Senate Confirms Climate Denier With No Scientific Credentials To Head NASA (nytimes.com) 529
On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Trump's NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine, seven and a half months after being nominated to lead the agency. "The Senate confirmed Mr. Bridenstine, an Oklahoma congressman, as the new NASA administrator in a stark partisan vote: 50 Republicans voting for him and 47 Democrats plus two independents against," reports The New York Times. "The vote lasted more than 45 minutes as Republicans waited for Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona to cast his lot." Slashdot reader PeopleAquarium writes about some of Bridenstine's anti-LGBT and non-scientific views: Bridenstine ran a planetarium once, and peddled a debunked argument made by climate change skeptics, claiming that global temperatures "stopped rising 10 years ago." He said "the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept" an apology from then-President Barack Obama for what Bridenstine called a "gross misallocation" of funds for climate change research instead of weather forecasting. In further news, our rockets will now be coal powered, and gay people aren't allowed in space.
The Best People (Score:5, Funny)
Space? This Bridenstine guy will probably turn out to be a Flat Earther as well.
Re: (Score:3)
When I first heard that Trump would be choosing someone to head NASA, my first thought was "Well he'll definitely be a climate conspiracy theorist, I wonder if he'll be a flat earther?"
I didn't expect him to be a homophobe though. Hopefully we won't make first contact with the Moclans while this guy is in charge...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree if NOAA is funded to do the work that NASA was doing. If NASA's climate effort is cut, but NOAA's isn't increased, I think that is a mistake.
I not one of the "the science is settled" people - its a complex problem and one with potentially very large impact, so we need to put a lot of effort into studying it.
Re: (Score:2)
If NASA's climate effort is cut, but NOAA's isn't increased
What do you think is the goal? ;)
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch Nova's Decoding the Weather Machine [pbs.org]. The science is settled. Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising. Severe weather is getting worse.
The only uncertainty is whether we Americans will get off our collective ass and help fix the problem we helped to create.
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.
If you want a yes / no, you need to ask a very specific question:
Does human activity affect climate? Yes - obviously.
Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.
The real questions are things like:
For various CO2 emission scenarios, what are the likely ranges of sea level, and climate changes in different parts of the world. These are being worked on, but there is still a large range in the simulation predictions.
Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).
If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.
No but certain questions are yes and no. For example we don't understand gravity completely but it's "settled" that mass causes gravity and not pixie dust. That doesn't mean that science stops looking at gravity in detail.
Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.
That's as idiotic as saying "yeah smoking has severe consequences, do we need to stop doing it?"
Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).
Bahahahaha. Climate scientists have been studying the inputs for like 50 years and you think they didn't think about this issue or investigated it. Again that's like tobacco companies trying to
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
How is a policy decision a science question?
Science can tell us what will happen in different scenarios, but it can't tell us what we SHOULD do about it because science says nothing about what our goals are. There world will be different under different policies, but its not the job of science to tell us which of those futures are better.
Should we kill or sterilize everyone with genetic defects? Science will say that course of action will very gradually decrease the number of defects in the population, and the Nazis used this as an argument that we SHOULD take that action. Most people today, myself included, think that is a terrible course of action because we are not trying to optimize the genetics of the human race, that isn't the goal.
In the case of climate, I think that science provides input that makes a political decision to reduce CO2 emissions a good choice, but it remains a political, not scientific choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The way I see it, policy should be based on the best available science, but that is different from saying that science sets policy.
If we can't elect politicians who are able to understand the scientific input and act on it, the that is our mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question
Wrong, and now you've lost all credibility in this discussion.
It's statements like this that worry me only slightly less than the deniers.
Science is a description of the universe. It's about facts determined by the scientific method. It might tell us that every single human will die if you don't do something - it says nothing about whether you *should* do it or not. That's policy.
The people who pretend that science tells humans *how* to act are using science as a tool to promulgate their agenda and are scarcely less dangerous than those who pretend that science has
Re: (Score:3)
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy. Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
You really d
Re: (Score:3)
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy.
