I do, and anticipating such a question, I used post #15 to share it with readers of this thread.
I doubt there’s much in the way of evidence that would move you.
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
Given that temperatures in the last few years are higher than his carefully chosen baseline, I’m sure you are right. However, is the only thing he changed his mind about? If not I’d appreciate a cite of him saying that he agrees with the current scientific consensus on climate change. None of what you quoted does that.
ETA: Continuing to study as opposed to doing anything, as in post 15, does not meet what I am asking for.
So you did, and any suggestion that Bridenstine’s idiotic beliefs are even remotely aligned with the science were totally shredded in post #29, which exposes four major scientific fallacies in his absurd claims about the fundamental issues of climate change. Actually, that post exposes three scientific fallacies, the fourth one – his claim that the evidence doesn’t justify mitigation policy – was from a different cite. A fifth scientific fallacy, from your own cite, was his claim that temperature records are questionable because terrestrial records and satellite measurements don’t agree. Nor did he have any objection to a question (from your own cite) that referenced his belief “that fossil fuels and human activities aren’t warming the climate”.
He is, in short, as much of an anti-science ignoramus on this subject as I’ve seen anywhere.
It’s really amusing arguing with you about this. Even my handheld tablet, when I’m playing chess with it and I have two rooks, a bishop and a queen and it just has its beleaguered king and one pawn, is smart enough to say “I would like to resign”. Would that you had the wisdom to do the same in the same situation.
Exactly.
Setting aside Bridenstine’s views on climate change and willingness to let the agency perform the objective science research that is one of its major charters, there is the fact that aside from having no science or engineering background he has virtually no administrative experience beyond running the modest-sized Tulsa Air and Space Museum. As NASA administrator, Bridenstine is now responsible for managing a ~US$20B budget distributed though four directorates and ten major field centers employing over 18k people and overseeing a diverse range of programs competing for funding. Charles Bolden, the previous NASA Administrator, was critiqued because his largest prior administrative responsibilites were as Deputy Commandment of Midshipmen at the US Naval Academy. Bolden, to his credit, was smart enough to delegate out responsibility and listen to the career directorate associate administrators and field center directors, and corrected a number of the long-standing problems that were perceived at the operational level, and garnered respect for coming from the astronaut corps. Bridenstine, with very limited insight into the functional levels of NASA and no real background in agency operations or space exploration beyond being on a congressional committee, has little or no support to draw upon.
This is a position that should have gone to someone like Dava Newman, Michael Watkins, Dan Cabana, or any number of other more qualified candidates rather than a political appointee with no real technical or administrative experience in space sciences.
Stranger
In other words, the very apotheosis of a Trump appointee
Antithesis. Apotheosis is to raise to godhood.
Nuh-uh: “a : the perfect form or example of something : quintessence”
Antithesis of a Trump appointee would be someone superbly appropriate for the position.
Exactly. Like the people Stranger named. Isn’t that who you were referring to?
Ah, I see what you mean. I was focused on the latter part of his sentence: “…rather than a political appointee with no real technical or administrative experience in space sciences” rather than the first part. Thus leading to confusion. Sorry! The first part would indeed be the antithesis; the latter was the apotheosis.
I blame the failing New York Times for it all. Fake referent! SAD!
Beloved Counsellor has already disposed of this objection in #2.
If anyone in the world posts a summary of Bridenstine’s qualifications which, with selective editing — Webb wasn’t a “career politician”: he was a business executive and diplomat — can be compared to Webb’s qualifications, then Bridenstine will be just as good an Administrator as Webb was.
*Doe, Doe, Doe and Roe v. Cotton Candy Clowns, 534 U.S. 390
Quod erat demonstrandum
Nemo ius ignoratur censetur
Jura novit curia
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Illegitimi non carborundum
Si non praestringit splendor illis, quos fallere bovis stercore.
*
The statements quoted in post #15 do not change or revoke his statement of “Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago”
It may be OK. The NASA Administrator’s primary job is getting funding from Congress, and Bridenstine knows how to do that. He doesn’t have to share his agency’s devotion to facts as long as he respects those of his staff who do, and doesn’t try to countermand them out of ignorance.
But still, sheesh …
This is absolutely, fundamentally wrong. The office of the Administrator provides a budget request to the White House, Congress, and the GAO which takes it under advisory when preparing the discretionary budget allocation to NASA, and the NASA Administrator and Associate Administrators may be called upon to testify before Congress or to consult with the President, but as a federal government official the Administrator cannot lobby individual members of Congress or provide any unsolicited exchanges outside of the normal process. The Administrator (or more likely, the Associate Administrators controlling the Mission Directorates and Mission Support Directorates) may allocate work to a specific field center or facility to favor an influential Congressperson with jobs, but they cannot go to Congress and lobby for a specific program, which is why ‘independent’ foundations such as The Planetary Society exist to advocate for funding to specific missions and capabilities directly to members of Congress.
The NASA Administrator is the plenary authority for determining how budgets are allocated and spent. He or (hypothetically) she is responsible for staffing the leadership for all of the mission directorates and major field centers, allocating money to individual missions and major research efforts, determining the priorities of the agency, and setting the expectations for how objectives are achieved (e.g. “Safety First”, “Faster, Cheaper, Better,”, “Back to the Moon”, et cetera). Unless money is earmarked for a specific program in the budget, the Administrator has full authority to move around, delay, or even outright cancel programs. If Bridenstine has an agenda to undermine climate research and measurement, he can absolutely do so in this role by reducing or defunding climate monitoring programs, shifting work away from climate-focused research, and even moving senior people in the Science Directorate working on climate research into other areas. While personnel assignments are generally in the hands of Associate Administrators and below, there is nothing that prevents the Administrator from dictating who does what in the agency.
Here is a interview with Lori Garver, former NASA Deputy Administrator under Charlie Bolden, where she talks about what the Administrator does and the authority invested in the position.
Stranger
It’s a disgrace and embarrassment that someone like Bolden could be replaced by Bridenstine. The difference in their resumes is like grade-school tee-ball vs. the New York Yankees.
Actually, Bricker’s post doesn’t make such a good point. Having a cavalryman lead the Army Air Corps a century ago was not an unreasonable idea; having a cavalryman lead the U.S. Air Force today would be silly.
I really can’t make heads or tails of your second paragraph there, but suffice it to say that it is true that good leaders can have varied backgrounds. But typically, good leaders will have demonstrated a record of success in those fields, whatever they may be, before being promoted to very high positions.
What do you think Bridenstine’s most notable achievements are?
As I look through his record, he simply appears to me to be a 42 year old who got an MBA from a good university and won a couple elections. By that measure, most politicians in Congress are better suited to run NASA, on account that they have more life experience and have won more elections.
Did I read somewhere that he ran a planetarium in Oklahoma? I mean, that is space stuff, so there. Not to mention, he has an MBA. Those guys are great. Ever work with one? Everybody loves MBA guys. And, you know, NASA ought to be run like a business, because … reasons.
Everything should be run like a business, except business. That should be run like a charitable institution for investors. Once you understand how they think, it all becomes clearer. But usually, you start to drink a lot more.
More? I can drink more? Damn, I thought I had got to my limit. Excuse me while I go investigate this.