Ex NASA Employee: Planned Blog Posts on Coal to Solar Plant Conversions Cancelled

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

An ex-employee claims “fear and anxiety” of President Trump is causing a drop in NASA climate posts. But some of the activities which were allegedly cancelled give us a glimpse of just how far off mission NASA drifted under the previous President.

Nasa full of ‘fear and anxiety’ since Trump took office, ex-employee says

Oliver Milman in New York
Wed 30 May 2018 15.00 AEST

Those still at the agency fear climate science funding will be cut since it is now considered a ‘sensitive subject’

Nasa’s output of climate change information aimed at the public has dwindled under the Trump administration, with a former employee claiming “fear and anxiety” within the agency has led to an online retreat from the issue.

Laura Tenenbaum, a former science communicator for Nasa, said she was warned off using the term “global warming” on social media and restricted in speaking to the media due to her focus on climate change.

“Nasa’s talking point is that it’s business as usual, but that’s not true,” said Tenenbaum, who departed Nasa in October after a decade at the space agency.

“They have stopped promoting or emphasizing climate science communication, they have minimized it. People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding. There is a fear and anxiety there and the outcome has been chaos.

Planned blogposts on coal plants being turned into solar plants, “reasons to be positive about Nasa” and an interview with Gavin Schmidt, a senior Nasa climate scientist, were all either halted or scrapped due to interference from career staff nervous about provoking the new administration, according to Tenenbaum.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/30/nasa-climate-change-sensitive-subject-since-trump-former-employee

In my opinion the alleged NASA plans to celebrate the demise of coal jobs are evidence of severe mission drift under the previous administration.

Coal provides a livelihood to 10s of thousands of Americans.

There is only one role NASA should have considered playing in the economically vital US coal industry – an Earth Science role, helping miners locate new coal deposits.

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “Ex NASA Employee: Planned Blog Posts on Coal to Solar Plant Conversions Cancelled

    • MNNA… Make NASA NASA Again!

      “They have stopped promoting or emphasizing climate science communication, they have minimized it. People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding. There is a fear and anxiety there and the outcome has been chaos.”

      Note to Snowflake Tennebaum: NASA is the acronym for National Aeronautics and Space Administration… WTF does “climate science communication” have to do with Aeronautics and Space?

      • WTF? “Climate science communication” is precisely about ‘fear and anxiety’ and creating chaos. What is this poor darling on about? “Climate science communication” is just marketing speak for presenting publicly funder, utter crap as some sort of rational, meaningful information.

      • Make NASA Great Again or Make NASA NASA Again.
        Hmm.
        NASA was made to beat the Soviets, by landing on the Moon.
        Which worked. And it was cheap in terms of a cold war “effort”- low cost of lives and
        cheap in terms of money needed to win a battle (a PR war).
        But also NASA was given a charter which was to explore space.
        So, one check off, one item, and focus on the other thing of exploring space.
        Or before NASA was NASA, it was agency involved in space exploration:
        wiki, NASA:

        “President Dwight D. Eisenhower established NASA in 1958 with a distinctly civilian (rather than military) orientation encouraging peaceful applications in space science. The National Aeronautics and Space Act was passed on July 29, 1958, disestablishing NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The new agency became operational on October 1, 1958”
        So, I think, it should be Make NASA Great by starting actual exploration Space for purpose of immediate use of Space.
        Or done with Cold war PR, and done with a smattering of chaotic superficial exploration of solar system. And need to explore space with the purpose of finding resources which can used by the people of the world.
        One of most valuable resources in space is water, and we need to explore space to find water which is minable or profitable to extract and transport to where it is needed.
        The value of water on the moon is about $500 per kg, and one needs hundreds of tons mined to start to be viable, and eventually there could millions of ton of lunar water to mine. And to do this you need a market for water and market for the rocket fuel made from the water on the Moon (and/or elsewhere in space).
        Once there is market for water and rocket fuel on the Moon, other activity can be more cheaply done to the Moon (and elsewhere in space).
        So there could be “gold” on moon, NASA job is explore the Moon to determine if and where this water is. Then it can become a business decision of whether it might be minable.
        Or government explores, private sector decides based on exploration results, whether it is worth investing money to mine lunar water.

      • Come on guys, these guys at NASA are under terrible stress nowadays. No wonder they are full of “fear and anxiety”

        They should all have our most profound sympathy – not!