Again, the science says we are slowly altering if not poisoning the environment. What should be the policy then? My brilliant idea would be to slow the change and look for a way to reverse it.
Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
While you can smoke in your own home and not affect anyone else, emitting more greenhouse gases affects everyone. That's the difference. Limiting smoking in public places has been curtailed as a matter of policy because of the science.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
So let me understand you correctly: You agree the CO2 emissions are causing signific
Re: The Best People (Score:3)
This is so bizarre. Iâ(TM)ve never said that w am opposed to reducing emissions. Iâ(TM)m completely for it. I just want to keep science separate from politics. Reducing CO2 emissions is my personal political view, and despite being a scientist, my political view is no more important than anyone elseâ(TM)s.
If I were a climate scientist then my opinion on the effects of human activity on climate should get lots of weight, but I would still not have any additional political rights.
This is prob
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, let me make it clear. I believe in AGW and I advocate policies to limit it that are considered liberal.
But lets get to the meat. Millions will die because we failed to persuade a strong majority of North Americans that AGW is real. We failed, and excuses *why* we failed even worse than being utterly meaningless because they prevent us from focusing on tactics that might work in future.
I am not saying what *should* happen - I am saying what *has* happened. And clearly, we've failed. There
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
The only uncertainty is whether we Americans will get off our collective ass and help fix the problem we helped to create.
I can answer that, we Americans will do nothing about Climate Change, just look an the attempted conversion to metric. Only when not using metric is expensive we will change to it. Defence and most health industries have already converted but the general population ls no clue that happened. So for Climate Change, Americans will need to have a real cost to ignoring it. My first step is for the government to stop subsidising flood insurance and state "due to Climate Change, doing this is too expensive"
Re: The Best People (Score:3)
Science is never settled. Anyone who says "the science is settled" is a credulous dupe at best, more likely a virtue-signalling charlatan.
Re: (Score:2)
Not settled, eh? Check out the fish populations it the Atlantic that American fishermen harvest. They've been moving north, and it is costing the fishermen further south to shell more for fuel. I guess the fish get to vote here.
Hey, maybe the Arctic is warming all by itself...fucking magic!!
Re: (Score:3)
BUDGETS ARE SET BY CONGRESS NOT THE PRESIDENT.
Damnit filter, I want to yell. I will yell this until it gets through to thickheaded ACs and users alike.
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes this. We already have one agency for climate, why do we have to use nasa for it as well. Oh I know, the grand money grab the thing driving all of the climate research.
Yes. What does building satellites have to do with weather and studying the Earth? oh, wait.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Informative)
The very first item in the list of mandates from the original 1958 NASA act is:
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;
Beyond that, NASA is interested in predicting the atmosphere and habitability of distant planets. There are a few planets that we have access to and can study directly. None are so convenient as Earth, upon which we have (tens/hundreds of) thousands of sensors. Why should we render NASA blind to the one planet that we can readily study?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...might have something to do with name, National Atmospheric and Space Administration.
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.
If you can't characterise the problem effectively, you'll waste your time sneering at a strawman, which is exactly what you've done.
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
I know jack shit about him other than *his own words and deeds*, many of which are in the public domain, and which are enough to come to an informed view of him.
But let's just say you were right and I knew "Jack Shit [sic] about him". What more would you know, then? Nothing more than me, correct? So what makes *your* original post qualify as "thinking for yourself" vs mine? Just the fact that you agree with your own views and felt the urgent need to defend yourself. That reflex reaction to defend -- that's not thinking for yourself. Thinking for yourself would have involved a step back, reflecting on what I wrote, and responding in a positive and constructive way.
I feel no such compunction to do any of that in my first response. I was content to point out the (obvious) flaws in your position. But then, I didn't need to, as I'm not the one lecturing other people on how they ought to argue online, so I wasn't the person at risk of being shown to be a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up please
Re: (Score:2)
If that is all there is to know about someone, because that's all there is in their brain, then you know 100%.
