Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

[TPreston]

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration

 

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

 

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.

 

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

 

Trump has previously said that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, although on Tuesday he said there is “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate. There is overwhelming and long-established evidence that burning fossil fuels and deforestation causes the release of heat-trapping gases, therefore causing the warming experienced in recent decades.

 

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Saw this coming ... miles away.  

 

This move will set us back, generations even, in better understanding climate change.  Space exploration is great ... and I'm all for it (obviously) ... however ... understanding/researching climate change is crucial to our very lives and other life forms on this planet.  This is bigger than Trump, and regardless of how I feel about him, funding for NASA's Climate Research (or their very existence) should never been threatened.

 

President-elect Trump needs to look at the reasons NASA was founded ... and it isn't just for "deep space exploration".

 

Quote

Sec. 102 (d) 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 the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

 

Sec. 401. (a) The purpose of this title is to authorize and direct the Administration to develop and carry out a comprehensive program of research, technology, and monitoring of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere so as to provide for an understanding of and to maintain the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

(b) The Congress declares that is the policy of the United States to undertake an immediate and appropriate research, technology, and monitoring program that will provide for understanding the physics and chemistry of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

 

For the rest ... I'll defer to a letter written last year to congressional leaders encouraging them to protect funding for the NASA Earth science division when it was under threat by the Republicans.

 

Quote

Dear Chairman Cochran, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Lowey:

 

As former military and national security leaders, we urge you to protect funding for NASA Earth science and NSF Geoscience programs. These programs are essential parts of a broader whole of government and whole of society effort to provide essential data about and better scientific understanding of global, regional and local Earth processes. That essential data and better understanding of the underlying science are critical to many strategic planning, strategy, and investment decisions in both the private and public sectors, very much including national security.

 

From better understanding weather, wind patterns and intensity, changing global land cover, snow, ice and glacier melting, and seismic activity, to capturing new insights about ocean-atmosphere dynamics and changing ocean circulation, these NASA and NSF programs represent one of the pillars of our nation’s environmental information supply chain. This critical but fragile chain begins with science and data and evolves into decision support products and tools that inform and protect our citizens, property, businesses, and interests around the world. NASA and NSF Earth science directly link to food, water, energy, and economic security, all of which are inherently tied to our national security.

 

Through science, observations and research such as that provided and supported by NASA and NSF, our nation develops and refines the predictive capabilities necessary to anticipate and respond to significant geophysical events such as the severe weather and flooding that has ravaged Texas and Oklahoma or the devastating earthquake that recently struck Nepal. As with any matter affecting national security, information and intelligence are at the core of preparation, risk management, and response.

 

NASA’s Earth science and NSF’s Geoscience research benefits our society and economy. The results from these agencies’ efforts are the foundation for subsequent DoD and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs that directly protect the American people and strengthen our national security. We urge you to continue to fund fully both NASA Earth science and NSF Geoscience research.

https://www.strategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/NationalSecurity_NASA_NSF_Final.pdf

 

[ctebah]

What a guy, and I'm not surprised.  Although, I am surprised that 3 posts in and no-one is defending him yet...

[JoseyWales]

Read the quote.. Nothing to defend. It's NASA, not a toy for the politicians.. You know, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration not the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This sort of researcher is better left to Agencies like NOA and others.

[Open Minded]

5 minutes ago, JoseyWales said:

Read the quote.. Nothing to defend. It's NASA, not a toy for the politicians.. You know, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration not the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This sort of researcher is better left to Agencies like NOA and others.

 

Exactly.  Trump is also increasing the budget for NASA for you know, actual space stuff.  Remember liberals?  Remember how important NASA is?  Oh, I member!

[TPreston]

Just now, Open Minded said:

 

Exactly.  Trump is also increasing the budget for NASA for you know, actual space stuff.  Remember liberals?  Remember how important NASA is?  Oh, I member!

Sec. 102 (d) 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 the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

 

Sec. 401. (a) The purpose of this title is to authorize and direct the Administration to develop and carry out a comprehensive program of research, technology, and monitoring of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere so as to provide for an understanding of and to maintain the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

(b) The Congress declares that is the policy of the United States to undertake an immediate and appropriate research, technology, and monitoring program that will provide for understanding the physics and chemistry of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

[Memphis]

I seem to recall the democrats slashing space funding in favor of global warming funding in NASAS budget. While I think Trump should not have cut this funding, I was upset when space became a secondary  mission to NASA in the eyes of democrats. I am ever quite happy to see a return of focus. The democrats are hypocrites on this. Now my personal opinion is Nasas budget should be doubled and climate change and deep exploration should be done. But i wont get that from republicans or democrats I suppose.

[T3X4S]

55 minutes ago, ctebah said:

What a guy, and I'm not surprised.  Although, I am surprised that 3 posts in and no-one is defending him yet...