        STBR

        They discard the tenants of science and now they are about to receive the consequences. Here is the most basic tenant of all, BTW it does not require rocket science to understand:

        https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/

        Cheers

        Roger

        STBR? Well starts with “Serve Them” :)

      • Well you see if we put too much CO2 into the atmosphere it will thicken and affect our lunches, I mean launches. Glad I could explain it to you :)

      • More CO2 = denser atmosphere which makes it more difficult to shoot rockets to space? Just a thought. It would be good for airplanes as far as wingspans go – they could be smaller but then the aircraft would have more drag.

        [?? .mod]

    • MNGA! Means exactly what? Michigan Nut Growers Association? Mississippi Natural Gas Administration? There were two more on my search that obviously weren’t it. Search on texting jargon turned up nothing.

      Dunno why people insist on acronyms? Do they think it makes them look smart?

      • Amazing deduction Steve! how did you come up with it?

        Yes that is an example of SARC

      • MNNA or MNGA, whichever, because what in the hell business does NASA have with coal to solar conversions? I’m sort of hoping for some global warming to melt all of these snowflakes. MAGA!

      • TMA – Too Many Acronyms ;-)

        Are we so abased that we are making acronyms of acronyms? NASA is reduced to just N?
        Granted they have their place, and DNA is so much easier to say than “deoxyribonucleic acid”, but clarity sacrificed in the name of brevity is a source of miscommunication.

      • What makes “NASA” an acronym is that the initials of “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” form a pronounceable word: nahsuh. “TMI” (too Much Information) is just initials.

        SR

      • Isn’t MNGA the sound one makes each time another ludicrously inept ‘proof’ of CAGW is made?

      • Don’t feel bad, I did the same thing until MNNA was spelled out for me so we are both suffering from AO (Acronym Olverload). :)

    • mnga will require a top to bottom clear out.employees of the past would have the courage of their convictions to talk about their work and put what they believe in all on the line regardless of the administration in charge at the time. this post shows that just like every other public agency in the developed, west they are staffed by spineless rentseekers,afraid to stick their heads above the parapet.

      money and pensions matter more than honour, courage and conviction, says it all. i may disagree with their position but i could at least respect them and the position if they had the balls to stand up for what they say they believe.

      • …’money and pensions matter more than honour, courage and convictio…”.

        Right on bit chilly, whether corporate or government ultimately, inevitably and inexorably the bureaucrat’s morals are tied to his mortgage.

    • I am another one who has become tired of acronyms. I have finally learned(?) that MSM can be used for main stream media. For me, MSM will always mean methylsulfonylmethane. Also, in grade school, I learned that acronyms almost always took periods between letters, especially if the letters are upper case. Department of Energy, properly, is D.o.E., Department of Education, also D.o.E., so, main stream media, would be m.s.m., or M.S.M.. The only exception I know of is, also known as, which is aka. An example of the usage of aka, is, encephalomyelitis, aka sleeping sickness. On a different point, I like N.A.S.A. and I like space exploration, but, if I’m to take the U.S. Constitution seriously as the supreme law of the land, my opinion does not count. The Constitution, article one, section one, starts out, “All legislative powers herein granted…”, and the rest of the Constitution, makes it plain the N.A.S.A. does not legally exist. If a constitutional amendment, like the eighteen year olds are allowed to vote in national elections amendment, were to be proposed, to make N.A.S.A. legal for space exploration, I will support it. Until then, I’m stuck.

  1. “There is a fear and anxiety there and the outcome has been chaos.”

    Perhaps they now know how the sceptical scientists feel/felt when they were systematically silenced or hounded out their jobs by the fanatical alarmist gang culture.

    Reap what ye sow.

    Now the big gun is in town, run and hide!

  2. Sounds like a good place to have staff cuts to balance the budget. This stuff is in no way part of the NASA charter.

    • Indeed!
      The duplication of efforts within the US agencies is an excellent place to enforce budget cuts! NOAA is the logical ‘home’ for planetary atmospherics studies. Gut the competing ‘Global Climate Change’ principality built within NASA-GISS and transfer the few usable assets to NOAA. Redirect the NASA funds to space launch and exploration programs, as it was originally intended.

      Laura Tenenbaum was not communicating ‘science’. She was communicating fear-based advocacy for AGW.
      Let her find a job at the Guardian or similar. They pay for fear mongering advocacy communications….