Re: The Best People (Score:5, Insightful)
We know he doesn't have a PhD in science. That should make him bang out of line right there. But when has the Trump administration ever cared about qualifications other that sucking up to Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one small problem. Those aren't generally the people who have STDs, so if you're ignorant then you'll allocate completely the wrong budget to the problem which IS an administrative issue.
Also, admins with a 'tude are generally what's known in the trade as "losers". As are ACs with a 'tude, but I doubt the AC in question can read. They certainly can't write worth a damn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's because they produce results that fit the data. Show me a model that fits the existing data without predicting that things are going to get a whole lot worse, and I'll start taking the other side of the issue seriously. Until then, I will consider their position to be uninformed, and thus completely irrelevant.
Re: The Best People (Score:4, Insightful)
Rockets don't generally give a crap about politics. They work or they explode.
The people who make them not explode are almost invariably left-wingers because that's what you generally become when you're in maths and science.
So the election? Not worth a damn. Not to the rockets, not to Mars, not to the GPS systems. They don't give a shit.
You appoint people to get the job done, not to please some cattle rancher who thinks the world is flat and aliens live in Area 51.
Re: (Score:3)
The people who make them not explode are almost invariably left-wingers because that's what you generally become when you're in maths and science.
This part of your statement does not match my experience. Especially with engineers - many of the ones I’ve worked with have been very conservative politically.
My impression of the people I’ve known doing more “pure” science is: overall they probably do tilt towards the liberal end of things, but it’s by no means monolithic. I’ve known both liberal and conservative scientists - but most of the ones I’ve known tended to focus on their science, and were not often comp
Re: (Score:3)
And this is a bad thing for exactly what reason? Oh, someone said something about Muslims without saying, in the same sentence, that they all need to be exterminated?
Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All I know is
No, you alos know that the new head is an anti-science fool and a bigot. For some reason you're ignoring those. Even if you don't care about the bigotry, the anti science foolishness should matter to you for the head of NASA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the sad state of NASA these days, does it really matter? If you gave me the choice between a asshole with no scientific credentials who might actually have the vision and leadership skills to be able to put men back into space and finally put men on Mars vs. one of the long series of boot-licking bureaucrats who've run the agency into the ground since the end of the Apollo era, I would choose the asshole any day.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you gave me the choice between a asshole with no scientific credentials
He's not an asshole with no scientific credentials, he's an asshole with anti-science credentials. Big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, we realize she lost.
It's time for YOU to accept the idiot you elected is going to cause "only" serious problems for the lucky people and devastation for the unlucky people. If 19 out of 20 doctors said you had cancer that was treatable, would you listen? Or would you listen to the one doctor who says "This is natural," even though you've been feeling like crap for the last year and getting worse?
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Insightful)
... is going to cause "only" serious problems ...
Predictions of the future? Is that really the beginning and end of thinking?
You know the future. You know what would have happened in an alternate future where Hillary was elected. You are so sure that you know the future that you're emotionally upset about it. You're willing to treat others badly, be mean to them, divide people and pick out villains based on your knowledge of the future?
What if you don't know the future? Would that mean you could be nice to others? Could you agree to disagree peaceably with them? Could you stop worrying and maybe have a better life?
Knowing the future doesn't seem to be helping you.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels. That's a short trip for any President or Presidential Candidate to see what is happening with climate change. Maybe a city going underwater isn't important to you.
Anticipating the future is important. It helps is take steps today to give us the best chance at the best future. Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have. Do these predictions not bother you? If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."? I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have.
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."?
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
Re: (Score:2)
1. I wasn't demanding EVERYONE pay for anything. If anything, I was demanding people to be responsible for their actions, such as how people are reimbursed and how companies handle waste disposal.
2. I can't afford the hundreds of billions of dollars the US loses every year due to health problems caused by fossil fuel pollution.
3. I can't afford the extra tens of billions the US will lose every year due to property damage from climate change.
Presidential Choices (Score:2)
- Record high stock market
- Record low unemployment
- Skyrocketing consumer confidence
- Increased US Manufacturing
- North Korea giving up all their nukes
- Record high stock market is easy when companies are allowed to poison people and the environment, in addition to taking financial advantage of them whenever possible. No more Consumer Financial Protections for us.
