 70 years, the earth will have aged billions of years.

      • I hear that here the minerals needed for expansion are finite.
        I hear that out there they are infinite.
        I hear a cart before a horse here.

      • Dr. Lanier,
        I have no idea where you got the idea that anybody in this conversation was talking about travel to other solar systems, so as far as I’m concerned, that is a non sequitur. As far as exploring our own solar system, that makes sense to me. We know it is only a matter of when, not if, a large object will show up on a collision course with our planet. If that happens, we need the technology to divert it. Such technology will not be developed by just puttering around in earth orbit. And, if we are unable to divert it, we need to have viable colonies off world in order for the human race to survive. For these reasons alone I support exploration of our solar system and eventual colonization of other celestial bodies.

      • I think it is actually the other way around.

        The data was “Gavin’d”

        But that competes with Karlization, comes into ay before the Gavin transformation.

        Just as the voters were Gruber’d in 2012. The GISTEMP record is Karlized, then Gavind. The product is thus total garbage while worth $Trillions to the Green Blob.

  3. The only reason NASA got into weather and climate was the effect on launches and flights. They don’t need to duplicate the work of NOAA.

    • They also study the atmosphere, weather, and climate on earth to help them understand more about atmospheres, weather and climate on other planets. Just as studying geology on earth helps them to understand what they are seeing on the surface of Mars and the various moons of the gas giants. And THAT is the application where the GISS climate and weather should have stayed just as the very name Goddard Institute for Space Studies implies. But it didn’t. So the way I see it, the administrative/legal question is how does one permanently limit the NASA climate and weather studies to only those areas directly aimed at advancing space programs and planetary sciences and get them and keep them out of the earth climate scam business for good?

    • Obama’s NASA appears to spend a bit to much time and money on the star of the “Crescent of Embrace”.

      (Where were those Freedom From Religion Foundation guys when this was going down?)

      • Hmmm, quite so. He specifically said “Muslim” countries. I find it useful to change one word and see how it reads – “Prez Trump said NASA’s charter is to reach out to Christian nations blah blah historical contribution to maths and science, for example Newton, Galileo…”

  4. There are other US government agencies that do very much the same thing as NASA, but NASA was a sily bit of politics to start with, so as to not “millitarize space”. The Defense department and the CIA/NRO also operate satellites, and overlap what NASA and NOAA also do as far as earth surveilliance and weather reporting.

  5. It’s a travesty. NOT! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!

    “Yaaaaaay! ……….. Hello, Bedford Falls!…….. Merry Christmas!”

    Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, “It’s a Wonderful Life”

    (youtube)

    • Ms M, ever see the remake with marlo thomas and cloris leachman as the angel? (“it happened one christmas”)…

      • I think I saw part of it. They are good actors, but, the original movie is my favorite movie in the world and, thus, no other version stands a chance against it. I have to let a few years pass, now, between viewings, I know it so well! LOVE that movie! My brother and have fun tossing lines back and forth. “Get this! I’m handin’ out wings” “Oh, why don’t you go away and stop annoying people.” (likely imperfectly recalled, but, still fun! :) )

      • I have the HD colorized version. That’s as far as a remake could possibly go and still be worth watching.

      • Well, CodeTech, that’s all well and good (lol, glad to know you like that show a lot, too :) ).

        But, there is something mysteriously lovely about black and white in certain movies that makes them more “magical” for me. “It’s a Wonderful Life” is one of them. Can’t put it into words. It just is.

  6. I think NASA’s annual budget is about $19.3 bn. Assuming they launch 1 weather satellite per year costing $300 million (including launch), that should leave them with $19 bn for actual space exploration. Shouldn’t government climate scientists all be employed by National Center for Atmospheric Research, anyhow? Certainly no need for NASA to employ any climate modelers.

      • Narrow it down. keep narrowing it down. At present we have adjustment upon adjustment, who knows who does what and why. So lets take as many pout of the loop as we can. For decades I have advocated a data base war. They used to fight as to which method was the best. Now they just fight to ensure they all say them same. In the real commercial world there is a word for it ‘cartel’ – needs breaking, quickly!

      • GISS adjusts data. Please see the following:

        *** The pristine data from Mohonk Lake are subject to a number of quality control and homogeneity testing and adjustment procedures. First, data is checked against a number of quality control tests, primarily to eliminate gross transcription errors. Next, monthly averages are calculated from the TMIN and TMAX values. This is straightforward when both values exist for all days in a month, but in the case of Mohonk Lake there are a number of months early in the record with several missing TMIN and/or TMAX values. Nevertheless, NOAA seems capable of creating an average temperature for many of those months. The result is referred to as the “Areal data”. … {Then, o}f course, more NOAA adjustments are needed. ***

        Now GISS wants to use the data, but the NOAA adjustments are not quite what they are looking for. So what do they do? They estimate the NOAA adjustments and back them out! *** Even supposedly pristine data cannot escape the adjustment process.

        (Source John Goetz, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/ )

        Sample Comment:

        Mike Bryant: “Thanks John Goetz. This is just mind-boggling. Of course, I’ve read of these adjustments, but to see them laid out like this…”

        (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/#comment-42485 )

    • “The space agency’s budget includes more than $2 billion for its Earth Science Mission Directorate for global warming science, which is specifically allocated to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. In comparison, NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.”

      https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/11/obamas-nasa-budget-is-all-about-global-warming-not-space/

    • “…NASA’s annual budget is about $19.3 bn.”

      Interestingly, Australia’s welfare budget is about $20 B. So if we stopped paying for all the worthless mouths, we would have enough money for a space programme. I’d vote for that.

      • Really? You’re happy to starve a 90yo WWII veteran, or a person not working temporarily after being crashed into by a drunk driver shattering their legs?

        You’re happy to deal with the level of crime that would result as unemployed youth fight to survive?

        And considering NASA can’t lift a man above 36000′ in their 747, that $US15bn (I assume you won’t want the climate hoax and Muslim outreach functions) won’t buy you much. You would also find Oz a poor location given it’s too ft from the equator.

      • Andrew, about half of Australia is closer to the equator than Cape Canaveral. Invest in an atlas.

      • ” Donald, like his son-in-law, is not giving away the game before the whistle. ”

        Exactly. See also his remarks about a Hillary Prosecution, The Wall, O’BuggerCare, etc.

        He’s clearly (and effectively) coaching his words – like any world-class negotiator – to remain non-committal until he FULLY studies the subject and listens to his team of advisors. I am liking what I see, so far.

      • First I knew Don Trump’s uncle was a MIT engineering professor involved in X Ray and Nuclear research. No wonder he has respect for real science and scepticism.

    • That’s a scare story, put out after Trump’s interview with the New York Times. The interviewers tried several times to get Trump to change his mind and support the Paris agreement, but he would merely say, “I’ll be thinking about it” and go on to topics of higher concern, such as golf courses. He was dangling the NYT reporters in mid-air, making them wait for what turned out to be nothing; he never changed his stance, just said he’d think about it, which gained him time to get on to important things like appointing more people to more positions. I don’t expect DT to abandon his stated objectives.

      • The fact that during it’s limited time with the president elect that the NYT spent so much time and energy on the subject when there are so many other issues to talk about is a very indicative of just how central the climate change scam is in the scheme of the one world government types

    • Just read below — Correction: “… climate division except for UAH satellite temp. program …” !

  7. It is an embarrassment that the nation that landed man on the moon in the orbit 240.000 miles away, has to depend on Russia to get their scientist to the ISS orbit at just over 220 miles.

  8. How much money have we spent in space? ZERO!!! All the money was spent on Earth to send men and machines into space. It went to individuals and companies that had creative genius and technical know-how. It promoted innovation, intelligence, exceptional ability and imagination. It created a vision of America that was positive and forward thinking. It encouraged young children to dream and study, in the hopes that one day they might walk on the moon or Mars, or maybe even travel to the stars. It has always been money well spent. The benefits to the rest of us, just in technical advances alone, are incalculable.

    On the other hand, the welfare state and man-made climate change are all about politicians garnering more power. The welfare state creates a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship between whole segments of society, and is destined to cause the same kind of strife as co-dependency does in individual relationships – only on a massive, national scale. Man-made climate change is not a threat to people who can put men on the moon and bring them back again. Such people can easily find solutions to problems and even advantages to a few degrees warming over a hundred years. Too bad the warming isn’t going to happen.

  9. Good news at last. Give the boot to that arrogant manipulative barsteward whose name must not be mentioned.

  10. The science is settled so there is no need to spend money researching it any longer. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing new that would allow them to narrow or change the range of their guesses one iota. Because the IPCC has been totally ineffective, funding for them needs to stop and the organization needs to be desolved.

  11. I see no harm in NASA launching Earth observation satellites and delivering data, but the interpretation of that data should not be in the hands of directly state / federal run institutions (indirect funding of Universities obviously necessary).

