Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[The Chairman]

I think this is an excellent discussion for the most part. Of course, we have both sides overstating the position of the 'other' side with some vilification.

Has man contributed to global warming? Significantly. However, I don't believe that we are as in control as some of us would like to think. The earth has both been significantly hotter and cooler. Overall, the earth did just fine. During the Jurassic, there was no permanent ice on this planet and the seas were 120+ feet higher. Life was at its biggest and most diverse in regards to both flora and fauna. Then we have a mass extinction or two and during the ice age, the seas were 120+ feet lower than they are now. That's a 250 ft swing, which is ultra significant.

As humans, we're concerned about a foot or two of ocean level change. Given the natural flux of the oceans, this concern might be a tad unrealistic. However, if we're going to make a difference and protect our shores, then we need to pull out all the stops right now. We have to quit denying it's happening, we have to stop worrying about assigning blame and we have to figure out how to keep the earth livable for humans for the foreseeable future.

Back to the topic, can anyone point to a specific former head of NASA who was not a scientist or engineer before they were appointed? According to people at NASA, this has been traditional. This nomination is as unprecedented as it faulty. The man is nothing but a politician. He has no special people handling skills or insights that will help focus the agency. He's a 'soft denier' and I believe it's to keep himself politically viable among the real deniers. I don't like that kind of political expediency and find it to be deceptive.

 

[chrisch]

... in my mind is actually evidence that the majority of scientists do believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Without doubt the vast majority - maybe 99% - of scientists accept that at least some portion of the observable phenomena we describe as climate change is in part due to human activity. The big discussion of late is more centred around what proportion it is and what can be done about it.

Clearly the financial interests of the people undertaking the analysis will influence their interpretation of the results to a certain degree. Only a very very small hardcore of individuals, whether scientists, lobbyists or politicians, will actually go so far as to lie that humans have no influence on global climate.

The excuses come thick and fast. We don't have enough effect to worry or that there is nothing we can do, or the old chestnut that it is the Chinese who are at fault. All of these are to miss the point. At some future conference the world will agree a carbon tax. Those countries that don't agree will be excluded from global trade. Perhaps Mr Trump will go to war with all the world not just North Korea at that point? As much as I think this is a silly idea (carbon tax that is) it has a wonderful future because it allows the finance industry to trade carbon credits and so on and make stacks of money for doing nothing.

To my mind therefore the imperative is to adopt low carbon or carbon neutral technologies ahead of the curve. Whatever your personal viewpoint or stance on the role of humanity in the observable change in global temperature there is a financial reward to moving in a direction that the rest of the world is adopting. The nations that get in early on renewable technologies will be able to sell that around the globe. Thus far this is China. The future is Chinese. By being stubborn and failing to see which way the wind is blowing countries like the USA and the UK will be left behind. Our industrial production will be met with tariffs that almost certainly condemn our industry to terminal decline and bankruptcy.

What if we are all wrong? What if fossil carbon is not the problem? Well all the oil, the coal and the gas will still be there. The next generations can use it. But with so much renewable energy being produced the fossil energy that is left will last thousands of years not tens. All that is required is a mindset that looks ahead more than the next decade or so. You know, look after your grandchildren.

 

[Storker]

What if we are all wrong?

 

[Caveeagle]

What if we are all wrong? What if fossil carbon is not the problem? Well all the oil, the coal and the gas will still be there. The next generations can use it. But with so much renewable energy being produced the fossil energy that is left will last thousands of years not tens. All that is required is a mindset that looks ahead more than the next decade or so. You know, look after your grandchildren.

I am all for making smart moves to reduce pollution of all kinds. The reason I am so passionate about this topic, is that I see a near maniacal enthusiasm to ANY change proposed to increase government controls and taxation without good logic and proof that it will work. I have heard the "perfection is the enemy of progress" argument, that I find mostly BS!

If your family was deeply in dept, would you let your spouse take out a loan for a $25k solar home power station without some darn good hard DATA on ROI and long term performance? I really doubt it. But many seem to want our tax dollars to go towards political-heavy pocket lining efforts like Solindra, and regulations pushing for more hybrid vehicles that are currently a net contributor to pollution. (look of Prius and nickel mining if you don't believe me).

I do tend to agree that this NASA posting was probably a political move. One that I really don't like. But I am disgusted by the relentless Trump-bashing with a deliberate blind eye (or just stupidity) that ignores very similar appointments from past administrations.

And as far as "respected experts".. You have been given several examples of experts that are much more credentialed than anyone on this forum. (as far as I know).

 

[chrisch]

...many seem to want our tax dollars to go towards political-heavy pocket lining efforts like Solindra, and regulations pushing for more hybrid vehicles that are currently a net contributor to pollution. (look of Prius and nickel mining if you don't believe me)...

I fully understand that there are many people who wish to take the opportunity to enrich themselves as a result of the situation. I also find the push to hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles a rather foolish one given the effectiveness of biofuel and existing engine technology. The problem with vehicles is that the CO2 in service is targeted and not the lifetime CO2 emission. I have not seen any reliable data on the CO2 generated by the manufacture of batteries and the mining activities associated with the increased use of rare earth metals. It is quite possible therefore that these vehicles produce more rather than less CO2. The big problem (with electric vehicles) is that we do not have enough electricity generated by zero carbon methods. Increasing electricity consumption if Mr Trump "digs" coal to generate it will achieve nothing.

I have never heard of Solindra. Google shows a Solyndra - a California based solar panel manufacturer. I'm afraid that news has not travelled over the pond.