- Record low unemployment is easy when you inherit most it from your predecessor.
- Increased US Manufacturing and consumer confidence, and NK are all good things, but Trump isn't the only one who can achieve those.
- As for Stormy Daniels, I'm considering it to be slightly better than President Cl
Re: (Score:2)
Bah: Stormy wasn't on Trump's payroll.
Um... his personal views on climate change matter (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the trouble with corruption, it's a bit on the subtle side sometimes. I remember a story I read in my local paper about a real estate developer who wanted some land but couldn't get it because there were a bunch of endangered goats on it. So he bought the land near by, put up a short fence, and put some sheep on his land who just happened to have syphilis. Sheep jumped the fence, goats and sheep did what animals do (try not to think too much about it) and goats, who are apparently much more susceptible to the side effects of syphilis died. Goats gone, problem solved and he got his land.
It sounds crazy. It was all documented though since somebody was tracking the goats (they were endangered after all). So yeah, sometimes corruption isn't all that obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
they matter lots. You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
You claim he's anti-science, because he's skeptical of AGW. You do know that those same satellites basically show that any heating is much, much less than modeled [globalwarming.org], right? So why would he turn off access?
Re:AGW is a loaded term (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is setting the tone of the conversation here?
Bullies.
Re: (Score:3)
While we're complaining about things not being optimal...
You appear to be arguing that because some things are crappy elsewhere we should ignore new crappy things happening now and the people causing them.
But his personal view on stuff that's not relevant to space policy (climate change aside)
No, not climate change aside, because that's the huge one you're choosing to ignore. He's in charge of what is supposed to be one of the premiere science institutions in the world and he doesn't believe science works
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Interesting)
Explain to me why the U.S. is the ONLY country in the civilized world where religion and science are seen as contradictory and incompatible ?
They are? Pretty much the entire Ivy league is universities founded on religious principles, and those also were the model for places like Stanford. Most religious people have no problem with science; in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science. For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another, so thus the scientific method would require you acknowledge the possibility for existence of a higher power is equal to the probability there is not a higher power. A real scientist could be a believer (who will claim it on faith, and thus not scientifically provable) or an agnostic; never an atheist.
Re: (Score:3)
in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science. For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another, so thus the scientific method would require you acknowledge the possibility for existence of a higher power is equal to the probability there is not a higher power. A real scientist could be a believer (who will claim it on faith, and thus not scientifically provable) or an agnostic; never an atheist.
That is... very confusing.
A bowl of milk on my back porch goes empty.
The atheist says "maybe animals, maybe evaporation, not magic fairies who like milk".
The agnostic says "we can never know, so maybe it was magic fairies?"
The religious says "I know that it was magic fairies! And they like milk! I believe it on faith!"
Two are at least a bit scientific, one is someone who should not be in charge of NASA. Unless you think the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, you haven't seen the dark side, so it must
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are?
In much of the country yes, the fact that it' not everywhere does not make that so.
in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science.
No it can't.
For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another,
You cannot prove the existence of magical unicorns one way or another either.
But believing in them would be so silly that we have no words to describe the obverse like aunicornist and no one attempts to twists themselves in logical knots if you claim that they do
Re: Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically - no. We can test for a Santa Claus, since pretty much everything about the man says he physically manifests himself, slides down chimneys, and places presents under Christmas trees around the world.
Not my Santa. He's metaphysical. The presents get delivered but parents often take credit for them. Some other believers claim that Santa actually acts through the parents, guiding their actions; I do not agree with those heathens, though.
Now, how about a metaphysical higher power, that influences our emotions and impulses, who will only be seen after you are already dead?
If nobody sees him until after they're dead, then basically anyone who claims to know that he exists (let alone know anything about what he is like, or what he wants) is just making shit up.
No tangible interference in the physical domain to document, strictly an emotive, internal "nudge" - the source of conscience, for example? How do you test for that?
That's up to those claiming that it exists; in science we go with the null hypothesis. Why would you believe something which you not only have no evidence of, but also cannot ever find evidence of?