    I agree that climate science has become far too politicised, as have reports on the subject in the media. Listening to climate related stories on the BBC just makes me cringe. People commenting on the Trump election are described either as “climate deniers” (what is that??) or “pro-science”. The implication being that anybody who has any doubts about the inevitable and imminent immolation of the Earth in a global warming catastrophe is somehow “anti-science” (again – what does that mean?).

    I could not be more “pro-science” if I tried. I am not a scientist myself but am an avid reader of the New Scientist and other popular science websites. I would also consider myself to be in most respects an environmentalist as, like most, I am against the destruction of forests, pollution of rivers and sea, despoilation of wild habitats, hunting species to extinction etc etc.

    My politics is centrist / libertarian (hence way left of most here!) so am continually frustrated at having to agree with populist right-wing nutjobs like Trump, Farage and co (ducks to avoid major flames) rather than those whose opinions I would otherwise generally agree with.

    Anybody else like me out there?

      • Yep, they found that the atmosphere has got warmer. So what? The globe has been warming gradually since the end of the little ice age. Anyway, the magnitude of the warming is not really the big issue. The real bones of contention are:

        What is causing the warming (how much of it is due to CO2 emmissions and how much is natural variation / cycles)?

        What is the sensitivity of the global average air temperature to rising CO2?

        What is the sign and extent of cloud feedbacks?

        Why is there no tropical tropospheric hot spot?

        Why is there no increase in catastrophic weather events like we were promised? And, biggest of all

        Is ploughing gazillions of dollars into windmills and solar panels going to make any difference?

        My reading of all this is that most of the warming is natural variation, sensitivity on latest research seems to be more in the order of 1-2c per doubling – well short of catastrophic, cloud feedbacks are probably neutral or maybe even negative, the hot spot does not exist because the models that predicted it are flawed, the weather will carry on much as it always has and windmills and solar panels probably make no difference and may even make the problem worse as we need more gas fired power plants to fill in the gaps in supply.

        If we need to do anything it is to improve energy efficiency – which is usually self-funding as it saves lots of cash rather than costing it. My house has all LED bulbs and lots of insulation, all paid back within two years.

        We need more empirical research and less computer model projections. We certainly do not need to be making massive budget policy decisions based on seriously flawed model based climate projections.

      • Griff, you may have believed Mueller was a skeptic.
        However his track record in science (with the exception of the lecture lambasting Mann and Jones which in hindsight was an obvious “setup” for things to come) and more importantly his commercial interests with his daughter showed he was a true and invested alarmist.

    • Anybody else like me out there?

      Me. I don’t believe in polluting our own backyard, but I don’t buy into the Chicken Little crap. I’ve seen too much of it in my short lifetime to even bother.

      NASA should never have gotten into climate science beyond studying the Earth to apply it to other planets. Weather, climate…etc. all of that HAS an agency–NOAA. Not saying the two couldn’t work together or collaborate–i.e. NASA builds the satellites and launches them for NOAA..but NASA shouldn’t be interpreting those results. That is NOAA’s job.

      Why do I feel as if NOAA collectively let out a sigh of relief at Trump’s announcement? Yea! We get to do OUR jobs! kind of thing.

      As for Trump, I do agree with him on the politicized science of climate change. I am also finding I partially agree with him on a lot of his other less “key” issues that were obscured during the hate race to the POTUS seat. I am cautiously optimistic about the man. But I do agree with him completely on this issue.

  12. I assume this will eventually apply to ecological research by the USGS as well. I’m sure there are other examples of politicized science that could save a lot of money if scrapped.

  13. Fixing NASA is one thing, but this whole mess is one big mess.

    $10.0 billion right there. Everybody’s in on it.

    Note there was an earlier version of this arrangement that made even less sense.

    Figure 4: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change Activities

    • Bill, so there is your answer.

      To President Elect Trump:
      Take this mess, in the name of efficiency take all the climate activities and house it in it’s own agency or maybe roll it into the DOE – take all the members out of their departments and rehome them there. At that point you have a single budget line item to manage. Rebuild the climate division with real (sceptical) scientists and engineers with a no disadvantage mandate. Sack anyone who refuses to debate science.

      Extract the USA from and defund the UNFCCC and the UNHRC shifting that UNHRC funding to a revitalised red cross. Defund any city that donates to ICLEI or tries to skirt the withdrawal from Paris by independently joining the Paris Accord by the projected amount the accord will damage the economy. Cite the afore created climate department as consolidating US effort on climate.

      Split out climate science grants from the NSF and establish a subcommittee within the NSF to handle funding requests mentioning climate change – ensure there is an appropriate separate budget line item for these projects. Establish strings attachments that climate NSF grants only go to projects that have at least 50% industry funding to make sure the research is economically sensible. Reserve a small amount maybe only 5% for pure research – after all the science is settled and incontrovertible didn’t you know.

      Repeal subsidies for noncompetitive energy technologies, defund any states by the amount they spend on any new subsidies taking care not to break the contracts they already have with consumers – after all the people of the nation entered into these subsidised agreements in good faith, You don’t want to hurt the citizenry.

      Discontinue aid to any countries that spend US dollars on climate change mitigation. Real adaptation (eg Cyclone shelters are OK though).

      Reverse Obama’s ban on building Coal Power stations in third world nations

      Redirect the USA foreign aid program. Start a massive building program of coal mining and associated electricity networks in Africa on a build/operate basis. Alleviating poverty is one of the USAs best ways stopping terrorism in the process you will build weath and customers for American products.

      Take the 100 Billion you just saved with all this and make America great again – make sure you send me a proportion equal to CO2 in the atmosphere just 400ppm or 0.04% as royalty for the ideas.

      Regards
      Bob

      • Bob, those are some very sensible suggestions. Mr. Trump has a website where citizens are encouraged to present ideas – have you passed your ideas on because they should be considered by the Trump team.

      • A great move by President Trump would be to tell the UN to get out and go somewhere like Paris or Harare!

      • bobl November 23, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        Defund any city that donates to ICLEI or tries to skirt the withdrawal from Paris by independently joining the Paris Accord by the projected amount the accord will damage the economy.”

        O’l number three is the deal breaker, the “No State Shall” right in the beginning of the paragraph kind of makes it clear.

        Section 10
        1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

        2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

        3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

        So no bobl, you don’t mess with any defunding, you send a nice note telling the city fathers to stop or the next communication will be from United States Marshals. And don’t forget to add the customary “Thank you for your co-operation” in closing.

        Oh and another treaty we never signed, US Gov can still issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”
        Now wouldn’t that be fun, getting some congressman to slip it in on a “ear mark” to a bill.

        Anyway, too many of the self righteous do not realize that the founding fathers foresaw what types of shenanigans some scoundrels might try to impose on the Republic.

        michael

      • Rhoda, I’m not a citizen of the USA, I’m a legal non-citizen IE: I live in my own country but you are welcome to submit this in my stead -In return when you get the head swamp drainer job in the Trump Admin don’t forget us little guys…

        One more piece of advice to President Elect Trump – Anthony would be nice slipped in as Gavin’s Boss in NASA – would help with your diversity numbers too!

        Live long and prosper Rhoda… Corny but what a sentiment!

      • To Mike the Morelock.
        Despite the US constitution individuals do make agreements with organisations like ICLEI and generally you can’t do anything except tighten the money strings. If the admin sees this then they should remove the funding being wasted on the green boondoggles and let the city find their own money to waste. The Trump admin should do both things, enforce the constitution and defund waste.

        Here in Oz for example you have always had a right to groundwater, recently my state started to meter and charge for groundwater which is a theft of a traditional right, it should have been compensated but wasn’t and they will get away with it until someone with the cash takes it to the supreme court. Likewise a lot of what your elected officials do is bluff – look at the Paris Agreement executive ratification completely illegal by my reading – it’s all bluff.

      • @barnyard boss, I did say revitalised, but it doesn’t matter use any transparent NGO you like. No the Clinton Foundation doesn’t count as a transparent organisation. I don’t really care provided they are accountable to someone and have to justify where the money goes – as the UNHRC is particularly NOT!

      • There is some value in climate science but unfortunately we have to start over. The existing “science” has a completely wrong idea of how to do science and is off in the completely wrong direction.

        We don’t need to study computer models of climate. This is a completely impossible path. Everybody spent studying that must be fired. We need to focus on basic science. We need to think about how to prove assumptions they take for granted.

        The first step will be to fire everyone involved in the current study and hire from scratch wgain based on real scientific people who don’t Have any political bias and aren’t trying to save the earth but trying to actually figure out how nature works.

    • And hundreds of $millions at least is spent on travel. NASA and NOAA scientists are among the top 1% emitters of CO2 in that regard.

  14. The Guardian article is very very vague on who said what when. They quote Walked as ” said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.”

    When and under what circumstances Walker said other things quoted., as “told the Guardian” is not clear.

