Image 01 Image 03

NASA’s climate research may be jettisoned by Trump

NASA’s climate research may be jettisoned by Trump

The agency rockets back to its original mission: Space exploration!

Another of our bloated, inefficient agencies is about to undergo serious climate change under Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

The President-Elect is planning to eliminate all climate change research conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of his fight against climate alarmist policies.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

Actually, there is a whole agency that already deals with climate: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I know…they are one of my clients.

Mission creep has long been a problem, especially during the Obama years. For example, the Envirnmental Protection Agency has been so focused on life-sustaining carbon dioxide, it has failed to protect against real pollutants (such as lead). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been more focused on life-style issues than infectious diseases.

And who could forget Obama’s Muslim outreach directive to NASA?

So, returning agencies to their original mission tracks seems like a sensible idea whose time has come.

Trump has just announced that former NASA director Chris Shank will be leading the transition team for the agency.

…Shank has extensive experience with NASA, both working in the agency itself as well as on Capitol Hill. He joins the transition team after serving as policy director for the House Science Committee and, before that, as deputy chief of staff for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the committee. Shank also served on the committee’s staff from 2001 to 2005.

Shank worked for NASA from 2005 to 2009, during the tenure of administrator Mike Griffin. At NASA, he was director of strategic investments, responsible for the development of the agency’s budget. He also led the agency’s office of strategic communications, working on legislative affairs and public outreach. After leaving NASA, he briefly worked for the Applied Physical Laboratory and Honeywell before returning to Congress.

One of the biggest myths offered to support climate change assertions is that 97% of all scientists agree with recent politically-based theories. An actual survey that has been conducted with over 1,000 earth scientists shows that a majority of these professionals do not believe man’s use of fossil fuels is causing a global warming crisis.

…Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

In other words, the consensus actually is that mankind is not causing significant change on the global climate.

It will be great to see NASA return to focusing on space exploration again, especially as the move has a basis in real science, supported by real scientists.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


But how will we ever get a Muslim-only space station?

97% or 36%….math is hard for libs. That’s why they have a fixation on ten round magazines. Ten bullets/ten fingers a coincidence, I don’t think so.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Old0311. | December 4, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Well the 97% number is and has always been a lie. That number is actually derived from a study paid for and done by climate alarmist scientist that was so bad that 5 of the world’s top scientist left the study because it was so bias. So that 97% is 97% of the “scientist” involved in that study.

    So the way to put it truthfully would be to say “97% of scientist, involved in this single study, agree that AGW is a problem”. What the alarmist do is simply drop the stuff between the comma’s.

    Stan25 in reply to Old0311. | December 4, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    Don’t forget about their toes. They can get to those real easy by wearing their Berkies.

Interesting snippet: “…with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.”

2017 proposed Obama budget: $218b for SNAP (food stamps), $6.3b for WIC (Women, Infants, Children food stamps)

So the space exploration budget is roughly 1% of just the US food stamp budget. Given that budget items tend to expand at 6% or so a year, simply the normal growth of food stamps over two months matches our entire space exploration budget.

I though NASA’s primary objective was Muslim outreach. What is this space exploration you speak of?

Praying toward Mecca has to be fun at 17,000 mph.

Just to be fair, the survey mentioned in this article regarding the 1000 “scientists” was actually 1000 engineers and geologists in Alberta, most of whom work in the gas and oil industry.

As much as I would like those stats to be true, I think the study’s author used a fairly biased set of people to obtain his conclusion.

    I’ll see your bullshit statistic and raise you one.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to fogflyer. | December 4, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    That is precisely what happened. It’s like they took a poll on the question of what’s best, conservatism or liberalism, and chose their 1,000 respondents from among registered Democrats in San Francisco.

      Worse than that.

      Out of the 3000+ questionaires they sent out, they gleaned it down to less than 100 that answered somewhat “correctly” and then came up with the 97% from that small group

      All told, that 97% comes from only 79 “scientists”

      The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to murkyv. | December 4, 2016 at 6:40 pm

        Like I have said Climate Alarmism is based on data that has been proven to be either doctored or faked entirely. There is no such thing as AGW. What there is, is a planet simply moving through its life cycle.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to murkyv. | December 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm

        Oh, and the 79 were from a subset of “scientists” whose specialties that they considered to be climate science. So, they included tree ring counters (like a lot of the ClimateGate crew, who showed an amazing ineptitude with statistics and computer programming), and apparently ignored any type of physicists (who might get sidetracked by the solar energy contribution to AGW). Plus, there was apparently no requirement for a PhD, or even a Master’s degree.