  3. I started at NASA in the 1960s (as a “Scientist”). Over my first years I noticed something I had not expected.

    Scientists are not objective about their specialty. They can be oblivious to their specialty’s obvious failings. Rather, than aggressively questioning (which is their job as Scientists), they protect their specialty.

    This also applies to the very highly regarded, intelligent Scientists I worked with at the Universities. There were only a couple exceptions who sought truth — even if it hurt — I silently applauded them.

    Nothing ever changes about the human psyche.

    • I’ve always been very interested in how people get to the top of organizations, especially what personality traits are there.

      Not to get into too much history, but I ended up on Capitol Hill in the early/mid 80’s working with US Senate campaigns, which put me around the Senators themselves. Then in the 90’s I co-founded an IT business that put me in with C level executives of bigger corporations. And in the 00’s until now I’ve been involved in startups.

      Almost to a T, the top guys (and occasionally girls) were egocentric, narcissistic and were bullies. Very rarely did intelligence come into play. Certainly not compassion.

      As you say, nothing ever changes about the human psyche, so I guess it will always be so.

      • rbabcock

        Incompetence is frequently an aid to promotion.

        Police forces frequently promote idiots ‘out the way’. It’s easier than having them do real damage dealing with the public.

      • Reply to rbabcock :
        Generally speaking the traits which take people to the TOP
        of any GREAT BUSINESS include EXTREME levels of dedication , competence and
        endurance and health ……..and HIGH LEVELS of intelligence and self-sacrifice and
        possibly even a touch of the psychopath ( but a charming one ! )
        Compassion is a Marxist trait that takes people inevitably to the Gulags……..so I’m NOT
        SORRY that that WASN’T on your list.
        And it’s NOT a good indicator of success anyway. Why would you need it ?

      • Jim Collin’s book “Good to Great” (one of the few management books worth reading) discovered some quite unexpected characteristics of CEOs that build businesses that delivered lasting success.

      • The manner in which people get to the top of organizations is defined as the “Peter Principle”, i.e., in an organization an individual will rise to his/her level of incompetence.

    • Getting things right or searching for the truth, I think, requires an ability to critique your own efforts that many people simply seem not to have.

      This year, for example, I got into making homemade cakes. I followed directions precisely on some recipes, worked meticulously to get a cake made right, tasted it, tried to talk myself into believing that all my painstaking efforts resulted in a culinary masterpiece [after all, I worked tirelessly to get it], BUT I stepped back, really considered the true outcome, decided that the true outcome sucked, and tossed the whole thing in the garbage. I did this three times before I got what I thought was the honest outcome for one of my cakes.

      Moral of the story? — Doing good science is like baking good cakes, I would imagine. It requires a personality trait that goes beyond the type of endeavor.

      Cake making, I know — who the crap is this guy to philosophize about good science?

    • Richard Feynman was one of those men
      Richard Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

      The man was a giant. Because he died in February 1988 from cancer, that gave the go ahead for James Hansen to give his hoax speech about CO2 to Congress in the summer of 1988. The IPCC was formed in the fall of 1988 and the whole vortex of this sordid CO2 hoax was born. Hansen wouldnt have dared to go to Congress if Feynman had still been alive. Feynman would have destroyed him with a solid 2 page rebuttal and hansen knew it. Because the world today does not have a scientist of the stature of Feynman we are in the mess that you see today. The world needs more CO2 NOT less.

  4. I think the only thing that’s been proposed is to move climate science into NOAA and let NASA focus on space and aeronautics. It’s ironic that NASA GISS creates a database on land sea based thermometer measurements rather than satellite measurements.

    • I don’t mind if NASA is charged with launching and operating the spacecraft used to monitor the climate/weather on Earth, but the data should be shipped off to NOAA whose mission is to study the oceans and atmosphere. We then need to make sure they make the data fully available and are completely transparent about the techniques and code base.

  5. I bet there IS fear and loathing above a certain cafe in NYC. Of course, lots of jubilation and rejoicing in the spacecraft and exploration sections

  6. “People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding”

    If this isn’t a clear admission that it’s all about the funding, then what is ?

    • My thought exactly. If scientists are now willing to tailor their output to a perceived threat of funding cuts, is it so hard to imagine that they might in the past have tailored their output to a perceived increase in funding?

