Who’s Qualified To Make Statements on Matters of Science?
Runoff from Icecap
I received a response to my post in which I quoted the American Institute of Physics, re: Donald Trump’s candidate to lead NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Jim Bridenstine, in which I wrote:
Bridenstine, an ardent climate denier, proposes that NASA amend its institutional objectives. This would include eliminating current objectives for the “expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space” and the conduct of studies on “the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.”
The response: Jim Bridenstine isn’t an “ardent climate denier”; he simply questions the concept of “scientific consensus of one definition of global climate change.”
Re: my use of the word “ardent,” whatever. Please see below. He has his own theory that is completely at odds with the science on the subject. If you don’t want to call that “ardent,” fine.
My issue, as usual, is that Bridenstine, like everyone with no scientific training:
a) Is manifestly unfit to lead a vitally important section of the federal government whose mission statement and sphere of operations are entirely rooted in science, and
b) Somehow doesn’t understand that nobody (with any intelligence) could possibly care less about the positions of non-scientists on scientific matters. My position on the causes and potential cures for cancer? Ask the oncologists. I don’t add even the vaguest amount of value to that discussion. What type of idiot could possibly be interested in what a businessman thinks about climate change, particle physics, or ocean chemistry?
From Newsweek: Like Trump, Bridensteine is an outspoken (“ardent?) critic of climate science. In a 2016 interview he said the climate “has always changed,” citing “there were periods of time long before the internal combustion engine when the Earth was much warmer than it is today. Going back to the 1600s, we have had mini Ice Ages from then to now,” he said. The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with his assessment of the changing climate. Evidence shows up in the shrinking Arctic ice sheet, animal migrations, and sharply rising trends in carbon emissions since 1900.
Craig,
For advocate who claims to admire the discipline of scientific analysis you show an amazing lack of logic !
Jim Bridenstine is not be appointed to a scientific position at NASA. He is appointed to be responsible for the administration of a huge organization with an annual budget of nearly $ 20 billion.
He will also be responsible for the administration of over 100,000 personnel. In addition his duties will include oversight for NASA’s huge physical infrastructure, purchasing, logistics, investments, legal liabilities and a vast range of compliance and other issues common to running such vast organizations.
Much of his time will be spent fighting NASA’s corner in the political arena with Congress,the Executive, state,local organizations, media, in addition to international organizations.
His tenure is also completely dependent on the political fortunes of the administration. (At the best, maybe 8 years).
How many academics,astrophysicists, space engineers, scientists etc, would be qualified or even willing to undertake any of those tasks ? How many would seek such uncertain future ?
Jim Bridenstine,like all good administrators, must be able to delegate and evaluate advice. his position is similar to that of a Corporate chairperson.
There is a great difference between being a a person who denies all evidence of climate change, and someone who merely questions the positions and accuracy of climate change extremists and political activists !
His objection to the claim “scientific consensus ” is well founded. This claim has always been a disingenuous myth, peddled by activists.
No matter how many times you cite ‘Newsweek’ ( a media outlet that once described me as “Taiwanese”) you can’t escape the fact that on examination the claim is wildly inaccurate.
Instead of citing carefully selected quotes from ‘Newsweek’, try quoting the Congressional record in which Jim Bridenstine,clearly shows himself concerned about atmospheric pollution, the importance of funding scientific research into weather forecasting, and expanding the knowledge base of government scientific agencies by obliging private enterprise to contribute relevant research etc, for evaluation and inclusion.
As a legislator, Jim Bridenstine has every right to question the authenticity of unverified claims made by often self-qualified ‘climate advocates’. (I’ll bet the victims of the Queensland floods wished Jim Bridenstine had been the responsible legislator instead of ANNA Bligh)
Not every position can be filled by the ‘perfect candidate’ !
The President could have nominated a famous scientist. Such a nomination would be questioned, and quite rightly, by Senators worried about the scientist’s lack of political, administrative or organizational knowledge.
Just as I would worry about the appointment of a corporate CEO, with no business experience but pertinent academic product qualifications.
Jim Bridenstine doesn’t lack support even among his political opponents, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, (Dem)chair of the House Science Committee, commended Bridenstine as “a no-nonsense straight shooter when it comes to space exploration and weather issues”.
In all fairness to Jim Bridenstine, judgement about his climate change views should be suspended until he clarifies his position during the Senate confirmation hearings.
(Or doesn’t due process matter any longer? )