There are a near infinity of things which people can invent out of whole cloth and which you cannot test for. If your position is that we should believe everything until it is proven false then you are at best gullible. How exactly you've managed to convince yourself that "real scientists" have to believe things which they have no evidence of ... that's truly mindboggling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article answers some of that better than the ridiculous flame-throwing summary.
Mr. Bridenstine, a former Navy pilot who is now in his third term in the House of Representatives, has become immersed in space issues. In 2016, he sponsored a bill called the American Space Renaissance Act, which proposed broad, ambitious goals for the nation’s space program, including directing NASA to devise a 20-year plan. Although it did not reach a vote, some of the ideas were incorporated into other legislation.
Seems like the guy has some plans already in mind. Probably why he got the job.
Mr. Bridenstine has since moderated his public views, saying he supports NASA research into the causes of extreme weather.
During his confirmation hearing, he agreed that human activity “absolutely” contributed to climate change, but sparred with Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, over whether it was “a contributor” or the “primary cause.”
So, in the face of new evidence about climate change and its causes, maybe he changed his mind. We should be welcoming news that people like this are coming around. And no gay people in space? Coal-powered rockets? Really?
In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Bridenstine tried to make a distinction between views he espoused as a politician and how he would act as the manager of a large federal agency. “I want to make sure that NASA remains, as you said, apolitical,” Mr. Bridenstine said to Mr. Nelson.
And more...
Other than the confirmation hearing, Mr. Bridenstine has spent much of the last seven months keeping quiet. He largely stopped making any public statements and voting on bills to avoid conflicts of interest.
He attended the first meeting of the National Space Council meeting, a panel revived by the Trump administration to coordinate space issues between various federal agencies, but did not speak or participate.
And during Mr. Trump’s State of the Union address in January, he brought a guest: Bill Nye “the Science Guy.”
Many people probably don't agree with his views, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be imposing those views on NASA. He's clearly stated otherwise in his confirmation hearings. I suppose there's the possibility he's just lying, but he's on public record, speaking to Congress, stating otherwise.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Informative)
During his confirmation hearing, he agreed that human activity “absolutely” contributed to climate change, but sparred with Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, over whether it was “a contributor” or the “primary cause.”
Scientists believe that it is extremely likely that most of the observed increase in global average surface temperature over the last half century was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations [climatechange2013.org] and other anthropogenic forcings together. In fact, some studies put the human contribution higher than 150% [guim.co.uk]. That is, non-anthropogenic factors have had a net cooling effect. Human factors have caused all observed warming and also masked that cooling effect.
Mr. Bridenstine is promoting an extremely fringe position that isn't supported by the evidence. I'm not sure why we should celebrate that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we understand what this appointment is all about. Trump thinks he is the right kind of 'stuff'. Agrees with Trump on billionaire opinion, screw climate change - it will never bother the rich. And he does have some space goals, probably building the first cathedral in space to be dedicated by the President of the United States. What we do know about him is that he says what Trump wants to hear and does not let any little annoyances like science or facts get in the way of his dedication to serving Tru
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Informative)
"the United States should maintain a continuous human presence in low Earth orbit and, to the extent practical and consistent with national security priorities, should utilize commercial capabilities for operations in low Earth orbit."
" to develop and publish standards and specifications necessary for on-orbit habitats to house NASA astronauts and science experiments in low Earth orbit. "
"NASA continue its commercial partnerships for resupply and crew movement to the ISS and future low Earth orbit platforms. "
"Expresses a sense of Congress that space debris is a growing threat to space access and that the United States does not currently have a plan for developing space debris remediation capabilities."
"Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants – Updates the Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants program and funds it by setting aside one half of one percent of funding in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. "
"Recognizes that startup space companies are often limited in their ability to offer cash compensation to employees. For stock or option compensation, defers employee tax liability until liquidation."
"space-based weather data and services can help mitigate gaps in critical weather requirements, increase architecture resilience, and augment legacy government weather systems."