  7. Laura Tenenbaum, a former science communicator for Nasa

    So she was a public affairs officer NOT a scientist. She is more interested in how science is portrayed rather than what the science demonstrates.

    I also not this line:

    all either halted or scrapped due to interference from career staff nervous about provoking the new administration

    So we are talking career staff doing this, not Trump appointees, and doing it in anticipation of what those appointees might do, not have done.

    • I wonder why so many conservatives are confused about NASA and science in general?

      [???? .mod]

      • Yes, why are you confused? You seem to think you know something about NASA and science, yet you don’t. How odd.

  8. Progress. Now re-discover what science discovery is, along with continued vigilance on quality control and contractor oversight.

    • I work for one of those contractors who must repeatedly provide oversight to NASA to keep their concepts from spinning into chaos. If contractors are failing it is in failure to push back against NASA’s unrealistic and unachievable wishes.
      Rocket science is easy…rocket engineering is a bitch! Any kid with entry level calculus can calculate an orbital trajectory. How you actually accomplish that is a whole other ball game.

      BTW NASA is a contracting agency. NASA hasn’t built a rocket since the Mercury Redstone, and even then it was an Army missile.

      • Those activities are the mainstay of the program. It is the thin film of political and advocacy mold in NASA, EPA and others that have caused the problems and corrupted science process at reputational expense.

  9. From the article: “Planned blogposts on coal plants being turned into solar plants, “reasons to be positive about Nasa” and an interview with Gavin Schmidt, a senior Nasa climate scientist, were all either halted or scrapped due to interference from career staff nervous about provoking the new administration, according to Tenenbaum.”

    Well, I think that is actually a positive. If the swamp at NASA is afraid to provoke the administration, then that means there should be less undermining of the Trump administration objectives by these swamp critters.

  10. There is only one role NASA should have considered playing in the economically vital US coal industry – an Earth Science role, helping miners locate new coal deposits.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    First chuckle of the day.

    • You laugh ;meanwhile China is the No. 1 producer of coal in the world with the 3rd most coal deposits and they are financing 79 new coal plants in countries all over the world. China plans to sell all of their coal to these new coal plants.

  11. This is groundbreaking news.
    Up until this moment, everything from undersized salamanders to prostitution in the far east has been blamed on that horrible gas, CO2.

    Now we find there is another cause for the plagues of mankind, Donald Trump!
    So CO2 does *not* cause everything bad on the planet.

    • TonyL,
      But no one has planted a flag to lay claim to CO2 causing the “heartbreak of psoriasis.” I don’t understand why no one has jumped on this. It is so obvious!

      • This is your second request.
        Do not fear, I am working on it.
        I don’t know if my logic chain will be plausible, but at least it should be “plausible”.

    • “Now we find there is another cause for the plagues of mankind, Donald Trump!
      So CO2 does *not* cause everything bad on the planet.”

      There must be a study out there somewhere that proves that CO2 caused Donald Trump!

  12. Re: NASA delving into Big Climate and Muslim Outreach – I guess the staff had to be given something to work on since the organization no longer hold the keys to US space exploration.

  13. I presume this is a Guardian editorial comment within the piece:

    Nasa has yet to attract the level of controversy that surrounds the Environmental Protection Agency, whose administrator Scott Pruitt has denied basic facts on climate science.

    If you make a statement like that, you need to show WHAT “basic fact on climate science” Pruitt has denied.

    BTW, Ms Tenenbaum apparently wrote her Climate blog as an employee of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. In the ’60s while in college I had a minor part time job at JPL (drawing graphs from their data). Nothing in Laura’s job seems to have anything to do with “propulsion” – another example of forgetting what your mission involves.

  14. I cannot fathom the stupidity of attempting to convert the land area of a former coal plant to a solar plant, unless some skeptic has infiltrated the effort in order to highlight how unproductive and land intensive solar power is.

    • Makes sense to me… You could probably generate at least a couple of hundred kilowatts in the area taken up by the coal plant. Might even pay for itself in a few hundred years or so :<)

    • I was wondering how they planned to convert coal into a solar plant. Replacing a coal plant with a solar plant is not converting coal. Do they plan to build solar plants out of coal?

      Now we’ll never know.