Nothing to defend.   IMO NASA should get funding from all of the stupid crap the gov't bleeds billions for.  (research into cockroach farts causing global warming)

[TPreston]

Just now, T3X4S said:

Nothing to defend.   IMO NASA should get funding from all of the stupid crap the gov't bleeds billions for.  (research into cockroach farts causing global warming)

And fruit flies!

[DocM]

23 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Sec. 102 (d) 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 the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

/sigh....

 

We talked about this in Science a while back.

 

In a reorganization move they want to move Earth and climate science  work to NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, you know - The Weather Guys™, and let NASA concentrate on space. A logical change.

 

Further, they are brining back the National Space Council, which is a committee chaired by the Vice President with members from groups NASA deals with in and out of govt., to give it better guidance.

 

Versions of NSC have existed since Project Mercury, and it being dissolved is partly responsible for NASA's drift. That and having too many non-space irons in the fire - like climate.

[TPreston]

 

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

/sigh....

 

We talked about this in Science a while back.

 

In a reorganization move they want to move Earth and climate ccience  work to NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, you know - The Weather Guys™, and let NASA concentrate on space. A logical change.

 

Further, they are brining back the National Space Council, which is a committee chaired by the Vice President with members from groups NASA deals with in and out of govt., to give it better guidance.

 

Versions of NSC have existed since Project Mercury, and it being dissolved is partly responsible for NASA's drift. That and having too many non-space irons in the fire - like climate.

No different than creationists trying to squash evolution funding and erase it from the textbooks.

[Son_Of_Dad]

3 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

No different than creationists trying to squash evolution funding and erase it from the textbooks.

Apart from being completely different

[DocM]

13 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

No different than creationists trying to squash evolution funding and erase it from the textbooks.

Huh?

 

Having climate in NASA is like having drug approvals done by NHTSA. They have two different missions; one looks in, one looks out. All they share is rockets and weather satellites, and increasingly both of those are commercial off the shelf, not NASA birds as in the past when mixed missions made sense. A new reality.

[TPreston]

5 minutes ago, DocM said:

Huh?

 

Having climate in NASA is like having drug approvals done by NHTSA. They have two different missions; one looks in, one looks out. All they share is rockets, and increasingly those are commercial off the shelf, not NASA birds as in the past when mixed missions made sense. A new reality.

Huh? An entire campaign dismissing the science of global warming Huh? Virtually every one of his picks dismissing the science Huh?

 

Perhaps someone who is a serial denier of the science of global warming and posting bogus stories about it isn't best placed to judge its future. To me your assurances that this is a routine restructure are worthless when the story paints a very different picture.

 

Quote

“is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

 

[DocM]

8 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Huh? An entire campaign dismissing the science Huh? Virtually every one of his picks dismissing the science Huh?]

 

Perhaps someone who is a serial denier of the science and posting bogus stories about it isn't best placed to judge its future.

Try listening for once. After this if NOAA wants a new weather/climate satellite they can buy one, or rent services on one, and pay a commercial outfit to launch it. Cheap. There are weather satellites on the market the size of a box of crackers, not multi-ton behemoths it took NASA to launch.

Edited November 24, 2016 by DocM

[TPreston]

6 minutes ago, DocM said:

Try listening for once. After this if NOAA wants a new weather/climate satellite they can buy one, or rent services on one, and pay a commercial outfit to launch it. Cheap. There are weather satellites on the market the size of a box of crackers, not multi-ton behemoths.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/under-trump-nasa-may-turn-a-blind-eye-to-climate-change/

“Budgets would have to be realigned to handle that transfer,” Walker tells Scientific American. “We would also anticipate that any new [Earth science] programs would be funded by those agencies.” With a budget about a quarter of NASA’s, NOAA spends the bulk of its funds on weather forecasting and environmental monitoring. It contracts with NASA to use the space agency’s Earth-observing satellites, and relies on NASA’s help in building and launching satellites of its own. The NSF has a budget roughly three times smaller than NASA’s, and has essentially no involvement in building, launching or operating satellites. In recent years Republican lawmakers have sought budget cuts to climate change–related Earth science programs at all three agencies.

 

Again forgive me if i take your assurances for what they are worth (Nothing) As we all know that your adherence to science ends were your political beliefs begin, Evidenced by the countless bogus articles you've posted on the subject over the years.

[Dick Montage]

Typical right-wing commenters trying to argue with facile interpretations and half truths, trivialising the issue.  Nothing new here.

[Son_Of_Dad]

5 minutes ago, DocM said:

hey can buy one, or rent services on one, and pay a commercial outfit to launch it.

Much like NASA has been forced to do with manned space flight

 

[DocM]

Again, the budget to launch what NOAA needs and fly their birds is far less than if they worked within NASA's bloated system where costs multiply by 5 as a cost of doing business.