    I’m not all that sure that this is news.

  15. the Space Shuttle was a program without a real mission and a waste of money. the Space Station is a marginal science research facility with little payback. If 5 people make it to Mars and back by the end of this century I would be surprised (although long gone). Mars will never be colonized. Man will never travel to any other solar system. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing there are real limitations in space travel and exploration. The NASA/climate science link is an attempt by vested interests to keep it relevant and the budget growing.

    • I tend to agree with you dave……we’re not that advanced

      Face it….we got to those places by strapping an explosion on their butts

      • Before Mars, they should set a prize for how long a bunch of people can live in a sealed capsule in Antarctica with strictly limited resources and no hope of quick re-supply in the event of an emergency. That is, unlike Biosphere 2, that silly experiment in a greenhouse in the Arizona desert where the wild excursions in imagination quickly came up against reality and they were effectively able to ask for pizza deliveries.

    • “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing there are real limitations in space travel and exploration.”

      The main thing that’s limiting us today is the danger and economics of chemical rockets, reusable or not. Once we figure out how to use EM energy to manipulate space-time, the economics will change dramatically and the danger will drop as well. While it’s fine to be skeptical about whether or not this is practical physics tells us that it’s a theoretical possibility. Even General Relativity infers some kind of relationship between EM energy and space-time curvature. If only we knew the stress energy tensor representation of a photon. Oh wait, we do …

      • I agree, it’s possible. For example the speed of light is not an absolute, light travels at different speeds depending on permittivity of the medium it travels through. Think of permittivity as a drag/friction on energy. The permittivity of free space ε0 = 8.8541878176.. × 10−12 F/m. If there was a way to reduce the permittivity of free space then you would theoretically speed up any electromagnetic wave travelling through that space. (Compress space), by successively compressing space, moving through it and then expanding space (even a mm at a time) one can warp from place to place. Do it fast enough and you have a space compression (warp) drive.

        Now how can we lower the permittivity of space, well I propose that if you can suppress the zero point flux in a space then that space will collapse (compress) under the pressure of the zero point field outside the void. Can that be done, YES, there are known ways as this is what is currently thought to cause the Casmir Effect.

        As surprising as this sounds it has some logic support, when we add mass to space then we bend it (stretch it), removing mass/energy from space then should logically compress space. The only mass/energy to remove is the Zero point virtual flux.

        This theory (speculation) does lead to an odd thought, propagation of energy can be represented as waves and particles, what if the whole of existence is particle based, and the movement of energy is actually instantaneous through the voids between the particles of the zero point flux, that is the voids don’t exist in a traditional sense, then light impinging on the beginning of a void emerges instantaneously out the other side, the speed being reduced by the drag of the zero point field. That is the density of the particles in the zero point flux is what sets the maximum speed of light. Near a black hole however gravity clears out the zero point field and light can warp across from the event horizon causing a “Black hole” in space.

        Of course this is somewhat theoretical and is probably completely wrong but it gives me hope of a viable warp drive some day…

      • bobl,

        “Now how can we lower the permittivity of space,”

        Photons seem to do this, although its accompanied with an equal and opposite increase in the permeability and the amount that it’s changed by is the fine structure constant. The permittivity is about 1/a (137) times lower, while the permeability is about 137 times larger than the equivalent free space occupied by the photon, thus the speed of light is unchanged 1/sqrt(e0u0) and only the characteristic impedance sqrt(u0/e0) will change. In effect the ‘Q’ of a photon’s equivalent resonant circuit relative to the space-time it’s occupying is 1/a.

        To derive this, model a photon as a resonant LC circuit, constrained by E=hv and the unit charge. Given that the resonant frequency is 1/sqrt(LC), the energy stored in a capacitor is q^2 / 2C and the velocity is c, the required L and C are easily determined and the resulting impedance at resonance is sqrt(L/C). This tells us that the fine structure constant the ratio of 2 impedances. One is the impedance of free space and the other is the resonant impedance of the aforementioned LC circuit model of a photon. This is about 52K ohms and calculated exactly as, Zp = 2h/q^2 = sqrt(L/C) where the fine structure constant is calculated as, a = Zo/Zp.

        Since L and C are functions of geometry, e0 and u0, the only way to modify the resulting L and C so that it conforms to the requirements of Maxwell’s equations (a resonant LC circuit) is to modify the geometry, which effectively requires both curving and un-curving the space-time occupied by the photon relative to the space-time the photon is travelling through and a scalar metric of this curvature is the fine structure constant.

        It’s also kind of cool that the importance of the fine structure constant as it unites mass and charge jumps out when you create a system of natural units where the distance unit is the Compton wavelength, the time unit is the Compton period, the charge unit is the charge of an electron and the mass unit is the mass of an electron, the physical constants, u0, e0, c, Z0, Zp, Me, q, h and the Compton frequency, wavelength and period are all either 1, 2 or functions of the fine structure constant. This is not completely surprising since the fine structure constant is a function of h, q and c and u0, but what is interesting is that Me is in the mix and that while we often consider the fine structure constant to be a measure of the strength of EM interactions, it also units EM to mass and space-time curvature.

        The counter argument is that photons modelled as a point in space-time don’t obey Maxwell’s equation precisely because of the aforementioned inconsistency with the required L and C. This is really a consequence of when you take a snapshot of a photon at a point in space-time, there’s not enough information to determine its frequency or wavelength. You must look either across time or space. If you consider the photon a 4-d object that spans time and space as a smear proportional to its period and wavelength which is projected into our 3-d perception as a point and explain the inconsistency as a manifestation of the space-time curvature representation of a photon, it all makes perfect sense.

        With this model, the photon propels itself by falling into a local curvature gradient, which is one way some have proposed that warp drive might work. If you can make your craft produce a bubble of space-time curvature and fall into a space-time curvature gradient, you have warp drive and it seems that the photon is the existence proof that this is possible and indicates that the energies required are manageable. In other words, warp drive makes your craft look like a photon to the rest of the Universe.

        This hypothesis also results in an a few interesting symmetries, one is that the strong force is complementary to the force of gravity (weird, but not unexpected). Another is that matter curves space while charge curves time (negative charge is curved into the past while positive charge is curved into the future, both by half a Compton period), but since space and time are connected through the speed of light, both curve space-time. A corresponding model of particles, where the curved space is on the outside and the un-curved space is on its inside and where anti-particles are the opposite can explain what happens to the space-time curvature (gravity) of matter when it’s annihilated. It’s still there and simply reorganized into photons.

      • “once we figure out how to use EM energy to manipulate space-time” is like saying
        “once we learn magic”. There is no experimental or theoretical evidence that such a
        thing is possible.

      • “once we learn magic”

        What is technology to some would be magic to a less technologically advanced civilization. Cell phones, tablets, pc’s and even the Internet as we now know it would have been considered magic just 50 years ago and much of the technology we have today wasn’t even in the realm of the science fiction of the day.

        You are wrong about the theoretical possibility, but on the experimental side, nobody’s been able to conceive the definitive experiment yet, not that there aren’t some ideas out there …

      • bobl, I like your thinking, I am no good at that sort of hard science but I have always been fascinated by the same thoughts about light, quantum particles and even our thought process. That thought process is instantaneous, all we do is look at a picture and there we are. Keep it up, I like it.

      • @ asybot
        November 23, 2016 at 6:04 pm: Stalin did a lot of that sort of experiment to scores of millions. Their bones are on the Steppe.

      • co2isnotevil, A rather interesting treatment though what you write fits with what we see, That mass can only increase impedance and not reduce it. That is we can only slow light we cant speed it up. From this I imply that mass (and per your discussion photons) can only stretch space where as for a warp drive we need to compress space – this would require anti-energy or antimatter. We know from Quantum mechanics that it is possible that the universe is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs which is the implied zero point flux, so only on average space is empty. What happens if we suppress the particle-antiparticle flux? Well the Casmir Force implies that there is a force created between the objects, a space-time distortion (compression) occurs that creates a gravitational well forcing the two plates together. I’d wager that the geometric symmetry was broken and the impedance lowered.

        Just a little theory of mine.

      • bobl,
        “From this I imply that mass (and per your discussion photons) can only stretch space where as for a warp drive we need to compress space – this would require anti-energy or antimatter.”

        My hypothesis (speculative) is that photons both stretch and compress space-time in equal and opposite amounts consequential to a space-time resonance quantified by the Compton frequency and the fine structure constant. For a warp drive, you compress and expand space-time locally around your craft and fall into the compressed space-time in your future leaving the decompressed space-time of your past in your wake. In effect, you make a tiny wormhole that connects a point in time a small amount in the future to one a small amount in the past and ‘tunnel’ through space-time bypassing most of time as you traverse through space while dragging this little wormhole with you.