  15. “since it is now considered a ‘sensitive subject’”..

    talk about spinning…………

    • ‘sensitive subject’ is NASA speak for shut up or you’ll embarrass us. Same as any other bureaucracy.

  16. It is far beyond time that NASA was forced to do its actual job, advance aeronautical and space exploration science. Go through their employee rolls and remove ALL non-science positions, get the payroll down to only those doing direct work to advance our high altitude, orbital and interplanetary capabilities. That is what NASA was created to do, not spew stupidity and leftist political crap.

  17. But how are people going to know how globalwarmingclimatechangeweirdingweathermagedon is hurting them when they can’t read it in a blog post?

  18. Organizational behavior is the same in all organizations, particularly large ones. Find out what the boss thinks, act like you think it too. Leadership is best shown through being outspoken and brash. Feigned compassion for those with any hardship. Change your tune depending upon the audience. Take credit for anything good that happens. Blame others, particularly those with whom you may be competing for promotion, for anything that goes wrong. Look the part in how you speak, dress, etc which is defined by how those at the top speak, dress, etc. Part and parcel to this is having the appropriate politics, again defined by those at the top. Enjoy the same leisure, sports, drinking, non drinking, foods and other activities as those at the top. I’ve even seen people adopt the favorite phrases, etc of the CEO! Have I missed anything?

  19. With the climate money drying up, NASA will have to intensify their pretense on finding life on Mars to try and gain further funding. Or perhaps they will discover that the “Aliens are heating up our climate” meme!

    Those poor souls might have to get a real job someday.

  20. I have personal friends who are so strongly affected by their membership and association with the Democratic Party and its worldview that they are truly afraid of what the current President is doing. They tell me the craziest things…nearly their entire viewpoint on national politics comprises a mixture of half-a-dozen conspiracy theories and catastrophic endgames all revolving around the current President whose name they will not speak (literally, they will not use his name).
    Of course, I have several other friends who are almost a nutty on the Republican/ Conservative side of the aisle.
    Political Insanity is obviously a Bi-Partisan Ailment.
    That said, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was not tasked with any purposes surrounding Climate Science by Congress. It does naturally get involved in the launching and operating of satellites — but I don’t think it should be tasked with the data collection and processing from those satellites (other than the normal liaison and co-ordination necessary with their data receiving clients).
    NASA having web pages abut climate change is as silly as the FDA or DOT having climate change promoting web pages.

    • But under the Obama rule, all parts of government were forced to hire “climate communicators”, factor “climate change” into their plans, and promote those “climate change plans” prominently.

  21. Just putting coal into perspective here:
    Coal in 2016 went through a rough patch and dipped to 14.6% of primary energy usage, roughly the same portion as 1855. Granted, in 2017 it recovered all the way up to 15.9%, but that is a far cry from the 77% achieved in 1910, or even the more recent plateau of 22-23% from 1986 to 2006.
    Coal has been displaced for direct low grade heat (now provided by electricity or natural gas), transportation (now provided by petroleum), and largely in electricity (first by Nuclear, then by Natural Gas). The fact that it is slowly being replaced by wind and solar should not be a surprise. It is always the fuel that people most want to get rid of. It may be plentyful and cheap, but for some reason there just isn’t a great love for it.
    Coal is swiftly headed to our 4th most used energy source (1- Petroleum, 2-Natural Gas, 3-Soon to be nuclear), and we should not set national policy for 326,000,000 people based on 65,000 mining jobs.

    • The sad part of the conversation is that we should just let the marketplace decide the outcome without any subsidies to any fuel and LET the best fuel win with of course environmental pollution controls in place. However CO2 is not a pollutant so should not be regulated.

      • All I can say to that is I wholeheartedly agree. I doubt that solar and wind would completely fail with no subsidies, but the adoption rate would certainly slow. And E15 would no longer be a concern since it would fail the market test.

    • The fact that it is slowly being replaced by wind and solar should not be a surprise.

      Coal ‘s share of energy usage is of course declining, but it most assuredly is not being replaced by wind and solar, slowly or otherwise. Fracked gas deserves much of the “credit”.

      • You can tell yourself whatever lies help you sleep at night, coal is back.