"Electromagnetic Spectrum – Expresses a sense of Congress that commercial launch providers require access to spectrum during launch. Requires NTIA and FCC to ensure access to frequencies and reduce the number of authorizations required per launch." - this was actually a issue on one of SpaceX's recent launches when they were denied broadcasting.
I could go on, but I think everyone will get the point. For a thought experiment, let's say that he is able to turn his bill into NASA's operating policy. It's a very coherent policy that could push the US and all of mankind upwards. Weather monitoring is mentioned several times, as is working with foreign governments. Personally, I think the ASPA has amazing potential. None of Trump's other appointees have ANYTHING like this already outlined.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Keep in mind that the /. staff is probably based in Silicon Valley, where it's just accepted dogma that all Republicans are Nazis, along with anyone else to the right of Karl Marx.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Has CNN connected to dots to Russia yet?
Re: (Score:3)
The important thing is that he is a "climate denier", as the headline says. You've seen the evidence for the climate, so have I. Anyone who denies that the climate exists has no business being in charge of NASA!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's click bait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, editors. Wtf? How is that relevant or helpful to the conversation?
The goal is to get more pageviews and responses. Seems to work.
Re: (Score:2)
He does not have a vision for space and wants most space activities shut down. What remaining earth observatory work is still going on will be the first to go. There will be no further missions to Mars and space telescopes will be scrapped.
Re:Coal rockets and a gay ban in space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true. For some stuff. But "climate science" is not part of it. Or, maybe, it is — and we simply ought to apply tar-and-feathers to the quacks professing to be "climate scientists".
All of the "peers" you are talking about are drawing their salaries from the governments. US alone spends four times more on "climate research" today, than we did in 1993.
Even if one of these g
Problems with Bridenstine do not justify last bit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problems with Bridenstine do not justify last b (Score:4, Insightful)
I think having good political and management qualifications is far more important than having scientific qualifications when leading large teams of scientists.
And a politician and manager is far more likely to be able get the scientists at NASA what they need than a scientist in a suit. That's because a politician and manager can listen to the people who work for them and communicate their needs to Congress. And he can do that without letting his own scientific biases and preferences influence his actions.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that in the past administrators have been selected principally on their ability to oversee and execute the programs of NASA. That left leadership on NASA's portfolio principally in Congress because the political skills to advance NASA's mission were a secondary consideration at best. This time, the political ability to advance NASA's mission was the principal concern. Will the oversight and execution of NASA's programs be compromised when left to secondary political appointees or careerists? I th
Re:Problems with Bridenstine do not justify last b (Score:5, Interesting)
"Putting in someone whose primary qualifications are political rather than scientific is very suboptimal;"
That seems to be a logical assertion, but I'm not sure it's proved to be true.
Putting former astronauts and scientists in charge HASN'T seemed to have caused NASA to flourish, has it? Maybe because these individuals *didn't* understand the *politics* necessary to succeed in the intensely political atmosphere of Washington DC?
I mean, the NASA admin isn't designing space craft and piloting rockets: he or she is a BUREAUCRAT, begging other bureaucrats for money and other resources. Seems like a position where a politician might be more successful.
everyone should walk. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone at NASA should walk out in protest. Everyone at the EPA should walk out in protest. Everyone at NOAA should walk out in protest. Everyone at....
Sounds like the hopes of lot of modern crypto-conservatives. That money freed up by the disbanded agencies could build a lot of wall.
Re: (Score:2)
No. We need to fight this. If people give up now, there will be much more damage done by the time President Trump is voted out.
Senate confirms climate denier (Score:5, Funny)
how Slashdot has fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like Slashdot has gone from "News for Nerds" to yellowpress-style hit pieces.
There hasn't been ant "global warming" in years (Score:4, Informative)
almost two decades. That's if you want to accept there was any at all in the 90's with the computer models. All of that is up to debate and moce and more evidence has been released to show the data was fudged. (To be generous)
Second, NASA shouldn't be concerned in the least with "global warming" or "global cooling" or any other bullshit. NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. We have to pay the Russians for that. You think about that for a minute.