        The requirement for large negative energy/negative mass arises from the singularity model of particles (QCD) relative to space-time curvature (GR) which implies that warping space-time requires you to act on the entire Universe. If instead, the particle singularity is stretched into a surface of space at a single point in time (similar to how string theory works), where the uncurved space is on the inside, the infinities go away, the ‘negative energy’ is already there, neither GR nor QCD breaks, it explains what happens to gravity (curvature) when particles and anti-particles annihilate each other and to warp space-time, net energy only needs to applied locally instead of to the entire Universe. GR now becomes the unified field theory that Einstein thought it could become. With this model, particles contain equal and opposite amounts of curved and uncurved space-time, where the curved space-time on the outside overlaps with the curved components of everything else (gravity) and the uncurved space on the inside is isolated from all other uncurved space (except within atomic nuclei) and which seems to manifest the strong force (anti-particles flip the roles of curved and uncurved). Forces and energy arises because space-time intrinsically resists being curved or uncurved and because curved space-time and uncurved space-time are separated in time, they can not trivially cancel each other out. Photons present curved and uncurved space-time equally to the Universe and as a result are massless relative to the containing Universe. Charge introduces a caveat where negatively charged particles are curved a bit into the past, while positively charged particles are curved a bit into the future (in both cases by half a Compton period). Since photons exist both a little in the past and a little in the future, they can effectively manifest both a positive and negative charge.

        The boundary between the curved component and the ‘uncurved’ component that stretches a point in space-time into a surface of space at a point in time can trace its origin back to the nothingness that preceded the Big Bang. The arrow of time originates at this boundary, where the past is outside and all possible futures are on the inside. In this model, the arrow of time is an irreversible filter that selects one future from all possible futures and operates independently for each particle, where the force of charge keeps all the time lines in local sync. In the beginning, a 1 dimensional proto-universe was randomly curving and uncurving as space-time fluctuated around zero. At some point it was inevitable that a random fluctuation would make the original proto-universe so curved it curved in on itself, time separated from space as the arrow of time became committed to a single direction and inflation began. The resulting 2-d Universe (mass) expanded and eventually curved in on itself and a 3-d Universe (EM) arose. After this one expanded and curved in on itself, our 4-d matter Universe (particles) arose and gravity took over. Inflation stopped because the uncurved space-time became isolated from the curved space-time by the resulting 3-d boundaries at a single point in time and that defines particles. I call this hypothesis Dimensional Evolution.

        What a warp drive based on this hypothesis must do is to construct one of these nullification boundaries around a craft which effectively isolates it from the space-time of the containing Universe allowing it to slip right through it without regard for SR limitations and then construct a local curvature gradient on top of this for propulsion. In effect, the craft is inside of a photon.

    • There is some discussion of EM Drive, which may be possible and allow exploration of the solar system, at Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor.

    • Too bad you weren’t around in 1492 to explain why sailing around in the world in wooden sailing ships just didn’t make sense.

      • You are quite correct. How many sailors who believed that the world was round went out and fell off the edge of the world?

      • Sailors and scholars in 1492 all knew that the world was round, Washington Irving’s fable notwithstanding. The issue was the size of the earth, not its shape.

        By that time, Europeans had already sailed farther south than Columbus proposed to sail west. His crew were concerned about the steadiness of the wind from the east, not the distance that they had sailed. They didn’t know, as Columbus did, that at a higher latitude the wind blew just as steadily from the west, to carry them all safely home.

    • Never say never, Dave.

      NASA’s space expenditures did not have to be a waste of money. A lack of vision caused the meager progress. We could aleady have people in orbit around Mars had we handled our resources properly.

      Maybe Trump will find a visionary for NASA, and we can get this right this time.

    • as Donald Trump noted- the asteroids are the goal, not Mars. the Asteroids are the next frontier- hollowed out for colonies- easily sealed up from space- gigatrillions of money waiting on the exploitation of nearly limitless resources that only need a little shove to fall into near-earth/ lunar orbits. As far as man never traveling to other solar systems- do you really want to state, like the british royal society nebbishes over a hundred years ago that we now actually really no kidding know EVERYTHING about physics and all that science stuff?

      • “as Donald Trump noted- the asteroids are the goal, not Mars. the Asteroids are the next frontier- hollowed out for colonies- easily sealed up from space- gigatrillions of money waiting on the exploitation of nearly limitless resources”

        Speaking of limitless resources, there looks to be a pretty good source of nickel-iron in the asteriod belt, the asteriod 16 Psyche which scientists think might be the exposed core of an ancient planetary body. It’s about 200 kilometers in diameter, and contains all sorts of useful materials.

        NASA is thinking about sending a probe to visit 16 Psyche.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche

        There are lots of resources in space just waiting for humans to come get.

        It may be easier to build an artificial habitable “asteriod” rather than hollowing a real one out. Both are viable options. One or the other is necessary for humans to live safely in space for the longterm.

        Humans *must* have Earth-equivalent gravity and protection from lethal radiation. Large rotating, thick-skinned habitats, first in Earth orbit and then beyond, will give us this protection, and our main space program goal should be to develop the infrastructure and the activities that will get us to the point of being able to build these habitats.

        Once the first one is built, there will be no looking back for the human race.

        We almost have everything hardware-wise that we need to start doing these kinds of things. We just need NASA’s leader to decide that’s what we ought to be doing, and keep everyone focused.

      • There are any number of unsolved problems in physics — quantum gravity, dark energy, dark matter
        just to name a few. But none of them are likely to lead to human sized faster than light spaceships. For
        that to be possible much of what we know today would be wrong and not only slightly wrong but fundamentally wrong. Plus why choose “EM energy to manipulate space-time” rather than say “once
        we learn how to wave a stick about to manipulate space-time” Both would require most of our current
        understanding of physics to be wrong before they would be possible.

        And in 1492 there were a lot of astronomers who knew the correct circumference of the world and
        who therefore could predict that Columbus would starve before he would reach China. Which is why
        Columbus has so much trouble getting funded for his trip. And the astronomers were correct but of
        course Columbus got lucky. And a more accurate analogy would be explaining why sailing to the moon
        in wooden sailing ships didn’t make sense – since that describes the level of improbability better than
        sailing around the world.

      • “Both would require most of our current understanding of physics to be wrong before they would be possible.”

        Not necessarily so. Any advances in understanding along these lines will undoubtedly build on what we know and converge in some limit to what we think we know. General Relativity didn’t obsolete Newtonian gravity but just gave is a better understanding of how gravity worked under a wider range of conditions and converged to Newtonian gravity in a limit that at one time we thought was all there was. It’s absolutely certain that any discovery which enables non chemical propulsion sufficient to get us to the stars will be absolutely consistent with General Relativity which already has the analytical richness to support things as crazy sounding as wormholes and warp drive.

      • Geronimo,

        IMO Columbus didn’t get lucky, but knew that land lay within sailing distance of Europe. I don’t know whether he really believed that Asia extended as far to the east as he argued or that earth was as small as he claimed, but his experiences in Iceland (Greenland) and the Azores (“non-Christian” bodies washed ashore), plus perhaps secret Basque knowledge of the Newfoundland cod fisheries, told him that land was out there, within reach.

      • @co2isnotevil
        Agreed, Even the notion that time is a dimension implies that there are solutions for negative time ( we currently ignore negative time solutions to maxwells equations because we don’t have a meaning for negative time). Even a conventional drive can travel instantaneously if the motion in time can be decoupled from motion in space. As I pointed out before classical EM and Quantum mechanics differ on whether space is empty or whether Maxwell was right and there is an ether (in Quantum mechanics the zero point flux). The idea that space is empty is an assumption promulgated by Einstein that is possibly/probably wrong. Space might be only be empty on average, a mix of photons and antiphotons that are on average nothing.

        Indeed it can be shown that an em wave can indeed transit a region that has zero energy – 273K, that can’t happen if there is no energy in the region of space. There is too much we don’t know and warping space over small regions is one of the unknown things that might just be possible.

  16. People are too quick to forget the benefits to all mankind that space exploration brings. I believe we received battery operated tools for one, every household (western society) probably has at least one. I think another was silastic. If that is true then every car and every house (western society) has some. NASA, get off climate and onto what your mandate is. Leave climate to those who are (dare I say it) qualified. In Australia we lost the world renown CSIRO to climate junk. Every blessing Janice!!

    • How could you leave off your list Corning Ware and the single most important gift to man since duck (from duik, Dutch for linen) tape, WD-40?

      • Dutch for linen

        From a canvas-like waterproofing material known as “Cotton Duck”, used in huge quantities during WWII.
        “Repels water like water off a duck’s back”

      • Yep, Duct tape. For taping the seams in heating and air conditioning ducts (the big sheet metal pipes and boxes that the air is blown through.

        One of the relatively few things duct tape DOESN’T work well on. >¿< Which is why we now a days use metal foil tape for that. But Duct tape has proven to be so useful for other uses that it will continue to be produced for decades to come.

        Truly one of Mankind's greatest creations.

