https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5453230-duffy-nasa-climate-science
BY RACHEL FRAZIN
Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy said Thursday that climate and earth science at the agency will “move aside” as it refocuses solely on space exploration.
“All the climate science and all of the other priorities that the last administration had at NASA we’re going to move aside, and all of the science that we do is going to be directed towards exploration, which is the mission of NASA,” Duffy, who also leads the Transportation Department, told Fox Business.
“That’s why we have NASA — is to explore, not to do all of these earth sciences,” he added.
NASA, which stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, explores both air and space. It has historically conducted science related to both Earth and space, including climate science.
A pivot away from climate science is not necessarily a surprise — the Trump administration has sought to deny and downplay climate change’s impacts and has moved to dismantle scientific research, including by dismissing scientists working on the National Climate Assessment.
#
Related:
Physicist: Sen. Ted Cruz is right: Earth sciences aren’t NASA’s mission March 13, 2015
Three out of four living astronauts who walked on moon are climate skeptics October 18, 2018
November 1, 2016
October 17, 2018
Flashback: Oops! Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Schmitt Defies Gore’s Claim — Declares Himself a Skeptic! – April 25, 2009
Watch: Morano on Fox on ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: ‘It’s statistical nonsense’ – ‘NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has egg all over his face with this’ January 19, 2015
Book details NASA’s ‘ex-con’ James Hansen’s 1988 climate testimony – ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ June 23, 2018
I hope that NASA won’t concentrate on space. They also have aeronautics in their name, and a charter to advance aeronautics science as well.
But aren’t there plenty of other institutions, academics and zillion dollar corporations doing that? Maybe NASA could drop that part? Or minimize it? Focus on space since few others are, other than other nations- so it’s imperative to focus on it, for national security reasons.
There are plenty of companies with an interest in learning about aeronautics. There is no need for NASA to spend time on it as well. Let NASA concentrate on the only thing in it’s charter that it does well, and that is, explore space.
Read:
‘Please stop NASA showing the facts about global warming!’
“It’s a bad look for our sponsors.”
I see you are still paranoid as well as incredibly ignorant.
The only science that has been bought and paid far are the claims that CO2 is anything more than a minor factor in climate and an entirely beneficial molecule.
Anything that would be published by NASA regarding climate, earth sciences, deep seas, tectonic plates, etc., should be banned/not be funded/people engaged in it dismissed to find a job in the private sector, because that is not aeronautics or space.
NASA has been weaponized/infiltrated by the climate crazies,
Based on the many comments, it appears NASA has few friends and many enemies
NASA has become a climate whore in service of the woke crazies to get more and more funding for CO2 nonsense publishing
What facts? There aren’t any, just fancy models that have been tuned to show what they want to see.
Since when has NASA been showing facts about global warming?
Cooked data and output of models, are not facts.
Anything that get people like Gavin Schmidt out of the climate field… preferably to the unemployment line..
.. is a good thing.
Good, now they can look into why Mars is also warming, even though Mars still doesn’t have any SUV dealerships yet…
HaHa! Old image, DG opened up next door, SuperWalMart under construction off to the right!
What evidence is there, apart from ‘a bloke down the pub said…‘ that Mars is also warming?
None, right?
Do you see how easily this nonsense gets propagated?
If you’re not going to check even the most basic of nonsensical claims before giving them a thumbs-up, then please don’t call yourselves ‘skeptics’; it demeans the word.
I asked Grok: Is Mars warming?
Yes, Mars has shown signs of warming in recent decades, based on observations from NASA missions and climate models. Here’s a concise overview:
“A 2007 study using Mars Global Surveyor data noted a 0.65°C increase in average surface temperature over a few decades in certain regions. However, Mars’ climate is variable, and warming is not uniform across the planet or consistent over long periods.”
Same as any planet, apparently.
Imagine that. The “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” will focus on aeronautics and space.
Where do you think Earth fits in with regard to space?
Does it exist outside that Venn diagram?
Seriously? Of course Earth is in space but it is blindingly obvious that the understood meaning of “space” is the area outside of the Earth or the Earth’s atmosphere.
In other words, in your opinion the purpose of NASA is to study everything, regardless of what its charter says.
Allocate money to nothing else, and all other stuff will instantly evaporate
The Earth Sciences budget has been more than halved for 2026. Now set at a lousy $1bn. That is not going to fund much of COP??.
There is no NASA STEM budget for 2026. All that warm and fuzzy propaganda on climate will die for lack of funding.
Great news, now NASA can get back to doing the ‘right stuff’.
The final four men who have walked on the moon will be overjoyed to see the organisation that performed so heroically in all areas of space exploration has honoured those men and women made of the right stuff who achieved such historic feats in the 20th century.