        [The rest is pruned. Cut out the cursing. .mod]

      • Last year the portion of US electricity provided by Gas+Coal declined while the portion provided by solar+wind increased. That is a fact, easily checked on the EIA total energy browser. There may be contributing circumstances (tax benefits for wind/solar, virtue signaling from tech companies, etc.) but the why is separate from the whether. Yes, fracked gas deserves not just much, but almost all of the credit through 2016. However, the difference between 2016 and 2017 was not driven by gas replacing coal.

    • We have a lot of coal and it contains cheap energy. Tech has essentially cleaned it up of real pollutants and tech can do more. Linear thinking always freezes the frame we are in (a quotable quote, perhaps?). Tech may find a cheap non-combustion oxidation process that removes all pollutants. During WWII Germany made petroleum products from it to fuel the war. South Afr. did the same during the sanctions period.

      Malthus, the Club of Rome, Ehrlich’s Population Bomb, and other linear forecasts of doom failed to consider the biggest resource we possess: human ingenuity. It is always the Petri-dish thinking scope of doomsters’ thought that makes their forecasts so ridiculous. It is always those who are in disciplines that in themselves are static in scope that write this zero sum, arithmetic nonsense. Biologists study their piece of the world as it is and innovation and ingenuity are not a factor in their training or evidently in their interests. Ditto, sociologists and others who lack a dynamic understanding of things despite it being demonstrated regularly.

      The Peak Oil fiasco is a perfect example of the wrongful thinking that divides ‘Resources’ by the annual consumption and determines a year we will run out of oil. Also, a remarkably pure, abundant element of the Periodic Table – carbon- coal has a great future. Of the natural elements, only three find no use.

  22. The Nasa climato folk have been under psychological pressure from their science not delivering as expected, then hoped and then prayed for and then intervened in to cook the T they wanted. The Dreaded Pause during which time CO2 jumped 30% brought the natural variation elephant into their offices and living places. Droves of the gentler more fragile believers’ psyches fell ill with the Climate Blues^ тм never to be heard from again.

    They had to chop climate sensitivity figures, jigger the aerosol effect upwards (which Willis has just demonstrated it doesnt effect temperature because other variables change to resist T change – see “Eruptions Dont” below, and my own contribution over the years that the le Chatelier Principle acts to resist change), then make the tough sells that (the more likely) max of <2% delta T is terminally dangerous, that much colder winters are even stronger evidence of global warming, that snow storms in southern Morocco show we are tipping into the fire…

    Trump is an unlikely hero here. The climatoes are perhaps concerned about funding, but on the other hand he has given them a break from the terrible relentless treadmill for trying to spin straw into gold. The old millers will take retirement and the younger will find themseves freer to let the science take them where it will – perhaps not at Nasa where they will be redundant with repurposing for space missions but overall it is really win-win.

  23. Billions of dollars have been wasted on large-scale, failed solar projects. NASA is late to the party. The gravy train has already left the station and run off the rails. Building solar plants before the technology is ready and economically viable is insane. As someone said, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

  24. The big ‘tell’ in this is fear of provoking the administration with CAGW stuff. When the former administration was in power, fear of ‘provoking’ it was in play, too, and so they kept their heads down and for job security delivered an evermore exaggerated caricature of the end of the world if we didnt go with Obama-Holdren dogma. It is entirely likely that sceptics will have to switch roles eventually when things go off the rails the other way in whatever science supported policy reaches the caricature stage.

  25. Seeing escalation of the game Nasa had lined up for us (to launch President Hillary’s final wrecking ball), it is clear Trump has saved the day and the planet and western civilization and the free enterprise economic engine and capital “S” science that gives the world wellbeing and prosperity. That they will censor themselves and evacuate gatekeeping posts and pal review rosters are all huge paradigm changes to let a saner world back in.

    The universities, technical and scholarly societies, institutes, K-12 kid processing factories, etc., similarly will remake themselves under self-interest motivations. Wow, I thought the saying “When the cat’s away the mice will play” was a cute little homily, but I now see that total wanton destruction is what happens when the “cat” isnt around. It clearly is the number one admonition in human affairs and should be enshrined in every constitution or the rest of it is moot.

  26. “and an interview with Gavin Schmidt, a senior Nasa climate scientist,”

    No 1 Schmidt is a mathematician and programmer NOT a scientist.
    No.2 Isn’t this the same Gavin Schmidt who coauthored a scientific paper recently that explored evidence of a race of aliens who previously had lived on earth and that died off because of their use of fossil fuels that then overheated the earth because of CO2.?????????????