Third, without being political, google what the three things the previous president charged Charles Bolden, the head of NASA, to do. I'll give you a hint' none of the three were about space.
Charles Bolden, a retired United States Marines Corps major-general and former astronaut, said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
NASA should not be politcial.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that 2 and 3 on your list are basically the same goal (the Muslim world is the most estranged society from the West at this time), NASA has almost always accomplished these things in pursuing its scientific goals.
I like how the Muslim part got highlighted though. Did that get you all fussy and triggered?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't triggered. I highlighted the Muslim parts because it is absolutely absurd that one of NASA's top three goals is "to make dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about themselves."
It would be stupid for any government program to do that, but especially NASA. NASA? Imagine writing that "Obama wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Jehovah's Witnesses world and engage much more with dominantly Jehovah's Witnesses nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to scie
Re: (Score:3)
Top three goals?
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama. How much money did NASA have earmarked for Muslim outreach? How much of a burden was this on their bureaucracy? Surely, if this was "one
Re: (Score:3)
Top three goals?
Please, tell me where that's being said. All the quote you've provided does is suggest that Obama wanted those things accomplished by NASA. It does nothing to establish their relative importance in NASA's overall mission.
Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
That the top administrator saying that the President charged him three things. That's the leader of the country and the leader of the agency.
Furthermore, (and really, much more importantly) please look back and tell me how that reflects the reality of NASA's 8 years under Obama.
Again, NASA can't even put an astronaut in the space station. I'd say that reflects on the previous administration's record.
Finally, you've failed to establish why reaching out to Muslims
It's NASA. Not some social program. NASA shouldn't have any policy reaching out to any religious group. Especially, a top priority specifically
Flake? (Score:2)
Some people with more left-leaning opinions seem to think of Flake as some kind of hero for his minor rebellion against Trump, but really, he is just as bad.
Here he is, voting with Trump to appoint a clearly unqualified person. What for? Did he get some other commitment from McConnell that McConnell won't deliver on?
There was a story in This American Life about how he was ultimately unable to get a bill on the Senate floor to do something about the DREAMers and/or DACA. He was screwed over by his own leader
CAN WE STOP using "CLIMATE DENIAL"? (Score:2)
What is needed at the NASA helm (Score:4, Insightful)
What you want at the helm of NASA is someone who is enthusiastic about the agency, who knows how to schmooze the right people (especially Congress – and yes, you can take this as a pun, presently), who can advertise NASA, who respects the input from the scientific community (he said he would do that), who does not get too much in the way of the inner workings but recognises when NASA screws up and helps set the ship right (yes, NASA screws up more than you think).
Being a scientist is most of the time not a good qualification in itself – those guys sit already one level down. Listening to and accepting advice from scientists (internal and external), on the other hand, is vital for that position. You also do not want a bean counter (if that's all they do), or someone who does not care.
Even if I don't agree with Bridenstine, he is definitely enthusiastic about the job and really wanted it. NASA administrator is not the jumping board to become the next president (or senator). Bridenstine is fairly young. Wanting to lead a 20+ billion USD agency that is full of people smarter than you is a bit nuts. But, because of that, it's also the #1 federal agency in terms of employee satisfaction, and it's still "cool".
NASA could have done a lot worse. This will be nothing like the EPA or CDC, for example. I would predict that NASA will mostly continue on its path (which is having to do too much with too little money to do it). Maybe it even helps that he comes from Congress. Congress holds the purse strings, and one of the worst problems of NASA, which needs to engage in long term projects, is the eternal budget uncertainty.
I'd give him a chance. Just imagine it would not be him but Rick Perry ...
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not because he believes in physical genders, it's because he thinks gay people are " sexually immoral," and has been known to allow his religion to trump his reason... publicly.
It's not a great attitude for the head of an organization that has 14,000 employees of all walks of life, and that is primarily science based.
Publicly admitting that he hates some of those 14,000 employees for religious reasons is going to wreck his ability to lead, and get the agency mired in distracting lawsuits.