Hopefully we can look forward to equally stunning achievements in the 21st now sanity is returning to the management focus at NASA.
The proper US agency to do climate science is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and they do it.
NOAA is currently being defunded in every department relating to climate science.
This current US administration is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, and that industry hates climate science because it clearly shows that the fossil fuel industry is primarily responsible for the current warming trend.
These powerful and wealthy interests will attempt to defund, obfuscate and deflect from all and any scientific research that affects their profits.
They will tell you that you are not drowning, even as the water enters your lungs. And, as far as I can see, many people here will believe them.
Talking about conspiracy theories . . .
He’s got to find some excuse to explain why the predictions of his high priests never come true.
I thought the science was settled? Why do we need to spend anything on climate science?
Typical socialist, the only reason why everyone doesn’t agree with is is because “powerful interests” oppose us.
Nobody does paranoia the way a leftist does.
NASA should never have been allowed to get into the climate business in the first place. They should have laid off the planetary atmospheres group in 1972.
NASA lost 75% of its funding between 1969 and 1972 as the Apollo (moon landing) program matured and ended. The planetary atmospheres group began to diversify into climate studies even though they had no understanding of climate energy transfer on a rotating water planet.
“When I came to GISS as a postdoctoral candidate in the late 1960s my primary interest was in planetary atmospheres, especially the clouds of Venus, and I focused on radiative transfer theory as a tool to study the Venus clouds. But at about that time the director of GISS, Robert Jastrow, concluded that the days of generous NASA support for planetary studies were numbered, and he thus began to direct institutional resources toward Earth applications.”
Hansen et al, Chapter 4, in Randall, 2000, p. 128
In 1971, Rasool and Schneider used a 1-D model to claim that aerosol cooling could exceed CO2 induced warming and create an Ice Age. This paper was later retracted. In 1975, Ramanathan used a 1-D model to claim that increase in the atmospheric concentration of chlorofluorocarbons could enhance the greenhouse effect and produce an increase in surface temperature. This was later recognized as the first use of the pseudoscience of radiative forcing [Ramaswamy et al, 2019].
As NASA trained climate modelers moved on to positions at other research facilities, they spread the climate modeling fraud. Both Schneider and Ramanathan initially moved to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder CO. Schneider moved to Stanford University in 1996 and Ramanathan moved to the University of Chicago in 1986 and then to Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, in 1990.
In 1976, Wang et al, including a young James Hansen, copied the one dimensional radiative convective model approach used by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 and created surface temperature warming artifacts for 10 minor species, including methane, CH4, and nitrous oxide, N2O. In their 1981 paper, Hansen et al used available weather station and related data to create a global mean temperature record. They added a 2 layer slab ocean to their version of the Manabe 1967 model and ‘tuned’ this model to create a time series of surface temperature artifacts that resembled the global mean temperature record. They used a combination of changes in CO2 concentration, and variations in solar flux and volcanic aerosols to ‘adjust’ their model output. This established the foundation of the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity still used by the climate models today.
Hansen’s group published their climate GCM models I and II in 1983. Using the GISS model II, Hansen et al [1984] obtained climate sensitivities between 2.5 and 5 °C for a doubled CO2 concentration from 315 to 630 ppm. This paper also included an extensive discussion of feedback effects based on changes to an equilibrium average surface temperature of 288 K and an effective emission temperature to space of 255 K. A global mean surface temperature does not exist. The spectral distribution of the LWIR flux returned to space is not that of a blackbody radiator and should not be used to define a temperature.
The climate model results were officially ‘sanctified’ by the Charney Report published in 1979. It concluded in part:
When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming between 2 C and 3.5 °C with greater increases at higher latitudes.
The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption in the troposphere and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation.
These conclusions were based on the published results from the 1975 Manabe and Wetherald GCM and unpublished results from the Manabe and Hansen groups.
Further details are given in Clark, R, (2024), “A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors”, Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
Excellent historical summary.
‘This was later recognized as the first use of the pseudoscience of radiative forcing.’
Nice touch!
Yeah, because Earth isn’t a planet and who needs an atmosphere?
You have a one track mind, and it’s derailed.
Studying the atmosphere of the Earth is not part of NASA. It’s the charge of NOAA.
There is no need to study the impact of CO2, as 50 years of study and 150 years of data have shown.
Atmosphere isn’t the same as science or weather, they are separate according to how they are examined.
Good job everybody, you did it.
NASA and GISS contributed nothing to the understanding of the atmosphere….
…. because that went down the fake rabbit hole of CO2 causing warming.
Their contribution was probably a negative one.. and you swallowed it.