      • 8-)
        I remember when I was a kid we begged our parents to buy us some “Tang”.
        They finally did.
        We stopped begging them.

      • How about the advances in computers alone? But that said since we stopped going to the Moon a lot of advances have stopped being as drastic as that last “boom”. Even today’s rocketry has basically stagnated. Yes there are advances in materials but until we make huge steps forward with new propulsion we will not advance very fast. (anti gravity anyone?). Even the next generation “heavy lift” systems are only slightly more advanced than a Saturn V , remember? the late 60’s are now almost 60 year old teck!!! ( of course I like the stationary equatorial elevators I see that as the one way to get asteroid harvesting started)

      • Joel,

        Today it would appear so, but pictures of naked female chancellors and their communist youth comrades are streng verboten.

  17. What gets me is that it is not NASA that has the satellite or balloon based temperature record but the earth based, UHI polluted or canvas/wooden/metal bucket based thermometer record, the substantive and most contextual part of which record well and truly precedes space exploration. GISSTemp is a joke and its maintenance within NASA is utterly ludicorous. Its something you might expect in the script of an absurdist, spoof movie or play…. or Animal Farm Revisited.

      • Now that really is ludicorous. Term attributable to M Seward. I claim “fair use” under Copyright to avoid an unnecessary lawsuit.

      • “I’ve always thought it absurd that the U.S. had two different “official” temperature records.”

        It doesnt. there is no such thing as an official temperature record.

    • “GISSTemp” requires about a 1/4 manyear to maintain.

      You could defund it and I could still run the code.

      1. NOAA produces the data.
      2. Giss Ingest that data.
      3. The code just runs

      • Oh that’s good news.

        But defunding had one profound effect. The head of GISS could no longer speak as the head of GISS. So lets defund.

        (In my opinion, Best has done good work and you are personally much more credible person than the head of GISS. However it would help if you just mostly ignored the fake skeptics instead of complaining so often about fake skeptisism. You know, there are crackpots, potheads and regular people, you don’t need to send a oneliner for each of those, right?)

      • Steven, I’m more than a bit surprised that you say that NOAA “produces” data. The usual term for data is “collects”. Of course data is then analysed to “produce” results.

  18. My nomination for word of the year folks – “ludicorous” – I claim all copyright.

    It means a chorus of craziness, a la GISS excuses for their pause busting NEW, IMPROVED DATA SURFACE TEMPERATURE SET WITH ADDED TRENDINESS AND EAU DE PARIS.

    You may substitute ‘ludicrous’ at your leisure to avoid a law suit.

    :-)

  19. Glorified FAKE weather program is what the place is. It’s fraud, all of it. The science of refusing to properly calculate the temperature of the atmosphere is not ‘basically sound.”

  20. As I type this there are 38 replies and no mention of President Eisenhower’s farewell address.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It happened.

    • You’re right – it happened because we weren’t listening. It seems we really aren’t very good at listening.
      To paraphrase one of the European scholars of the last century [I think it may have been Churchill]: ‘The United States tries every possible wrong solution to a problem before (usually) selecting the correct one.’

      • I think it was Churchill, but he could easily said this as well‘ The United States tries every possible wrong solution to a problem before using the only one left over.’ But the one nice thing is that mostly the USA gives them to the rest of the planet ( after a tidy profit) except for Chinese they just steal them and Russia who out of principal didn’t buy them.

      • Ah, no. It is not the United States that “tries every possible wrong solution”, it is the political left in America that has done that. Democrat or Republican, leftists are the problem.

  21. “Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”

    Sounds like he’s throwing the rest of NASA under the bus to keep from getting eliminated for being redundant among Earth observers.

  22. “Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.” says it all. Trump is probably already counting on the redirected funding from AGW to fund national infrastructure programs. Just how many organizations do we need to be studying climate? There’s going to be some people looking for work with few available openings in the near future if they aren’t already. I’m also guessing there will be some bitter whistle blowers coming out of this mess claiming they were forced to comply with the AGW meme or lose their jobs.

  23. What many people fail to realise, is that once we have people and craft in space, setting up a colony on the moon or mars is free. just like wind and solar power is free

  24. Gavin was evidently not well enough funded to respond to any number of standard journalistic queries from yours truly about matters climate over the course of the past 10 years. He or a minion or a like-minded colleague at Real Climate was able to take the time to make a file indicating me as a problem on their delightful realclimatewiki page, however. So, I guess I got that for my tax dollars. He would never, ever adjust a climatological record, although the GISS record for Reykjavik in Don’t Sell Your Coat correctly shows no warming since the 1940s and the one on the GISS website today shows impressive warming. So, I guess I got that for my tax dollars, too.

  25. I would love to see NASA extend it space programmes Hopefully it will never be undermined by politics in the long run. However, talking of politicised science, this is probably the most politicised science website I have ever come across. For eight years we have seen Obama run down, now we see Trump promoted. I can’t count how many times I have seen daft terms like “warmisist and left wing fanatics mentioned about about the most middle of the road politicians. I’ve seen solid right wing politicians idolised and old Tory Lords like Monkton using the site to promote traditional rural class systems and colonialism.
    I agree politics and science should stay apart, but people in glass houses should not throw stones (Or people in greenhouses!) Apologies in advance for the apoplectic fits.

    • ..there is a YUUUUGE difference between a non governmental blog and a taxpayer funded research facility…Of course, you knew that didn’t you….Oh look, a squirrel !

      • PiperPaul November 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm

        The image is too hard to read so here’s some text to go with it.

        Howard Brookins Jr., the alderman for Chicago’s 21st ward, had publicly spoken out about a toothy menace plaguing the city’s garbage carts: urban squirrels, which in Brookins’s view were “aggressive,” and aggressively damaging the trash cart lids.

        Brookins was biking along Cal-Sag Trail on Nov. 13, when a squirrel darted into his path. The squirrel cut Brookins’s bike trip short by wrapping itself in the spokes of the alderman’s bicycle. The alderman flipped over the handlebars and landed with such a severe impact that he fractured his skull, broke his nose and knocked out a handful of teeth, … link

        Sorry to enjoy someone else’s misfortune but LOL.

    • “However, talking of politicised science, this is probably the most politicised science website I have ever come across.”

      You mean you don’t consider all those alarmist websites to be politicized? But this one is?

    • Old Tory Lords created all classical Western Science, you maroon. Newton and pals? you may have heard of them- So whose system is better- rich aristocrats funding actual, real science hobbies, or social justice affirmative action “research” which produces pre-determined “findings” for the global elite, as they collect taxpayer dollars?

      • Not true.Many academics came from humble backgrounds. The aristocracy tend to go to Oxbridge because they have a better start in life At Eton or similar. A child with a medium level intelligence will do much better in life if he is from a wealthy background than a poor child who is extremely bright.
        By the way, Newton funded his studies by working as a valet during his studies at Trinity College. He was from a middle class background, but hardly aristocracy.

      • promote traditional rural class systems and colonialism.

        I’d say that was the point you lost all credibility, but frankly you didn’t have much to begin with. ~¿~

        COLONIALISM. Much like reactionist or counter-revolutionairy, the Leftists don’t actually know what it means. They just know they’re supposed to shout it at people the don’t agree with.

    • There is a strong correlation between political beliefs and global warming beliefs. It is therefore unsurprising to find many right wingers on this site.

      The thing to note, though, is that bad science will get shot down no matter which side of the debate it supports. In other words, bad science that supports the skeptics does not get a free pass. There are enough engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, etc. that someone will call out any errors, omissions, incompetence, or just plain fraud.

      • CommieBob, yours is about the only sensible response I had from my post. Many thanks. The point I was trying to make is I know this site is biased towards Conservative and right wing politics, I accept that. But it just seems strange to rage against the politicisation of science, when that is exactly what large section of this site are about.

      • Gareth Phillips November 24, 2016 at 3:58 am

        … But it just seems strange to rage against the politicisation of science, when that is exactly what large section of this site are about.

        The community that gathers here is quite diverse. In that light, I think it’s laudable that conflicting opinions get posted.

      • Commiebob-san:

        One’s political ideology is simply a manifestation of one’s epistomolotgy– not the other way around.

        Conservatives are, by nature, empiricists, curious, skeptical, individualistic, and have a heathy distrust of government… Leftists, in general, are driven more by emotions and feelings, are group oriented, tend to accept authority, are altruistic, and think the government can solve all problems.

        The CAGW ho-x should never have occured. When communism started to implode, the CAGW cult was developed take over the task of destoying capitalism and limited government ideologies.

        It was quite sucessful in getting governments to waste $10’s of trillions of taxpayers’ money but its days are numbered…

        Leftists don’t realize the blowback the CAGW demise will have against them… Hardworking taxpayers will not be pleased that Leftists wasted so many $trillions of their hard earned money for no reason whatsoever….

      • That unfortunately is precisely what has not happened.