    Gavin Schmidt a leader of men and aliens NOT

    • FASCINATING !.
      The influence of DISNEY and HOLLYWOOD has been far greater than my
      poor little mind had EVER BEGUN to realise ! Even THE BRITISH BBC IS IMPLICATED !!!
      “Or, as the paper put it: “If an industrial civilization had existed on Earth many millions of years prior to our own era, what traces would it have left and would they be detectable today?”
      Worthwhile SPECULATION……perhaps !? THEN it gets a bit bizarre
      “I looked back into the science fiction literature to try to find the earliest example of a story featuring a nonhuman industrial civilization on Earth. The earliest I could find was in a Doctor Who episode.”
      That 1970 episode of the classic TV series involves the present-day discovery of “Silurians”—an ancient race of technologically advanced, reptilian humanoids who predated the arrival of humans by hundreds of millions of years. According to the plot, these highly civilized saurians flourished for centuries until Earth’s atmosphere entered a period of cataclysmic upheaval that forced Homo reptilia to go into hibernation underground to wait out the danger. Schmidt and Frank paid tribute to the episode in the title of their paper: “The Silurian Hypothesis.” AND IT IS CONTAGIOUS AS WELL !!!!!!!!
      “I find it amazing that no one had worked all this out before, and I’m really glad that somebody has taken a closer look at it,” says Pennsylvania State University astronomer Jason Wright, who last year published “a fluffy little paper” exploring the counterintuitive notion that the best place to find evidence of any of Earth’s putative prehuman civilizations may well be off-world. If, for instance, dinosaurs built interplanetary rockets, presumably some remnants of that activity might remain preserved in stable orbits or on the surfaces of more geologically inert celestial bodies such as the moon.
      AND TO THINK THAT “WE” FELT SAFE NOW THAT SCIENCE HAD MOVED FROM
      ASTROLOGY TO ASTRONOMY !!!!! ……………NO !!!
      Thank Goodness for NASA………..they will send rockets …..AND Captain James T. Kirk obviously !!
      to discover the TRUTH ( IS OUT THERE )…..sorry……that’s the X-FILES……..I AM FINDING IT ALL
      A BIT HARD TO CONCENTRATE ON………………..AND THEN I READ THIS :
      Wright also acknowledges the potential for this work to be misinterpreted. “Of course, no matter what, this is going to be interpreted as ‘Astronomers Say Silurians Might Have Existed,’ even though the premise of this work is that there is no such evidence,” he says. “Then again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
      OF COURSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING HAS OCCURRED BEFORE
      ” because there is absence of evidence……………..etc…………”
      SO “WE” JUST HAVE TO GET USED TO THE IDEA !
      IT MUST BE HAPPENING AGAIN because THE EXPERTS say so !
      YE GODS & LITTLE FISHES !
      THESE…….ARE……..THE……..EXPERTS ???????????????????????????????????????????

  27. So NASA is used to bankrupt the marxists and then the marxists use it to bankrupt the west, sounds about par for the course.

  28. Time to shut down the renegade Goddard Institute for Space Sciences that lost it’s way a long time ago. Before they shutter the doors, they should use the new EPA guidance and open up for all to see the “adjustments”, model algorithms, and ‘GISS secret sauce’. There is no place for secrecy when tax payer dollars subsidize the activities – let the sun shine in!

  29. At least Musk has shown,.. NASA rocket science is not rocket science requiring public money, R&D. Sounds like they really need to find their mission in the stars and stop the starry eyed post-processing for the progressive sheeples. Good place to start clear mission re-articulation with ZBB discipline without the hobbies and climate theology.

  30. Oh dear, there’s a new sherrif in town, and he’s causing all kinds of “fear and anxiety” amongst all the thieves, bandits, and crooks in town. What ever shall we do?

  31. NASA personnel should have no fear or confusion if their position is grounded in provable public science!

  32. There are a lot of mechanical engineers almost all of them PhD’s who work for NASA and any one of them who has any experience in thermodynamics; every last one of them believes that global warming is a hoax. They can’t admit it while they are working but the day they retire they all become public skeptics on global warming. That alone is a condemnation of climate science.