        MattMusson in reply to murkyv. | December 5, 2016 at 9:15 am

        Please don’t muddy the waters with factual assertions after my mind is made up and closed down!

Actually, the “Aeronautics” part of NASA is legit. For most of its operational lifetime—as NACA—it was concerned with aeronautical standards and research, mainly instrument navigation, jet propulsion, and airfoil sections suitable for supersonic flight, and probably some other stuff I never ran into. And, of course, bureaucratic regulations—it wouldn’t be government work without those. Circa 1958 the organization was changed to cover space as well. Until then the business of shooting stuff to high altitudes had been purely military.

In any case, shutting the barn door now does no good; the horse has not only escaped, he’s retired. I refer to James Hanson, professional alarmist, who did his major damage while head of NASA’s Goddard Institute. He has now skipped out of there and is furthering his career of evil at Columbia.

    tom swift in reply to tom swift. | December 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    Hansen, not Hanson.

    Jeeez, it’s 0630 hours … time to wake up, already.

    Old0311 in reply to tom swift. | December 4, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Can we get a B-52 friendly fire accident on Columbia? Never mind. I know good things like that never happen.

    MattMusson in reply to tom swift. | December 5, 2016 at 9:20 am

    But – remember NASA said their satellites were showing data consistent with Global Warming… until they realized the satellite orbits were decaying and warming was a result of instruments getting closer to the Earth.

Henry Hawkins | December 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Whether 97% pro or 97% con, it doesn’t matter. Science does not proceed on consensus of belief.

Physician/scientist, author/director, educator Michael Crichton on scientific consensus:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 4, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    “Science does not proceed on consensus of belief.”

    This, this, and this again.

    It also does not proceed on doctored data, which most of the data concerning global warming has been proven to be, if not faked entirely.

Re Consensus. I agree with Crichton. I’m old enough to have seen a number of consensus positions fall to new data. When I started elementary school the consensus was that the earth’s crust was solid and continents were where they had always been. Of course that was replaced with plate tectonics theory. I won’t go on with all the other ‘consensus’ positions that have fallen over the years, but ‘consensus’ and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

This could be very good news and it is very important. But the next steps are every bit as critical. Every administration changes NASA’s direction which prevents anything big from ever getting done. But this time there is no choice because of what Obama did.

Those who favor bold human space missions while adhering to rational, realistic mission planning know that there needs to be an achievable goal no further out than 10-12 years that does not depend on a host of new technologies. Otherwise, it will get bogged down in aimless development and before enough momentum is established the political opposition will have regained enough power to slash it to pieces.

Ironically, Zubrin’s (who hates Trump) Mars Direct was engineered with all this in mind. That would be a solid option as would be a permanent Moon base using SLS. But if Trump simply engages NASA in wild advanced propulsion ideasn then that will be the last we hear of it until the next administration.

Moon and/or Mars bases in 10 years. Then NTR and onward to the Jovian moons.

Henry Hawkins | December 4, 2016 at 5:56 pm

We’ve been to the moon numerous times. A manned mission to Mars is still too full of technical problems. Next mission ought to be (IMHO) learning how to build, man, maintain, and resupply an ET base on the moon. This would solve some of the Mars mission problems as well. Baby steps, lol.

I’d give my left arm to smoke a bowl with Newt Gingrich and dive deep into everything space-related.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 4, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Agreed, personally I think a good first step would be to build and maintain an fully functions aquatic city in the Pacific. How can we hope to master other environments when we haven’t even mastered the 2 here on our own world?

    broomhandle in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 4, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    You’d be better off staying sober and listening to Mike Griffin. He knows way more about everything space-mission related than Newt or pretty much anyone else.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to broomhandle. | December 4, 2016 at 8:01 pm

      Ah, but he’s not as entertaining as Newt when he goes off on the subject. I’m already well-versed in the subject, a lifelong avocation, so I’m looking for the fun aspect. Ever heard/seen a vid of Newt when this is the subject? He’s hilarious. Might be one available on YouTube.

I keep thinking I will get Mark Steyn’s book on this…. just never get around to it…..

I think that “jettisoned” may be an exaggeration. There are valuable things to learn about Earth from space, most of which are unrelated to climate change. I think that Donald Trump knows this, and some of his allies like Newt Gingrich have certainly talked about the benefits of some of these studies in the past. It’s probably a good idea to scale back some of the alarmism about climate, but I really doubt that Trump would scrap the whole program.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to M.K.. | December 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Well the Earth Science division has a real place in NASA, it has just been taken over by Climate Alarmist supported by out current administration. What Trump is really saying is scale their budget back to what is reasonable and refocus them to what should be their real tasks.