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.”
…
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.
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.
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)
Wrong! I don’t need references as you can find them, even at NASA.
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.
+1
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!
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
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
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
Or to put it another way — Permanently take their platform away from them. — Eugene WR Gallun
“Permanently take their platform away from them.” Yes, anything else is a band aid.
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.
MikeN —
Nice reminder about Trenberth’s blantant hypocrisy.
Eugene WR Gallun
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?
They can now study the science and let someone else fiddle the figures on weather.
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.
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?
“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.
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.