# NASA nominee is a hack; Jeff Flake is a bitch **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 19, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673 "2018-04-19T00:19:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/81 "2018-04-26T15:26:47Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > We’ll never know if you cannot produce any. > > What we do know is that five years ago Bridenstine made an complete denial about the existence and anthropological causes of climate change in an unforced speech in front of the House. Under the pressures of his contentious Senate confirmation hearing late last year he made equivocating statements including the “…we need to continue studying it,” stalling tactic and “…the Chinese and the Russian and the Indian emissions, it is overwhelmingly massive…” diversion which are stock evasions used by climate change denialists to avoid being caught in a logic trap of facts contradicting their position. Now, if the argument is that we have to take what he says at face value as reflecting his internal beliefs as they stand now without skepticism, then yes, he would seem to have changed his position significantly. But given that he does not present any narrative regarding that dramatic change, nor has the expertise to make a critical evaluation of climate data and come to an independent qualified opinion, we should take the statements intended to satisfied the Senate to approve him for a powerful executive administration position he desires with at least a moderate degree of circumspection. > > Stranger That’s a perfectly reasonable inference. But it takes him out of the “flatly deny” category, and into the “cagey half-hearted statements I don’t accept as true.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/82 "2018-04-26T15:31:24Z")
This guy is still a hack!!! It makes very little differnce! Compare his resume to Charles Bolden, it’s a fucking joke!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/83 "2018-04-26T16:44:47Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > This guy is still a hack!!! It makes very little differnce! Compare his resume to Charles Bolden, it’s a fucking joke!! OK, he’s a hack. But if I said, “…and he’s an arsonist, as well!” you’d (I hope) object to that claim, right? So, too, here. I object to “flatly deny,” in describing his approach to climate change. If you substitute, “cagily weasels his way around the issue,” I can’t complain. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/84 "2018-04-26T17:51:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a perfectly reasonable inference. But it takes him out of the “flatly deny” category, and into the “cagey half-hearted statements I don’t accept as true.” Five years ago under no questioning or scruitiny, Bridenstine _flatly denied_ the validity of data-backed assessments of climate change with no rationale other than deliberately misrepresenting facts. Last November under the challenge of a Senate nomination hearing, he offered equivocal answers that were essentially taken from the [climate denial handbook of specious arguments](https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), without indicating any change of belief or rationale. If your intent is to “win the argument” by saying that we can’t truly know what is in Bridenstine’s heart of hearts, then sure, we can’t know what he might actually believe. Perhaps he’s actually now an enthusiastic proponent of climate change research but someone is holding his family hostage so that he won’t say that openly. But looking at his past statements and positions, and the fact that he has no expertise for making any etermination about the validity of the of global climate change independent of professional climatologists, it is clear that Bridenstine has _flatly denied_ climate change when he had no reason to couch his opinions, and expect that he will bring that same position into the role of administrator for the agency which is one of the most critical in measuring and surveilling climate behavior. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/85 "2018-04-26T18:09:35Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Five years ago under no questioning or scruitiny, Bridenstine _flatly denied_ the validity of data-backed assessments of climate change with no rationale other than deliberately misrepresenting facts. Last November under the challenge of a Senate nomination hearing, he offered equivocal answers that were essentially taken from the [climate denial handbook of specious arguments](https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), without indicating any change of belief or rationale. > > If your intent is to “win the argument” by saying that we can’t truly know what is in Bridenstine’s heart of hearts, then sure, we can’t know what he might actually believe. Perhaps he’s actually now an enthusiastic proponent of climate change research but someone is holding his family hostage so that he won’t say that openly. But looking at his past statements and positions, and the fact that he has no expertise for making any etermination about the validity of the of global climate change independent of professional climatologists, it is clear that Bridenstine has _flatly denied_ climate change when he had no reason to couch his opinions, and expect that he will bring that same position into the role of administrator for the agency which is one of the most critical in measuring and surveilling climate behavior. > > Stranger I concede the point. I thought you were the person that made a present-tense statement that Bridenstine had “flatly denied.” In an effort to highlight that claim of yours, I discover my mistake: you said, rather, that Bridenstine had a _history_ of denials, which is inarguably true. **Bone** , in perfectly good faith, characterized that as “flatly denied,” and in skimming the thread I mentally affixed that statement to you. So, sorry. You’re right: he has a history of denials, and his present statements amount to equivocations only. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673/86 "2018-04-26T18:31:04Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Five years ago under no questioning or scruitiny, Bridenstine _flatly denied_ the validity of data-backed assessments of climate change with no rationale other than deliberately misrepresenting facts. Last November under the challenge of a Senate nomination hearing, he offered equivocal answers that were essentially taken from the [climate denial handbook of specious arguments](https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), without indicating any change of belief or rationale. > > If your intent is to “win the argument” by saying that we can’t truly know what is in Bridenstine’s heart of hearts, then sure, we can’t know what he might actually believe. Perhaps he’s actually now an enthusiastic proponent of climate change research but someone is holding his family hostage so that he won’t say that openly. But looking at his past statements and positions, and the fact that he has no expertise for making any etermination about the validity of the of global climate change independent of professional climatologists, it is clear that Bridenstine has _flatly denied_ climate change when he had no reason to couch his opinions, and expect that he will bring that same position into the role of administrator for the agency which is one of the most critical in measuring and surveilling climate behavior. > > Stranger Well said, and I have to add that ignoring past history is reckless, **we already do know what the ones the president appoints do with this issue**. Stretch the truth when under the senate questioning and then after winning the position they revert to the positions that got them the attention of the current ignoramus of the White House. > **[Scott Pruitt testified before Congress and it got messy](https://grist.org/article/scott-pruitt-testified-before-congress-and-it-got-messy/)** > > Pruitt said he "doesn't remember" making negative comments about Trump in 2016. [https://mashable.com/2018/03/28/leaked-epa-talking-points-climate-change-denial/#ZAQDFxuONsqV](https://mashable.com/2018/03/28/leaked-epa-talking-points-climate-change-denial/#ZAQDFxuONsqV) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-nominee-is-a-hack-jeff-flake-is-a-bitch/812673.md?page=4)