        You have to face the fact that science research has many flaws and among them is a politicized peer review system, where half the science articles are fraud intentional or not and cannot be reproduced. Where funding for science corrupts science itself to promote certain outcomes.

        There are dozens of ways to attack the science of global warming it is easily proved that something is horribly wrong with this “science” that the scientists in this field use unscientific methodologies and base falsity upon falsity to build a mountain of garbage that has to be unraveled piece by piece.

  26. Hopefully now we can get NASA’s “prime mission” changed from informing the arabs how much they contributed to the space program, back to actually launching missions to space. And get away from constant politically correct “training” (social PC indoctrination) and back to real mission and work related training.

  27. Who really believes, based on Trump’s many “promises” before the election, that they know for sure what Trump will actually do on any one of them? Trump emulated P.T. Barnum, quoted as saying that there is a sucker born every minute. How many of his “promises” are implemented will depend on the persons he appoints to run his various departments and agencies, and how much “freedom” he gives them in that.

  28. I thought I saw a post here at WUWT a while ago from Jerry Pournelle. Maybe it was just “Jerry Pournelle”.

  29. Here is the ABC article mentioned above about mr Schmidt and claims he manipulated data , he seems to contradict himself .
    Print Email Facebook Twitter More
    NASA director debunks Malcolm Roberts’ theory on climate data manipulation in polite letter
    Updated about an hour ago

    From left to right: Malcolm Roberts and Gavin Schmidt
    PHOTO: One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts (L) and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (R). (ABC/Twitter)
    RELATED STORY: Behind the scenes with Australia’s newest One Nation senatorRELATED STORY: Q&A showdown: Brian Cox takes on Malcolm Roberts
    MAP: Australia
    In a politely worded letter, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has addressed One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts’ concerns that the organisation’s data on climate change has been manipulated.

    In a rare occurrence, director Gavin Schmidt personally wrote a letter in response to Senator Roberts’ request for information about the NASA GISTEMP analysis of global surface temperature history.

    The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) is an estimate of global surface temperature change.

    In the letter obtained by Fairfax Media and circulated widely on social media, the NASA scientist directed Senator Roberts to a number of links on the NASA website that published the entirety of NASA’s raw data and the code they use to analyse that data.

    “However, you appear to hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time,” the letter went on.
    The first “misconception” noted by Mr Schmidt related to a graph that Senator Roberts had included in his request.

    The graph, as Mr Schmidt pointed out, originated from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), a project run by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    “Perhaps you might not be aware, but NOAA is a different US Govt. agency than NASA, and questions relating to their activities or products might be more usefully addressed to them,” Mr Schmidt said.

    The second “misconception” pertained to Senator Roberts’ comments on the effect of homogeneity adjustments on Arctic temperatures “from whatever source”.

    The NASA climate scientist continued his letter to Mr Roberts by explaining homogeneity adjustments.

    “The claim that GISS has ‘removed the 1940s warmth’ in the Arctic is not correct,” he said.

    Mr Schmidt explained that temperature records were homogenised.

    This, he said, was a “necessary task to ensure that non-climatic influences in the analysis are minimised as much as possible”.

    Mr Schmidt urged Senator Roberts if he had any remaining questions, to perform his own analyses.

    “Finally, might I suggest that you avail yourself to the resources provided by the Bureau of Meteorology or CSIRO in Australia for further details on this topic,” the letter concluded.

    This out-of-the-ordinary step taken by the NASA director was not the first time Senator Roberts has come up against a scientist over climate change.

    In August, particle physicist Professor Brian Cox took on Senator Roberts on the ABC’s Q&A program.

    Their exchange involved claims by Senator Roberts that climate data had been corrupted by NASA.

    • Roberts is just wrong about what NASA does as opposed to NOAA

      Just wrong.

      We fought hard to get the NASA code released .. it would help if folks actually looked at it

      • @ Steven Mosher
        November 23, 2016 at 4:32 pm: Unlike Gavin and Mosh, Malcolm is a skilled practical Physicist/Engineer. I back him in the long run…..

    • Homogenised is just a Euphamism for Corrupted.

      The Homogenisation is a model of how the world is thought to work, they unbelievably think that thermometers over 1000km apart are somehow related. On the whole they are not. So the “data” that the climate models feed from is not the actual grid temperature but a model of temperature smeared over the surface of the planet. Climate models are the model of the output of a model. Because a chosen few reference thermometers represent a substantial chunk of the earth’s surface, cherry picking the right set of references can inflate the temperature trend of a huge chunk of the earths surface for example you can smear UHI from Darwin over a quarter the area of Australia. Indeed the minute you make an adjustment say for station moves, you are making assumptions and the set becomes “It’s a model stupid!”

      I call all these “datasets” modeled temperature sets, so one can be scientifically accurate about what they are. GISTEMP is a modeled temperature set RSS and UAH are also modeled temperature sets although the assumptions are much more objective (orbital decay is a pretty good model). Only the raw data is a dataset though. All these modeled sets should always be referenced to the raw data (they should never be displayed without raw data).

      Anthony: I think maybe you could take up this on principle – accurate representations of the origins of the various temperature series are important!

      • “are also modeled temperature sets although the assumptions are much more objective (orbital decay is a pretty good model). ”

        Wrong

        Lets take RSS

        Since Satillites measure difference places at different times all the measurements have to be homogenized for changes in time of observations ( just like TOBS)

        To homogenize for this RSS uses a GCM !!!

        Second

        The satillite reads a return that comes from both the SURFACE and the atmosphere. To Eliminate the surface return both groups have to make an assumption about the emissivity of the planet. They both assume a CONSTANT emmisivity over land..

        Third.

        in order to invert from brightness at the sensor to temperature at altitude UAH employ a radiative transfer model.. Here is a clue… radiative transfer physics is the physics that ALL of climate science
        rests upon.

        the structural uncertainty in satillite records is huge.

        NOW, NASA has a new satillite that will help to calibrate existing satillites to a single standard.. launches in 2017 and a second bird in 2020.

        Of course, skeptics dont like observations so cancel that shit.

      • Steven,

        “The satillite reads a return that comes from both the SURFACE and the atmosphere. ”

        It’s much easier to separate then you seem to think. The LWIR sensors are tuned to transparent regions of the emission spectrum and sense photons emitted directly by the surface (or clouds). Separating atmosphere emissions from surface emissions is simply a matter of determining the presence of clouds.

        The only parts of the atmosphere that can emit energy in the transparent regions of the spectrum are clouds (and perhaps particulates) since O2 and N2 emit nothing into space. Since the sensors largely ignore absorption bands and in the clear sky, the only emissions originating from the atmosphere comes from GHG’s , atmospheric emissions that don’t originate from clouds are not even measured. The only exception is the water vapor channel which is tuned to a specific and relatively weak absorption band of H2O where the sensor voltage becomes proportional to atmospheric water content. The radiative transfer model (not a full blown GCM) is used to estimate temperature at altitudes other than the surface and to determine total planet emissions whose long term averages can be cross checked to the incident energy which is more directly measured.

  30. “but quietly transforming NASA from a space exploration agency into a glorified weather programme.”

    Hey, those are my words. Make up your own sentences.
    Well, I guess great minds think alike.

  31. I agree with Speaker Newt Gingrich’s prior proposals to build a big, honkin’ permanent base on the moon. Once we have boots on the ground up there, we can study anything we want. Keeping an eye on the Earth is a damn good idea, but a moon base paves the way for deep space exploration, advanced manufacturing in low gravity, and who knows what else. http://www.space.com/14411-newt-gingrich-moon-base-cost.html

  32. 100% agree climate and earth monitoring are not NASA’s job.

    Now they need to clean up the other areas whose job it is, so that their results are actually good scientific research based on non-biased data.

    The Liberals are going to have conniption fits…

    And please clean up the EPA!

  33. I didnt vote for Trump, and agreed with him on very little -except with regards to anthropogenic climate change (or whatever it’s called nowadays). After all is said and done, NASA should thank him for restoring their focus to their original purpose.

  34. “It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted.”

    Politicised branches in NOAA and NASA tend to ignore the satellite era and prefer their biased frequently adjusted limited data sets. Prefer made up data and interpolation instead of satellite SST’s. They have been trying to cling on to their dark ages and have been short sighted all this time.

    The claims of more warming in the surface data sets because of this Arctic interpolation is nonsense based on less than 5% of the planets surface would literally mean have been extremely high.

    For each 0.1c rise in global temperatures only due to more Arctic warming, means this region needs to have found at least 2.0c higher temperatures. They have instead found multiples of 0.1c higher temperatures because of this apparently, so where are the 8.0c to 10.0c warmer temperatures that the satellites with better coverage some how manage to miss?

      • Contemplated early 1815. War weary sons and daughters of the Revolution fathers. The debate was around ‘the never ending story- war conflict commerce disputes with British subjects. Coincidentally a similar never ending threat debate – shorter time frame in 1848 at the southern border, with a conclusion ‘this will not go away’ by us (war) alone.

