Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[Storker]

Many people, like myself, do not see any climate change where they live, even though we hear about it a lot.

IOW, you still don't realize that climate is a global phenomenon, not a local one. What you're experiencing locally is called "weather".

Have you seen this?

 

[Joneill]

IOW, you still don't realize that climate is a global phenomenon, not a local one. What you're experiencing locally is called "weather".

Have you seen this?

Incorrect - climate can be used to decribe other than just global scope. Google is your friend:

 

[RyanT]

When there is abundant (and often hysterical) rhetoric demonizing people who may not have both feet in the pool or are not as vociferous or even concerned about it as it matters in their daily lives, the options for them are to either ignore or push back. The average Joe may be told and even convinced to accept that what many experts are saying is true, but he most probably has more immediate issues in support of his family to contend with, so telling him he that has to make sacrifices for something imperceptible will understandably elicit some resistance, particularly if the people doing the telling fly in private jets, ride in limousines, and write blank cheques.

Sure, I can see that. Al Gore has certainly raised a lot of awareness for climate change, but I was actually wondering if his advocation for it has generated some backlash for exactly this reason. Interestingly, most scientists are pretty "average Joes" as well. Most of us barely make middle-class incomes and most of us are not trying to brow-beat folks into making radical changes in their lives

Make it easy on people. Make suggestions on what they can do in their daily lives that can help. And be patient. There are 7 billion people on this planet, all with different and often conflicting interests, abilities, and ideas. Things are not going to change fast. They never do. 80% of humanity still believes in Gods and war and poverty are still with us after millennia. We have a long way to go, and I'm not quite sure we will get there.

Here are some things that are fairly easy. 1) drive a more fuel efficient car. Not only do they emit less CO2, but they cost less to purchase and have lower fuel costs. 2) Do a little planning that can reduce short trips in the car. Sometimes if I forget something at the store, I just decide to do without that evening instead of making a second trip. 3) line dry your clothes on nice days. 4) Eat less meat. While I'm not a vegetarian, I do have several vegetarian recipes that I cook on a regular basis. 5) Buy local. I drink my locally brewed craft beer almost exclusively so that means almost not transportation costs. There are a few west coast brews that I love, but I rarely drink them because they have a big CO2 footprint in the transportation cost.

All of these things take a little more effort, but most actually save money for the average Joe trying to make ends meet.

 

[diver0008]

Here are some things that are fairly easy. 1) drive a more fuel efficient car. Not only do they emit less CO2, but they cost less to purchase and have lower fuel costs. 2) Do a little planning that can reduce short trips in the car. Sometimes if I forget something at the store, I just decide to do without that evening instead of making a second trip. 3) line dry your clothes on nice days. 4) Eat less meat. While I'm not a vegetarian, I do have several vegetarian recipes that I cook on a regular basis. 5) Buy local. I drink my locally brewed craft beer almost exclusively so that means almost not transportation costs. There are a few west coast brews that I love, but I rarely drink them because they have a big CO2 footprint in the transportation cost.

All of these things take a little more effort, but most actually save money for the average Joe trying to make ends meet.

I do all these things personally, and more, but I was speaking more in general terms for the climate change industry to appeal more directly to people with helpful ideas. Kind of little trickle up solutions instead of hammer down. Where I live most people drive small cars, and the public transit is packed. There is recycling every week, and the bins are well-used. Most people have switched to LED lights and other energy saving devices. When there is money to be saved, people will engage; that's one thing we all have in common.

What I am wary of is the grand schemes of politicians. People march in the streets with placards, but that does nothing but waste wood and cardboard and they use some form of motorized transport to get to these rallies in the first place. It's the same kind of waste as politicans chemtrailing their way to champagne conferences.

I guess there are two ways to look at it; individuals doing what they can, or people in power mandating things. I lean towards the former. I think that people and their free enterprise are always more effective than political beauracracies. I am not sure how places like China, India, and Africa are going to act, with the lion's share of humanity, and it is totally beyond the scope of my abilities or responsibilities to conceptualize it. I do not know whether the people or the politicians there are better suited to bring change, but I tend to think that local actions there too would be more effective than grand global or national strategies. I am still surprised that China is not mass producing electric cars by now.