[TPreston]

11 minutes ago, DocM said:

Again, the budget to launch what NOAA needs and fly their birds is far less than if they worked within NASA's bloated system where costs multiply by 5 as a cost of doing business.

Again ignore the science ignore the scientists and cut funding because it conflicts with my religious i mean economic beliefs.

 

No different than a creationist.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a24031/trump-nasa-earth-science-budget/

Edited November 24, 2016 by TPreston

[Emn1ty]

6 minutes ago, TPreston said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/under-trump-nasa-may-turn-a-blind-eye-to-climate-change/

“Budgets would have to be realigned to handle that transfer,” Walker tells Scientific American. “We would also anticipate that any new [Earth science] programs would be funded by those agencies.” With a budget about a quarter of NASA’s, NOAA spends the bulk of its funds on weather forecasting and environmental monitoring. It contracts with NASA to use the space agency’s Earth-observing satellites, and relies on NASA’s help in building and launching satellites of its own. The NSF has a budget roughly three times smaller than NASA’s, and has essentially no involvement in building, launching or operating satellites. In recent years Republican lawmakers have sought budget cuts to climate change–related Earth science programs at all three agencies.

 

Again forgive me if i take your assurances for what they are worth (Nothing) As we all know that your adherence to science ends were your political beliefs begin, Evidenced by the countless bogus articles you've posted on the subject over the years.

So basically your argument is, historically Republicans have aimed to cut climate-related research programs. And somehow, that makes shifting climate focus to the NOAA a bad thing? I mean, okay you can be angry about budget cuts but this isn't that. It's a reorganization.

This is such a slanted view of things, I just don't get how people can post this as news when it's so far gone in its interpretation. Are they trying to remove climate research from NASA? Yes. Are they eliminating that research entirely? No, just moving it.

 

Quote

“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."

Sensationalized headline is bogus.

[DocM]

10 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Again ignore the science ignore the scientists and cut funding because it conflicts with my religious i mean economic beliefs.

 

No different than a creationist.

This has nothing to do with your politics. 

 

Previously Earth observation satellites weighed several tons, cost hundreds of million$ and required a big NASA or military rocket to fly. That's why NOAA missions needed to be done with/by NASA.

 

Those days are gone.

 

This is what Earth observation satellites look like today. They're small, inexpensive and can ride as secondary payloads on other launches. This means NOAA doesn't need NASA for much than antennas, and can work in its own calendar. Even larger ones are a small fraction of older birds.

 

Times change.

 

 

[TPreston]

6 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So basically your argument is, historically Republicans have aimed to cut climate-related research programs. And somehow, that makes shifting climate focus to the NOAA a bad thing? I mean, okay you can be angry about budget cuts but this isn't that. It's a reorganization.

How about reading what you just quoted ? Its not reorganization its gutting funds.

 

Quote

This is such a slanted view of things, I just don't get how people can post this as news when it's so far gone in its interpretation. Are they trying to remove climate research from NASA? Yes. Are they eliminating that research entirely? No, just moving it.

Are they eliminating that research entirely? Yes from NASA and possibly more.

 

Quote

This has nothing to do with your politics. 

How can you say that when trump made a plank of his campaign that global warming was bunk ? And you believe it too so your assurances are worthless to me.

 

Quote

Previously Earth observation satellites weighed several tons, cost hundreds of million$ and required a big NASA or military rocket to fly. That's why NOAA missions needed to be done with/by NASA.

 

Those days are gone.

 

This is what Earth observation satellites look like today. They're small, inexpensive and can ride as secondary payloads on other launches. This means NOAA doesn't need NASA for much than antennas, and can work in its own calendar.

How about we ask the scientists and engineers that rather than a global warming denier like yourself.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a24031/trump-nasa-earth-science-budget/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/under-trump-nasa-may-turn-a-blind-eye-to-climate-change/

[DocM]

5 minutes ago, TPreston said:

How about reading what you just quoted ? Its not reorganization its gutting funds.

 

Are they eliminating that research entirely? Yes from NASA and possibly more. Yes from NASA, and moving it to NOAA  where it belongs in today's new tech paradigm. 

Fixed. 

[TPreston]

5 minutes ago, DocM said:

Fixed. 

Provide the portion of the nasa budget for earth sciences to NOAA or your claim is a lie;

 

Without NASA's participation in these kinds of climate monitoring, there will be a huge gap in the data that other agencies will struggle to fill. NASA's budget for Earth Sciences in 2017 is about $2 billion out of $19 billion total. NOAA's total budget for 2017 is only $5.8 billion.

 

http://www.popsci.com/trumps-plan-to-defund-nasas-earth-sciences-division-would-leave-hole-in-climate-research

But again why should we care what someone who wants to see them fail says.