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do positions and beliefs like that have any bearing on his fitness to run NASA? Are we going to have 'morality police' roaming around, like in Iran, arresting people who don't prescribe to a specific set of beliefs? Should people who are not pro-gay be sent for re-education?
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting someone with anti-science beliefs in charge of a science agency is like putting the Klan in charge of your Martin Luther King day barbeque. It's just a shitty idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at this image [wordpress.com]. If someone says "the science is settled", then they are clearly NOT being scientific. At best you may have an idea, but to call it settled - when we're seeing the EXACT SAME THING repeating itself over 60 year cycles, is the antithesis of science.
Skepticism used to be the foundation of science; now it's badgered and attacked as "anti-science".
Re: (Score:3)
True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.
No, not at all. That's the strawman constructed and attacked. Go check out Watts Up With That [wattsupwiththat.com], and you'll find 99.9% of the posters acknowledge some warming, but are skeptical that it is all man-made and it all comes from CO2. Rather, the appearance of trends as I linked tend to show a high likelihood that much of the warming is natural. So perhaps we need to re-think our priorities and budgetary allocations based upon data, rather than models that simply do not match the real world [drroyspencer.com].
The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time [skepticalscience.com], geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data.
Actually, no. Not a
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:3)
The problem is that it is plain stupid to consider things people are born with "immoral". It is unfair, irrational and discrminatory and it's therefore a good indication of being totally incompetent in leading people that do science, which is all about rationality.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Conservative Christians don't consider "being gay" immoral, they consider gay sex, and in particular promiscuous gay sex, immoral. You aren't born having gay sex. Furthermore, they nature of their objection to gay sex has little to do with sexual orientation, and more with the fact that they believe that people ought to have sex only inside a heterosexual marriage; so they object to pre- and extramarital sex as much as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are misrepresenting their position. They don't think that "being gay" is immoral, they think that people choose to have gay sex and they consider that choice to be immoral; in Christianity, morality is about the choices you make and the actions you take.
And they generally aren't saying that that choice should be made illegal, they are saying that it shouldn't be promoted or subsidized or encouraged by
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are we going to have 'morality police' roaming around, like in Iran, arresting people who don't prescribe to a specific set of beliefs?
Yes. If you don't stand up to them, then yes. That's exactly what you will have.
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF are we still in 1600? What is immoral about it? Does it harm someone? If your morality is based on maximizing the number of little Christians that are produced, like it was defined for a long time, to increase the power of this particular religion, I will argue that you are the moral disaster. There are already enough humans on Earth, we don't need you to have 15 children that will fight over the remaining resources of the Earth. Unprotected heterosexual sex is much less moral than gay sex or masturbati
Re: Anti-LGBT ?? (Score:5, Informative)
But homosexual sex *is* immoral and contrary to the natural law.
Wrong [wikipedia.org].
If you don't believe that then literally nothing is immoral
Logical fallacy. Instant fail. Thank you for playing.
(I believe this one is called "equivocation fallacy", but I never bothered memorizing their names [wikipedia.org]).
including pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy. You can't pick and choose.
Pedophilia is a mental disorder and has nothing to do with morality. Actual sexual exploitation of prepubescent children is child abuse.
The main arguments against bestiality are public health and that animals cannot give consent. However, if those concerns are proven not to apply, while I am personally disgusted by the practice, I don't give a rat's ass if you want to boink your pet platypus.
Polygamy is a legal construct, as it concerns marriage. It is by way legal in about 30% of sovereign states [wikipedia.org]. If we stick to the subject of sexual conduct, polyamory is legal in most jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:2)
The facts on the ground are, well, facts. Not opinions.
Thank you. Good day.
Re: (Score:2)
You think raves are immoral? Raves?
Just for this shits and giggles, and not at all because we'd all like to laugh as you try to spell out a position that is not, in your phrasing, "demonstrably weak", how about you spell out why raves are immoral?
Re: How did this bullshit get past the editor? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The NASA budget of 19.5B is 0.4% of the budget and adds $10 to the economy for every $1 spent. There are plenty of wasteful programs all across the federal government that spend more than NASA.