      • No, we need to let the Canadians take care of their own political problems, but we can give them our moral support.

      • Oooo! Bad mojo here. This has been contemplated and attempted more than once during the 1711-1920 time period.

        Generally speaking, the attempts were made by various groups of yahoos who quickly ended losing in less-than-savage battles like “The Windmill”, or simply being incarcerated in Canadian jails.

        If your comment’s intent was to request help draining the Canadian swamp, Trump’s going to be busy draining the one(s) in the USA.

        If Trump is reasonably successful (draining swamps means lots of blood-thirsty disenfranchised elites), it should make it easier for others to follow.

  35. By “essential for our way of life”, I’m sure he just meant he and his true believer cohorts feeding from the gov’t trough for the last 8 years.

    • @ FredericE
      November 23, 2016 at 6:24 pm: No, invasion attempted 1815, stopped by Canadians and thrown back as part of The Duke of Wellington’s Army joined in, having beaten Napoleon. Washington DC sacked, President’s dinner eaten by British Officers. Army went home and finished Napoleon off at Waterloo. In time, sense prevailed and Alliance begun…….

  36. The USA election coverage proves most in the media now treat their followers with an arrogant, preachy distain . In Britain it is the same thing . The Guardian and others seem to think their view is the only one.
    That is why their businesses are in free fall . They can’t or won’t up their game but have shareholders seemingly happy watching their equity getting peed away .
    It will be very disappointing if Trump chooses to back off on the fraud called global warming .

  37. Oohh YYEESS!!!!!(prickly animal fondling automatic weapon) These anti-human a$$wsipes will never go away until we strip them of all the tax money they are and have been stealing from us. Drain the swamp, indeed. Time to reclaim that land and make it productive!

    • One puzzling statement in that article

      “Climate activists would do well to find common ground with the Trump administration on topics that he supports: clean water and air; stewardship of federal lands…2

      I thought he was going to support digging up federal lands for coal, gas, oil, etc.

      Is massive fossil fuel exploration the same as stewardship now?

      • Stewardship is an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources. “Is massive fossil fuel exploration the same as stewardship now?”, so, no it isn’t “the same as”, but it is part of the responsibility.

      • You seem to labor under the misconception that “stewardship” is synonymous with “protection” as in locking up the lands as “wilderness” and throwing away the key. Go search “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976” and in particular familiarize yourself with the concept “multiple use” – “Managing public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural and historical resources.”

  38. They might have survived if they’d stayed more true to their space science mission. But studying solar-space plasma physics is tedious, boring, nerdy, and always struggles for funding. No element of alarmism unless you operate a billion dollar GEOSAT, and then you already know 99% of the space risks.

    But the lure of fame as Dr James Hansen discovered led them to politicize their science Earth’s climate. After Dr Hansen sold his first baby for fame, speaking engagements, and more money, selling the following babies (i.e., his integrity as a scientist) became progressively easier.

    Here is what GIS was supposed to be:

  39. Surely I’m not the only one with that uncomfortable feeling in my stomach driven by “I’ll believe it when I see it”.

  40. The person responsible for the politicalization of NASA as well as all other U.S. scientific organizations is Obama.

    He has all but destroyed quality science in this country based on his demands that scientific organizations must manipulate all information in support of his climate alarmist ideology based on his monumental ignorance and arrogance.

    President elect Trump needs to clean house on this scientific mess that this colossal idiot Obama has created.

    • “The person responsible for the politicalization of NASA as well as all other U.S. scientific organizations is Obama.”

      Al Gore beat him to it. Back during the Reagan and first Bush administration, Hansen was making crazy noise about CAGW and both administrations considered him a lunatic for his proclamations that ‘the sky is falling’. He got his revenge when Clinton/Gore came to power and he found an ally in Gore. Climate science just hasn’t been the same since. It hasn’t even been science since …

      Obama certainly piled on and spread the political infection to other agencies that were supposed to be apolitical, for example, the Justice Department.

      • I agree with that historical assessment. Hansen was regarded as a kook in the 80’s. Found his savior in Al Gore, a man looking for the next big idea to politicize and ride to riches.

        Funny how Al Gore got most of his current riches from Qatari shieks for selling his bankrupt network to AlJezeera.

      • Joel,

        And before that his family prospered because of Occidental Petroleum shares, given his dad for services rendered in congress and from being on the take from Armand Hammer, Lenin’s stooge in the US.

    • Larry Hamlin commented: “…The person responsible for the politicalization of NASA as well as all other U.S. scientific organizations is Obama…..based on his monumental ignorance and arrogance….

      Please, he is nothing more than a useful idiot. From his first inauguration speech where he deftly entered “wealth redistribution” into the American lexicon with no push back to his “the science is settled” proclamation it’s all been choreographed by the Marxist/Socialist cabal. People aren’t aware of how close we came to losing our Democratic and Capitalistic way of life. It’s a never ending struggle that we lose sight of in times of plenty. We’ve been given a chance to revive it and I hope we don’t fail.

    • Fascism is the goal of Socialists. The NAZI acronym stood for the National Socialist Party…

      Facism believes in limited property rights with a large centralized government controlling its citizens and the economy through high taxes and a gigantic bureaucracy that usurps control through the tax code, cronyism and oppressive rules, regulations and mandates.

      Trump is not a Fascist, he’s a Populist that wishes to: lower taxes, decentralize government, curtail cronyism, reduce government rules, regulations and mandates, and protect our borders as all civilized countries do…

      All of Trump’s goals are the complete antithesis of fascism… Find a new meme..

    • Two LGBTQ voters planning on leaving for Africa, because the future belongs to Trump and his blond family:

      I can’t tell if that is satire or an insult of Trump, but Hitler and the NAZIs were a direct result of the left wing progress politicized science of the day called “Eugenics.” The title of Darwin’s book is shortened today to “Origin of Species.” The real title is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

      Rewriting history doesn’t change history, it simply robs future generations of the lessons that could be learned.

      • heterosexual males are secretly transgender lesbians
        =======================
        would it be discrimination for female lesbians to exclude transgender lesbians?

  41. Send the fake scientists at NASA to the unemployment line. If you can’t fire them, send them to Nome, Alaska for thermometer weather measure and winter swimming in the warming Arctic.

  42. Surely the greatest achievement of NASA was not placing a man on the moon put helping to place a non-stick frying pan in every home?

  43. Got the email from Ms. Cris McEntee the Emperor of AGU about a “Petition”.

    I replied back that I would be advocating the abolition of the White House Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology and the NSF, with the incarceration of all employees and the “Executives” of the AGU, AMS and APS.

    I guess my 25+ years as AGU member is on “thin ice”.

    True story
    Ha ha

  44. Asteroids as a threat to life on earth should be a high priority. A greater area of potential funding for NASA than for resource opportunity. Ask any dinosaur you see , it will tell you.

  45. This is some great news:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

    On 17 January, 1961 President, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell speech to the people of the United States. In the first half of the speech he warned of the danger of the influence of a powerful group of elite experts he called the military-industrial complex. He feared they would use their connections and expertise to raid the US treasury by proclaiming a never ending list of potential enemies who could only be vanquished by purchasing their machines of war (Technology).

    In the second but much more important part of the speech, he warned that soon, virtually all US research would be paid for by the government. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    That forecast had come true before the end of the 60s. Since then virtually ALL non-commercial research has been and is paid for by the US government. Scientists will gladly do research for and find proof for ANYTHING their paymaster requires; not the least of which is research into “climate disruption, global warming, climate change, etc.”

    Fortunately, President-elect, Donald J. Trump will have none of it and will defund those programs so those resources can be invested into space exploration, NASA’s raison d’être:

    Hallelujah! The Salem Witch Trials Are Soon Over.

    HTC

    • On 17 January, 1961 President, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell speech to the people of the United States. In the first half of the speech he warned of the danger of the influence of a powerful group of elite experts he called the military-industrial complex. He feared they would use their connections and expertise to raid the US treasury by proclaiming a never ending list of potential enemies who could only be vanquished by purchasing their machines of war (Technology).

      Here it is. That speech was featured in this documentary that was way way way ahead of its time. Everyone should send a link of this documentary to Donald Trump and his supporters.

  46. “It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” [K T] said. “

    That’s a little bit rich, coming from the leader of a cabal who treat global temperature satellite measurements as if they might have been touched by someone with leprosy.

    • mods, why does mentioning the full name of the man with the initials K T mean my post doesn’t appear?

  47. Walker apparently claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

    So I’m puzzled he wants to make a political decision to remove collection of that evidence.

    If its a fraud, it needs to be proved a fraud… or the fraud will become politically inspired removal of inconvenient evidence…

    • I’m sympathetic with this. It would be good to put together a neutral panel of experts in statistics and data collection to review (audit?) major climate records and assure that we have reliable data. That would not resolve the entire debate but it would enable us to be confident that we are not debating about fiction.

