Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Sea Save Foundation

Contributor
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
79
Location
Malibu, California
Representative Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma is the Trump administration's pick for the next NASA chief. There is opposition from both parties, who point out that Bridenstine not only doesn’t believe in humans contributing to climate change, but he has no scientific background. Opponents worry that he will slash funding for climate change studies, since he sponsored a bill in the past that would have cut funding for NOAA’s climate studies.

Read more here (story #2).

What's your opinion of the pick for next NASA chief?

jim-bridenstine-NASA.jpg
 
No idea about him in particular, just a general live long struggle in dealing with people that are guided by believes more so than science, facts, insight, information , knowledge and the drive to obtain more of all that. The hair on the back of my neck always raises a bit when an argument starts with "I believe"... More so if in a science or engineering or business setting.
 
Self deleted
 
but he has no scientific background.

Assuming that's an upper level administrative post, is it unusual for a non-scientist to occupy it? I'm not familiar with what's typical for NASA, but a number of organizations have CEOs who aren't the type of professional they're known for (e.g.: a hospital administrator/CEO is not always a physician).

Richard.
 
If you cut funding into climate research it is easier to continue the lie that humans have no impact on climate change. Mr Bridenstine sounds like a skilled politician. Since many people want this lie to be the truth and are prepared to block out all contradicting science and reason in order to continue to live a lie you might also question the (economic) value of continuing to provide ever more evidence that will not change the viewpoint of those that do not care about their children.

The guy is a shoo in for the Trump administration.
 
@drrich2, good question. In science agencies (NASA, USDA, NIH, etc.), the head typically has some serious science background along the way somewhere. Although the appointees sometimes diverge their careers into politics, historically, they have all at least started out as scientists.
 
If you cut funding into climate research it is easier to continue the lie that humans have no impact on climate change. Mr Bridenstine sounds like a skilled politician. Since many people want this lie to be the truth and are prepared to block out all contradicting science and reason in order to continue to live a lie you might also question the (economic) value of continuing to provide ever more evidence that will not change the viewpoint of those that do not care about their children.

The guy is a shoo in for the Trump administration.

Let me try and stay within forum rules and not fire back a direct insult here.

"People" who make claims that suggest I don't care about my children disgust me. They could not possible know what I have done, and am prepared to do for my child, or those of others.

People who resort to character attacks over a differing point of view. There was a day when I could at least respect most liberals when I thought their misguided causes were at least honest, and heartfelt. Those days are largely gone.

I have many conservative friends who identify as conservationists. We want to protect our environment, and many of which do more personally than 90% of Americans.

It is a sign of your own weakness when you resort to personal attacks and ugliness.
 

Back
Top Bottom