The only role that I see for governments is to finance the construction of nuclear power plants and subsidize the research and development of electric vehicles. Nothing more. The people will work out the rest. The time for studying, and researching, and writing papers, and publishing charts, having conferences, and so on is over. Such a waste of time and money. All the CC academics, activists, and lobbyists should now move into the two aformentioned industries; enough talk.

Our prime minster writes cheques for billions of dollars and hands them to some global agency. Ridiculous. He should be giving the money to local electrical technology companies. One man, Elon Musk, is doing more to fight climate change that any government on Earth.There is a company based here call Bombardier. They make trains, subways, airplanes, etc. Surprised too that they have not got an electric car on the market. Give them 20 billion dollars and they'll get in done.

My faith in humanity is reserved, but my my faith in politicians in nil.

 

[chrisch]

... The CC industry

There is no "industry".

..
Make it easy on people. Make suggestions on what they can do in their daily lives that can help. And be patient. There are 7 billion people on this planet, all with different and often conflicting interests, abilities, and ideas. Things are not going to change fast. They never do. 80% of humanity still believes in Gods and war and poverty are still with us after millennia. We have a long way to go, and I'm not quite sure we will get there.

Sadly the time to be patient has passed. The efforts of ordinary people is inadequate to make the changes needed to stop the catastrophic failure of our life support system. The change must be at governmental level and global. For at least 30 years the changes that should have and could have taken place have been resisted by the lobby groups and their propaganda that has persuaded many people there is no problem.

Now, as the problem is obvious and undeniable the tactic is to suggest it is too late and we must "learn to adapt". The problem with that is that the world's super rich can and will adapt and the rest of us will not. I don't own a private island. Even if I did the recent weather events suggest that is not a winning philosophy Guess you need a bunch of them in different places.

You say you are not sure we will get there. I am 99% sure we will not. Look at the USA and who it has chosen to lead it. Look at his view on global warming. Look at who is being put forward to head up NASA. What next? The US agency NOAA is globally respected as one of the world's best sources of climate data and impartial observation. Will Mr Trump put a denier as head of that organisation? What can people do in their daily lives? Well vote for change would be a good start. Looks like that is too big an ask though.

Are we to save ourselves from ourselves, despite ourselves? Or do we give up and face the failure of the ecosystem to support the current population levels and begin the war that returns us to equilibrium? It will not be a war between nations like we have had in the past. It will be a war of resources, within nations, between people. The vast majority will lose. They have to.

As I look around me I am 99% sure that we are headed down that path. The optimist in me wants that 1% chance to come good. Look at Trump's daughter and see the 1% trying. Then listen to the man and hear the 99% But hey, that's just the world's most powerful nation. (For now) Like I said the future is Chinese. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, the sooner China takes over the bigger the odds we all survive. I'm going to revise it to 1.5%

 

[kelemvor]

Whoopsie

Did 1.5°C suddenly get easier? - Cicero

For politics, the stakes are high. Just ponder these two potential outcomes:

• Suppose the paper is correct, then 1.5°C is a distinct possibility, about the same effort that we previously thought for 2°C. There would be real and tangible hope for small island states and other vulnerable communities. And 2°C would be a rather feasible and realistic option, meaning that I would have to go eat some serious humble pie.
• Suppose we start to act on their larger budgets, but after another 5-10 years we discover they were wrong. Then we may have completely blown any chance of 1.5°C or 2°C.

I seriously hope they have this right, or at least, I hope they will be vocal if they revise their estimates downwards!

For science, I can’t help but frame the paper in two ways:

• We understand the climate system, but a more careful accounting shows the carbon budgets are much larger.
• We don’t understand the climate system.

The paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html


Obviously, not only do not all scientists agree but those on the "climate change is the real deal" side of things do not have a good handle on the situation. Don't argue with me, read the paper. Read the articles by other scientists about the paper.