  48. ““It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted.”

    You mean the satellites that you generally ignore if they don’t match with your models?

  49. Should James Hansen be investigated for fraud? Oh yeah. If he did not INTEND to commit fraud, I guess he shouldn’t be held accountable.

    • Should James Hansen be investigated for fraud? Oh yeah. If he did not INTEND to commit fraud, I guess he shouldn’t be held accountable.

      The climate “scientists” had plenty of warning. They know of the Climategate Emails, they now the “tricks” to “hide declines,” they know the questionable “adjustments,” they know the falsifying results of the IPCC models. They know the truth behind the fraud. Those that remained silent are as guilty as those that committed the fraud. The entire “scientific” community turned a blind eye. Federal funding has to be cut to any University involved is this fraud.

  50. This is the best news I’ve heard in well 2 weeks. Finally some rationality and reduction in the waste being spent on politicized science. Finally we put a dent in politicized science. Finally we defund the people who constantly rail at us about nonsensical stupid things that the most mediocre scientist and average person seems is purely politics. I realize these guys won’t give up without a fight but at least there is hope this will finally reach the end it deserves.

  51. Just a brief note,in todaysDaily Telegraph (uk, 24nov2016) ,states that polar ice is not retreating ,this is derived apparently from records of the polar(antactic) explorers Scott ,Amundsen & Shackleton in the early 20th century

    • Antarctic polar ice…

      similar historical records for the arctic show we today have the lowest sea ice extent in the last 150 years (to limit of when records examined)

  52. A simple solution to Climate Change is to remove it as a policy of the Democratic Party. It is nonsense for any political party to have a scientific question as a plank in their political platform, because without a doubt it will lead to politicization of science, making objective solutions more difficult.

    Imagine for one minute that any political party made some other question in science part of their political platform. For example, say that the Republican Party decided that radiation was a better treatment for cancer than chemotherapy. So they adopted a plank in their platform, calling for radiation therapy to help cancer patients. Those scientists that insisted that chemotherapy was better would quickly be branded as deniers, their funding slashed, and they would be removed from position of authority.

    Instead, we would end up with people that believed radiation was the answer in positions of authority, and funding would go to radiation research, while chemotherapy research would dry up. In the end the interests of the patients would suffer. In trying to help the patients, the policy would end up harming them.

    This is what has happened as a result of Al Gore tying climate change to the Democratic Party. It has been politicized and funding has become self-reinforcing. Science has become subject to a vote, and thus a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of the facts.

    • But it isn’t a policy of just one US political party.

      There is a world and tens of thousands of scientists outside the US, which accepts the science of climate change and takes the data as real evidence, for good scientific reasons.

      The only party in the world where climate change is political (or very nearly) is the US Republican Party.

      Republicans have decided that an area of science is ‘wrong’ or ‘fraudulent’ for political reasons based on political beliefs – and will now remove all contrary evidence to its political beliefs.

      This is a shameful attack on science by politicians.

      • If you knew anything about science you would know that climate “science” does not act as science. It acts a political advocacy. All that trump is asking for is that the politics STOP!

      • ferdberple
        November 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm
        ………..
        Imagine for one minute that any political party made some other question in science part of their political platform. For example, say that the Republican Party decided that radiation was a better treatment for cancer than chemotherapy. So they adopted a plank in their platform, calling for radiation therapy to help cancer patients. Those scientists that insisted that chemotherapy was better would quickly be branded as deniers, their funding slashed, and they would be removed from position of authority.

        Instead, we would end up with people that believed radiation was the answer in positions of authority, and funding would go to radiation research, while chemotherapy research would dry up. In the end the interests of the patients would suffer. In trying to help the patients, the policy would end up harming them.
        …………..

        Probably has already happened, does anyone know why a non-toxic, harmless substance has been banned (for use or testing) from commerce and crossing state lines in USA whereas toxic chemotherapy and damaging radiation is allowed. Big pharma lobbied and “persuaded” the FDA to go along with it. What is the cancer industry worth to the big pharma car tel?

        SteveT

    • ferdberple —

      Climate change was politicized because it was judged politically useful. When the Democratic Party judges it to be no longer politically useful — only then will it be dropped. In this last election the Democratic Party did not go public about it but in private used it to keep some of its crazies active. As Lincoln said — “You can fool some of the people all of the time.”.Soon the numbers of the “true believers” will be so small as to be useless and actually politically dangerous.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • ferdberple
        November 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm

        ………..
        Imagine for one minute that any political party made some other question in science part of their political platform. For example, say that the Republican Party decided that radiation was a better treatment for cancer than chemotherapy. So they adopted a plank in their platform, calling for radiation therapy to help cancer patients. Those scientists that insisted that chemotherapy was better would quickly be branded as deniers, their funding slashed, and they would be removed from position of authority.
        …………..

        Probably already happened, does anyone know why a non-toxic, harmless substance has been banned from commerce and cross state lines in USA whereas toxic chemotherapy and damaging radiation is allowed. Other than big pharma lobbied and “persuaded” the FDA to go along with it? What is the cancer industry worth to the big pharma cartel?

        SteveT

  53. I have no problem if NASA continues to track various climate measurements. Get them out of the advocacy business and cut back on any federal grants being made to substandard scientists.

    • Won’t work. If you don’t kill the snake, the snake will slither away and come back later and bite you. It is the people there who are corrupt — either actively or passively. Kill the snake now and you have no worries in the future. These global warmists are all con men and con men can never quit the con. They will do it again and destroy the reputation of NASA even more.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  54. That’s why you don’t attack Trump, Gavin.

    Mr Trenberth is so concerned about the importance of satellites and space science, perhaps he shouldn’t have attacked the editor of Remote Sensing and forced his resignation.

  55. On another thread i recommended that Trump, when he takes office, kill all his enemies quickly — then peace will reign. I was serious but also having a little fun. i was paraphrasing Machiavelli’s advice in THE PRINCE. Apparently Trump has read THE PRINCE.

    I have to laugh. That arrogant little butthead Gavin Schmidt sassed Trump thinking that as head of a two billion dollar a year federal program that was part of NASA he could not be touched. Trump’s solution — cancel the whole program. Schmidt will be out in the street without NASA to hide behind. And why do I get the feeling Schmidt will be facing a court date or forced to testify under oath before congress. He and Hansen, for the evil they have done, deserve a little jail time. Both were passing off fraudulently manipulated data as “science”

    HO! HO! HO! .MERRY CHRISTMAS GAVIN SCHMIDT!

    Eugene WR Gallun

    • First order of business for NASA, launch Gavin Schmidt into the Sun on the premise of needing daily reports on Solar climate patterns for the salvation of mankind. Who knows Gavin may volunteer.

      • I’d rather see a scientific ‘intervention’ and get a mea culpa out of him. If he could be forced to understand the truth, he would become a powerful agent to drag a large part of the broken consensus with him and maybe we can actually have some settled science. All it would take is to compel him to justify his position with the laws of physics. He will fail and have no choice but the rethink his position especially when known and settled physics can demonstrate a theoretical climate sensitivity well below the lower bound claimed by the IPCC, moreover; plotting output emissions vs. surface temperature demonstrates beyond doubt that the current sensitivity is 1.6 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions (0.3C) per W/m^2 of forcing and no where near the 4.3 W/m^2 (0.8C) per W/m^2 of forcing required in order to be consistent with the nominal IPCC sensitivity. He will be unable to explain how each of the 240 W/m^2 of incident solar forcing are not treated equally relative to their contribution to surface emissions and its consequential temperature. If the last W/m^2 contributed 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions, how does the next one contribute 4.3 W/m^2?

  56. National Aeronautical and Space Agency.

    Hmmm who knew that Aeronautics and space exploration had to do with fortune telling weather/patterns into the far future. I guess now we know it has nothing to do with it.

    Nasa can finally stop playing the role of chicken little and re-focus on the role of expanding the boundaries of human knowledge thru space exploration.

  57. ON THE ONE HAND:

    “Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

    “Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration.”

    YET ON THE OTHER:

    “Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said … ‘My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies.’”

    WELL, WHICH IS IT?

  58. “Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”

    Someone should have told Christopher Columbus that looking for new seaways is luxury. Who needs 2 new continents called ‘America’.

    Urgent for the coming 100 years should be mapping the Baltic Sea in 4 color printing.

  59. Someone should have told Christopher Columbus that looking for new seaways is luxury. Who needs 2 new continents called ‘America’.

    Urgent for the coming 100 years should be mapping the Baltic Sea in 4 color printing.
    ________________________________

    My fault:

    Of course the 97% confidence majority of the Spanish Court knew the science was settled and that flat earther Columbus can play his luxury seafars in a bathtub.

Comments are closed.