Solar power is another fantastic opportunity that is widely overlooked. Here the UK government has recently dropped assistance for PV panel generation and pretty much killed the market. However in other (more sunny) parts of the world the technology is booming. Solar thermal is now up and running. Morocco has recently entered this market (The colossal African solar farm that could power Europe). The Middle East could harness this technology to continue both to provide energy to the world and to keep itself very rich at our expense.

Given the waste of tax dollars on subsidising the oil industry and it's related consumption I am sure that the US government would be well advised to look at some of these alternatives.

It is also critical to understand that this debate often deteriorates into a argument about vehicular transport and that the amount of fossil CO2 generated by humans is not simply a product of all the big SUVs so popular in the US and UK. Household heating (and in the US cooling) are big generators too. SUVs can be made fuel efficient with modern engine technology and still have a performance that would be unimaginable 30 years ago. None of us need give up our fondness for cave diving. I certainly don't intend to.

Really none of this stuff is hard to do or hard to understand. We - humans - can have a great life and enjoy the luck of being born into a world where science has given us modern medicine and transport technologies that would have been considered witchcraft 100 years ago. That same science tells us that we have overdone the fossil CO2. Either that or your dive computer works on witchcraft. You cannot be selective which science you believe and that which you do not.

 

[RyanT]

And as far as "respected experts".. You have been given several examples of experts that are much more credentialed than anyone on this forum. (as far as I know).

I hold a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and actively work as a University research scientist. I also have strong backgrounds in chemistry and statistics. I am actively conducting research, applying for federal research grants, conducting blind peer-reviews, evaluating federal grant proposals, and publishing in high-quality journals. In addition to my own specific field, I read the new papers that come out (almost weekly) on climate research. I regularly attend research seminars on global carbon cycling and the role that tropical forests and oceans play in this process. I think that makes me credentialed enough to discuss the science of climate change.

 

[Storker]

The problem with vehicles is that the CO2 in service is targeted and not the lifetime CO2 emission. I have not seen any reliable data on the CO2 generated by the manufacture of batteries and the mining activities associated with the increased use of rare earth metals. It is quite possible therefore that these vehicles produce more rather than less CO2. The big problem (with electric vehicles) is that we do not have enough electricity generated by zero carbon methods. Increasing electricity consumption if Mr Trump "digs" coal to generate it will achieve nothing.

According to Daimler-Benz' life cycle assessment of their B-class EV, the CO2 emissions from production of a B-class EV are 80% higher than for the comparable B180. But over its lifetime, the EV wins hands down. Even using the EU grid mix of mostly coalpower, the total life cycle CO2 emissions of the B-class EV are 25% lower than for the B180. If the EV is driven on hydropower (or on nuclear power, or even on coal power with CCS for that sake), the lifetime CO2 emissions for the B-class EV are 65% lower.

Cite. (Warning: PDF). The relevant data are given on p. 32, figure 2-6.

I also find the push to hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles a rather foolish one given the effectiveness of biofuel and existing engine technology.

Biofuels alone can't solve the problem. We MUST use less energy than we do today. Internal combustion engine (ICE) technology is overdue for replacement since the energy efficiency of ICEs is abhorrent (30-something percent, a little more for diesels than for gasoline engines). A FCEV has an efficiency of 50-60%, a battery EV has an effiency of 80-90%.

A reality check on renewables

And, a propos credentials: Biofuel is my professional specialty.

 

[Schwob]

I hold a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and actively work as a University research scientist. I also have strong backgrounds in chemistry and statistics. I am actively conducting research, applying for federal research grants, conducting blind peer-reviews, evaluating federal grant proposals, and publishing in high-quality journals. In addition to my own specific field, I read the new papers that come out (almost weekly) on climate research. I regularly attend research seminars on global carbon cycling and the role that tropical forests and oceans play in this process. I think that makes me credentialed enough to discuss the science of climate change.

I would agree.
If only I could arrive at the feeling (or shall we say belief) that the scientific discussion actually mattered a whole lot in a world of political decisions guided by in large parts, greed, power, political self preservation, beliefs, and whatever short term promise gets the most votes from mostly people not ever reading into any of that at any depth on any topic, except maybe by consuming pre-edited and biased "news" on their particular chosen part of the spectrum...

 

[RyanT]

Everybody is forgetting that UN scientists were caught modifying the data to show that there is climate change...

This is not true. This was started by an article published in the British tabloid the Mail (Daily Mail) by David Rose. Rose alleged that scientists used misleading data in order to rush to publication the paper published in science "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" by Thomas Karl. Specifically, Rose alleged that Thomas Karl was intentionally vague about his methodology. He wasn't, Karl spelled it out in his paper. Second, Rose said that Karl hand-picked his data to better support his argument. This second allegation came from a comment by retired NOAA scientist John Bates. The comment was taken out of context and Bates specifically said that he never claimed that Karl had manipulated the data. Karl's data were later been verified by additional independent investigations.

So another example of how science continues to be distorted. I'll suggest again here as I have in other discussions here on SB. If you don't think anthropogenic climate change is true, then read the science directly (multiple independent papers) and decide for your self why the scientists actually got it wrong.

 

[Storker]

If you don't think anthropogenic climate change is true, then read the science directly (multiple independent papers) and decide for your self why the scientists actually got it wrong.

And every non-climatoligist has about as big a chance of getting that right as every non-oncologist has of doing the same thing with cancer research papers.

This is pretty advanced stuff. You aren't qualified after a two-week evening class at Google University