There is no "industry".

Sadly, you are mistaken. There are millions and possibly billions spent on "climate change". Money is spent on science. Money is spent subsidizing alternative energy sources - even when they're not a good choice. Money is spent on PR. Money is spent creating and selling devices to manage carbon output on things like smokestacks. Money is spent creating new ways to scrub the carbon and maybe re-use it.

Not only is there a climate change industry, it's big business - kind of like national defense.

 

[chrisch]

....

Sadly, you are mistaken. There are millions and possibly billions spent on "climate change".

What do you mean? Research? Prevention? There certainly will be billions spend on mitigating the effects, many many many more billions than it will cost to bring in preventative measures.

....Money is spent on science. Money is spent subsidizing alternative energy sources - even when they're not a good choice.

Certainly. Money is spent on subsidizing oil and other fossil fuels which - as you say - are not a good choice.

....Money is spent on PR. Money is spent creating and selling devices to manage carbon output on things like smokestacks. Money is spent creating new ways to scrub the carbon and maybe re-use it.

That's correct but it isn't a climate change industry it is the cost of generating electricity with unsuitable fuel. You could run every car and truck without a muffler but we would all be deaf. That doesn't mean there is a "noise" industry, just a muffler market.

....Not only is there a climate change industry, it's big business - kind of like national defense.

I think you are stretching the definition somewhat.

 

[Skeptic14]

No, there is definitely a "climate change industry".

The global carbon offset market is valued at around $145 billion.

Al Gore, the discoverer of Man Bear Pig, will probably become a billionaire based upon the carbon offset industry.

And there are examples like Solyndra, where piles of federal money is used to subsidize the industry.

And there are all of the national/international climate change bureaucracies funded with public money.

The climate change industry might not be as big as the defense industry, but it most definitely exists.

 

[kelemvor]

What do you mean? Research? Prevention? There certainly will be billions spend on mitigating the effects, many many many more billions than it will cost to bring in preventative measures.

Yes. that's a huge part of the climate change industry.

Certainly. Money is spent on subsidizing oil and other fossil fuels which - as you say - are not a good choice.

I was not talking about fossil fuels -which I'm not particularly in love with. I was speaking specifically of companies like solyndra that get huge sums of money sunk into them. Solyndra sucked up 240 million dollars before disappearing. They are (or were) a part of the climate change industry, as that was their primary shtick.

Solar and wind energy have been around for a very long time. Money didn't start pouring into those sectors until they became part of "the solution to climate change."

That's correct but it isn't a climate change industry it is the cost of generating electricity with unsuitable fuel. You could run every car and truck without a muffler but we would all be deaf. That doesn't mean there is a "noise" industry, just a muffler market.



I think you are stretching the definition somewhat.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. As skeptic14 pointed out, $145 billion in carbon "offsets" or credits or whatever you call them. Heck, it might be closer to trillions if you add up the total value of the climate change industry.

 

[sassyalice]

I was just replying to another member who thought the study was about the science of climate change, and not the scientists themselves, which it was was, even as inadequate as they may seem to you.

Inadequate is a good descriptor.

Why would anyone give these people the time of day on this subject? Why would their 'opinion' mean anything.. and why are you so intent on pushing their opinions as worthwhile?

They are geoscientists and engineers. And in varying degrees, deniers. I am not trying to defend the study; it is clear in purpose. The whole point, being missed at this point I am going to assume, intentionally, is that there is doubt and skepticism all over. In insignificant schmucks like me, as well as people with their hands in the earth.

What I did find interesting in the study was the framing; it dealt not only with the existence of the phenomenon but also with the mechanisms and solutions being proposed and implemented

I think most people are on board with the reality of climate change, but I think it's important that we listen and respect the many voices and ideas on the hows and whys moving forward; we all breathe the same air.

There is doubt and skeptics because of idiotic articles like this trying to pass posers off as the people whose opinion one would want on such a subject.