Too many agencies trying to accomplish the same thing. No wonder Fed agencies need to be updated.
If the intent were truly to consolidate research efforts and sharpen agency focus, that would be one thing. But hearing the acting NASA Administrator peddle a revisionist and historically false take on NASA’s mission doesn’t inspire confidence that this is about efficiency. It looks far more like an effort to shelve and bury politically inconvenient, but vital, Earth science research. To me, it reads like an embarrassment to our country and a betrayal of the mandate that NASA was founded on.
I have never been more proud of the US. Global warming was rebranded as climate change and rebranded again as climate extinction. Climate extortion can only cry wolf for so long.
Redundancy in a beaurocracy is never a good thing. Unless your goal is to waste money and hide responsibility.
NOAA is in charge of researching the atmosphere. They are only marginally better than NASA at this, but at least the atmosphere is part of their charge.
Exactly.
The US will look back on this administration with shame.
It really does get your panties in a wad the way Trump keeps winning.
Poor AJ.
Soiling your pants to make liberals smell the stink is definitely a joke, but the butt of the joke isn’t who you think it is.
Among Alan’s many other failings, we can add a complete lack of reading comprehension.
Poor Alan, he never was very smart, and never embarrased to show it.
Studying the atmosphere is what NOAA is for. Not NASA. NASA was never any good at it, and that shows in the poor quality of their work.
I’ve quoted the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the federal statute that created NASA, and it explicitly lists the study of the atmosphere as part of NASA’s mandate. Claiming that NASA’s purpose is “not to do all of these earth sciences” is ignorance beyond excuse.
No, your dishonest quoting doesn’t tell the entire purpose which wasn’t about climate stuff,
LINK
The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or signifi cance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discovexies which have value or significance to that agency;
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof; and
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineer ing resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment. (d) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out
.
===========
Originally this organization was for studying planetary atmospheres, not a drop about climate change in it at the start.
GISS
LINK
Following approval by NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan in December 1960 and formal announcement on January 29, 1961, the institute was established by Dr. Robert Jastrow in May 1961 (originally as the New York City office of GSFC’s Theoretical Division) to do basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC programs. Research areas included the structure of Earth, Moon, and other planetary bodies; the atmospheres of Earth and the other planets; the origin and evolution of the solar system; the properties of interplanetary plasma; Sun-Earth relations; and the structure and evolution of stars. The institute was sited in New York on the premise that conducting theoretical research in the space sciences would be facilitated by being near the leading universities in the greater metropolitan area. Further, it was thought that the location would promote interest at the universities in NASA programs.
Call me when they give up the lease on the offices above Tom’s Dinner in Manhattan.
Actually, they already have. They were booted out – see this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/26/giss-gets-the-boot-a-seinfeldian-saga/
““That’s why we have NASA — is to explore, not to do all of these earth sciences,” he added.”
Bingo!
Day late, dollar short. Private sector has already proven they can do the job, faster, cheaper AND safer. Each time Starship has a “failed” launch they are learning exponentially more. Like Musk or hate him, he hires topshelf people, people to which “failure” is opportunity to learn, and they don’t appear to be wasting them.
The Dark ages are ending and so are hijacked missions of agencies.
Wow! NASA forced to sober up …
I wonder if Hansen hadn’t come along, if NASA would still have gone down the wrong path with regard to climate. Anyhow, they made their bed.
Apparently Earth should no longer be considered a part of ‘space’, according to Duffy.
Just in case revealing its rapidly warming climate upsets a few vested interests.
America is on one ludicrous place right now.
The pros of a warming climate easily outweigh the cons of warming climate.
Look at the increasing productivity of agriculture.
There are few, if any cons to warming the climate by a degree or two. Add to those benefits, the huge benefit provided by CO2 fertilization.
The Earth was never part of space. Space starts above the Earth’s atmosphere.
Have you been taking lessons from Alan in how to embarrass yourself.
If your nonsensical belief were to be true, then by your logic, NASA would be charged with studying ever that exists, has existed or will exist. After all, everything is part of space.
You are free to sllnk off in shame, Assuming you actually have any shame.
Good, it gets the troubled types of NASA out of climate.
(Recall the administrator whose prediction of flooded parkway in Manhattan has not come to pass in several decades, he who broke the law by obstructing someone’s gate.)
NOAA can handle weather and climate (which is just long term weather).
Deniers hate knowledge. Deniers hate anyone learning about the world
Is your only contribution to call others names? Infantile.
It really is sad the way you slavishly repeat whatever your high priests tell you to believe.
I see the trolls are out in force.
Too bad. Rational discussion goes out the window when they appear.