Trump scrapping NASA climate research division in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ 

Posted: February 20, 2017 by oldbrew in atmosphere, climate, Politics, research
Tags:

nasalogo
It looks more like ‘winding down’ at this stage, but ‘scrapping’ eventually. Not unexpected, if it goes ahead as suggested.
H/T Europe Breaking News

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.”

Source: Europe Breaking News

Comments
  1. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Excellent news.
    “After all, there’s no ‘C’ in NASA.” (Tallbloke, 2016)

  2. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Finally some sanity

  3. You cannot sweep AGW under a carpet. If AGW is true temperatures will still rise.

    This will just make monitoring the effect more difficult to monitor.

  4. Bitter&twisted says:

    Good.
    Even better- mass sackings of climate “scientists”.

  5. BLACK PEARL says:

    Oh Dear … what a shame
    There is going to be some TRULY ‘concerned’ scientists world wide this time
    Concerned as to how long their Fake Wages & grants are going to be ‘sustainable’

  6. oldbrew says:

    “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.”

    Climate-related research is not being abandoned. Just NASA’s role in it – at least a large part of it anyway.

  7. oldbrew says:

    20 New Scientific Papers Link Modern Climate Trends To Solar Forcing
    By Kenneth Richard on 20. February 2017

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/20/20-new-scientific-papers-link-modern-climate-trends-to-solar-forcing/

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    NASA JPL is the exception. They’ve done the top US climate research. Regular climate scientists don’t have ANY understanding of earth orientation parameters (not to be lazily confused with earth orbital parameters). JPL’s a division bridging disciplines with real missing links that an agency like NOAA would permanently ignore. Certainly GISS PR looked extremely corrupt, but that bad apple’s a different division. JPL candidate Jean Dickey could guide US climate research. There has been coercive spin on interpretation of some JPL research in recent years so I recommend eliminating all such coercion, but it would be reprehensible to cut funding to a division doing important fundamental climate research successfully while the majority of US climate scientists are completely incapable. Let’s make sure the money isn’t only going to people who can’t actually do the work. Basic understanding of earth orientation parameters is prerequisite background for climate research and who outside of JPL has it? (very few)

  9. Brett Keane says:

    thefordprefect says:
    February 20, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    You cannot sweep AGW under a carpet. If AGW is true temperatures will still rise.

    You are so right, and now we can watch honestly for a change. At last!

  10. Richard111 says:

    Okay. Hands up those who think global temperature will continue to rise.

  11. I agree with your point on science being politicized. I mean, I like the fact that research is able to be funded by the government. The program I work for is paid for by a federal grant, and we help babies — it’s good, honest work. However, with the politicization, research suddenly has to say “this” or funding will dry up and said scientists’ careers will be in the gutter. Now, there is no more objectivity to it — everything is knee jerk emotionalism and fear mongering because that’s where the money is. The statistician and researcher in me questions everything — If I didn’t run the numbers myself or the information did not come from a peer reviewed journal where the researcher’s methodologies are clearly defined and explained, I don’t trust it. Not saying all climate science is garbage — but there are too many variables in place not being accounted for.

  12. jim says:

    Unfortunately when they sack those people, we will lose years of data. And we do need scientists of the world to re go over the data. To find out what is going on, and why. A butterfly effect or manipulation, or a natural process that repeats. NASA loss of the data puts back planetary results of other planets. Interestingly, that means, results of other NASA data may be incorrect also. They were using earth as a baseline for results.

  13. oldbrew says:

    At least some of those affected if/when the axe falls could transfer to one of the other agencies mentioned.

  14. catweazle666 says:

    “Unfortunately when they sack those people, we will lose years of data.”

    What a curious notion. Do you think the individuals in question possess and have control of the data, despite it being the property of the US taxpayer?

    All the data should be both stored and archived, subject to quality control regulations. That was in large part the problem with the Bates-Karl furore, Karl published a paper that was irreproducible because he had not inter alia complied with the NOAA regulations on data management.

    In any case, thare are a number of external organisations – Steve Goddard AKA Tony Heller comes to mind – who have been assiduously preserving the data for many years now, specifically so they could document the curious “homologation” processes that it has been subjected to.

  15. oldbrew says:

    It’s quite hard to lose data at any large computerised location these days. Daily backups of data and archives are the norm in case of system failure, hacking, data corruption etc. and mass data storage is relatively cheap.

    It’s a lot harder to delete computer records and data than to lose them, as Mrs Clinton found out 😐

  16. RoswellJohn says:

    Actually the Principle Investigator usually has control over all the data even though the government paid for it. They can take it to their next job; it’s a way to continue work on the data even if the scientist moves on to another agency/company/university.

  17. Steven Mosher says:

    “All the data should be both stored and archived, subject to quality control regulations. That was in large part the problem with the Bates-Karl furore, Karl published a paper that was irreproducible because he had not inter alia complied with the NOAA regulations on data management.”

    wrong.

    K15 was reproduceable out of the box

    Understand what K15 is

    A) GHCNv4 Beta + B) ERSST4 = K15

    reproducing was dead easy.

    Bates wanted to put it though his CDR process which is a GRAVEYARD of dead wrong bugfilled crap.

    Long ago I started working with The UAh CDR data and code. This is the verison that Bates would prefer

    The code is so embarassing that most of us ( except Stoat) have spared the authors the embarassment.

    The data is stale and wrong and out of date

    BUT.. there are check boxes filled indicating what a piece of crap it is.

    When Juditha dn Spencer and Christy testify to congress… Guess what? they dont use CDR data

    [mod] you’re on the wrong thread, should be here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/us-congress-launches-climate-data-probe/

  18. Bitter&twisted says:

    Mosher is often on the “wrong thread”.
    But it is a feature of his modus operandi, not a bug.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Steven Mosher should not be allowed to comment here.

  20. In lumina says:

    […] via Trump scrapping NASA climate research division in crackdown on ‘politicized science’  — Tallb… […]

  21. stpaulchuck says:

    uhhhh, isn’t Earth climate under NOAA?? More hand wringing by those who refuse to see the wheels came off the CAGW wagon some long time ago.

  22. Fred Streeter says:

    Surely the study of planetary atmospheres should be the responsibility of a single department, a resource for NOAA, NASA, and other parties.

  23. oldbrew says:

    DELINGPOLE: NASA to Stop Shilling for Big Green, Restart Exploring Space…

    The author enjoys himself at the expense of NASA climateers…
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/delingpole-nasa-lose-role-green-propagandist-shock/

    ‘If ever a swamp needed draining, it’s the swamp of the $1.5 trillion environmental scam. This could have gone on for ever and ever. Our grandchildren ought to be properly grateful to President Trump that it didn’t.’

  24. dscott says:

    It’s too bad that all of it needs to go due to political corruption and green greed. The developing ice age needs to be properly documented… but now maybe talking about the weather won’t be so controversial anymore like it used to be just to make conversation. /snark/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s