  33. The danger of a false positive vastly outweighs the danger of a false negative when trillions of dollars are at stake. All false results can always be minimized with better measuring techniques. False negatives on the other hand are no different than not doing the test at all. We have plenty of time to get the science right. There is NO tipping point with global warming for 2 basic reasons. 1) The earth’s atmosphere is not an enclosed box. If mankind stopped putting any CO2 in the air; after 5 years there would be no mankind produced CO2 left in the atmosphere. Temperature change in the atmosphere is the result of either change in pressure , volume or number of gaseous moles. Ideal gas law PV = nRT where R= 8.34144598 joules/moleKelvin
    The volume of the atmosphere doesn’t change. If mankind stopped all CO2 production, the number of CO2 gaseous molecules in the atmosphere would not change/increase. There would be nothing to affect a change in pressure. The alarmists will argue that there is increased water vapour because of the extra warming caused by increased CO2. However they forget that all the increased water vapour that comes from the oceans makes the oceans colder when evaporation happens. This makes the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. Along with the oceans getting colder with evaporation, the atmosphere lowers its temperature also, because the latent heat that enters the water molecules comes from both the oceans and the atmosphere. It takes a lot of energy to pull the water molecules out of the water. So evaporation helps balance the carbon cycle and the temperature cycle of the atmosphere. When the water molecules condense, part of that latent heat gets released and through convection to the upper troposhere and stratophere eventually gets lost to space. If the temperature process of evaporation and condensation was not balanced; the earth would have had runaway gobal cooling or runaway global warming by now. CO2 has an extremely small input to the temperature cycle. 2) Since the earth has always had evaporation and condensation ever since the oceans were formed, CO2 cannot have much to do with it since water vapour outnumbers it 50 to 1. Therefore an increased temperature change is impossible if the UN ordered a complete stoppage of all mankind CO2 because there would be no extra CO2 to drive the temperature change. Since CO2 has been many times the present level 50 million years ago and there wasnt runaway global warming then how can that happen in the future especially since mankind could stop all production of CO2 anyway. A tipping point would mean in that case that an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere would upset the balance of the water vapour evaporation cycle. However if evaporation causes both the cooling of the oceans and the cooling of the atmosphere then how could a gaseous molecule like CO2 that is only 1/50 ofthe volume of H2O cause an upsetting of the water vapour temp cycles? The alarmists arguments fall flat on both those 2 points. You cannot argue that there would be an irreversible tipping point despite mankind stopping all production of CO2 and you cannot argue that the water cycle of evaporation/condensation has not been in balance. Even if the amount of CO2 was increased 10 fold, the oceans would always absorb the extra CO2 upon evaporation. The oceans can hold 1000 times the heat that the atmosphere can and 50 times the amount of CO2 than the atmosphere has now. They represent 70% of the earth’s surface. The atmosphere can hold only a limited amount of water vapour depending on the temperature. Eventually the rain has to come. So for both of the above reasons, a tipping point is IMPOSSIBLE.

  34. It is interesting that if you had a 4 sided building with no roof and you pointed an infrared heater at the sky, no matter how high the sides of the building would beand no matter how long you had the heater on for; the room of your roofless house would not heat. Nothing would heat. That is because infrared heaters do not heat the air. They heat objects that the rays hit but not gaseous molecules like air. Alarmist greenhouse gas theory says that infrared waves will hit CO2 and H2O molecules and cause temperature increase when the IR gets reradiated downward. Well since an infrared heater puts 1000’s more infrared waves than the soil or ocean water does; then according to alarmist greenhouse gas theory the temperature inside of your roofless house should go up after you turn on the infrared heater. IT DOESN’T.

  35. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    Either your work supports the US aeronautics and space program or it doesn’t.

    Politicking about global fake climate bullshit has NOTHING to do with aeronautics or space. Deal with it.

    • We need a lot more ex-employees of ALL USG agencies. DJT has apparently took out 23%, needs to work toward 50-60% reduction!

      • I [believe] 23,000 federal “workers” have been cut, not 23%.

        Now, it would be far better to knock out 23% of the bloated government employees, but at least he’s made a start. For example, one university alone (Michigan, I believe) has over 90 “equal opportunity” and “anti-discrimination” employees alone! In a liberal campus, with a very large “minority” and majority woman enrollment.

      • Read that in a NYT article linked through Drudge Report last week. My first thought was that there would be a lot more wailing&gnashing of teeth if that many leeches had been salted. 23,000 is still a good start!

Comments are closed.