NASA’s acting chief calls for the end of Earth science at the space agency
NASA's charter clearly states the agency should study planet Earth, however
MAGA is MAIA - Make America Ignorant Again.
Let's burn the planet!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sean Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA for a little more than a month, has vowed to make the United States great in space.
NASA/Bill Ingalls
With a background as a US Congressman, reality TV star, and television commentator , Duffy did not come to the position with a deep well of knowledge about spaceflight. He also already had a lot on his plate, serving as the secretary of transportation, a Cabinet-level position that oversees 55,000 employees across 13 agencies.
Nevertheless, Duffy is putting his imprint on the space agency, seeking to emphasize the agency's human exploration plans, including the development of a lunar base, and ending NASA's efforts to study planet Earth and its changing climate.
Duffy has not spoken much with reporters who cover the space industry, but he has been a frequent presence on Fox News networks, where he previously worked as a host. On Thursday, he made an 11-minute appearance on "Mornings with Maria," a FOX Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo to discuss NASA.
NASA should explore, he says
During this appearance, Duffy talked up NASA's plans to establish a permanent presence on the Moon and his push to develop a nuclear reactor that could provide power there. He also emphasized his desire to end NASA's focus on studying the Earth and understanding how the planet's surface and atmosphere are changing. This shift has been a priority of the Trump Administration at other federal agencies.
"All the climate science, and all of the other priorities that the last administration had at NASA, we’re going to move aside, and all of the science that we do is going to be directed towards exploration, which is the mission of NASA," Duffy said during the appearance. "That’s why we have NASA, to explore, not to do all of these Earth sciences."
Many people in the space industry welcome Duffy's push to focus NASA on exploration of deep space and other planets, particularly his emphasis on the Moon. NASA's effort to establish a sustainable lunar presence could certainly use some focus, as it appears increasingly likely that, absent serious changes, China will land humans on the Moon before NASA returns.
However, in abandoning Earth science, NASA would be violating the law that created the agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 .
This charter legislation established "the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space" as part of the space agency's core mission. To meet this mandate, NASA has typically spent about 10 percent of its budget annually on Earth science, including key missions to observe the planet's atmosphere, monitor weather, study land use changes, and more.
"This area of research positively impacts our economy and national security beyond measure," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. "Ignoring scientific evidence and stripping NASA of one of its most tangible public purposes throws NASA into the fire of partisan politics. Enacting this agenda would set back our status as a global leader and risks our economic future."
Garver added that surveys repeatedly indicate that the public would increase prioritization of NASA’s research in Earth and climate science above other areas, which currently receive significantly more funding at the space agency.
Public prioritizes Earth science
Garver is referring to polls by Gallup, the Pew Research Center, and other organizations that have repeatedly found that the public's top two priorities for NASA are monitoring asteroids that could potentially strike Earth and studying and understanding our planet's climate. It is worth noting that the Trump administration has also sought to end funding for repurposing an existing spacecraft to rendezvous with the asteroid Apophis as it makes a close pass by Earth in 2029.
Multiple sources have indicated to Ars that, in his leadership so far, Duffy has largely listened to political staffers at NASA—including Chief of Staff Brian Hughes, a former Florida-based political consultant—rather than senior civil servants with engineering backgrounds. He is also carrying out the priorities for NASA established in the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2026, which are the agency's marching orders in absence of a budget formally approved by the US Congress.
It is unclear how long Duffy will remain as "acting" administrator. Since his appointment, Duffy has been prominent in NASA's social media accounts and in news updates (for example, in the past, NASA administrators were unlikely to be quoted in a standard press release concerning a photo from Mars ). He also plans to travel to the space industry's largest conference, the International Astronautical Congress, in late September and early October, in Australia. This all suggests he may remain in place for a while.
However, one source indicated to Ars that the Trump administration may be closing in on a new nominee to lead the space agency full-time. This person could be named in the coming weeks. It is difficult to see anyone being nominated who is not aligned with the priorities of Duffy and the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
So... Duffy's decision is unlawful. Who gives a fuck? The law is of no importance to Trump or MAGA.
Oh, I see, this is Eric Berger's opinion.
Here is the counter argument:
"Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?
But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I’ve said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.
But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.
Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.
President Trump should tell these “scientists” that “you’re fired.” And we taxpayers should demand our money back."
Follow the (Climate Change) Money | The Heritage Foundation
The Political Economy of Incompetence
... four days ago...
Not sure why NASA needs to have that mission. Isn't that the job of NOAA? Seems more like their turf rather than NASA's.
NASA and NOAA are tied at the hip.
Doesn't mean they should be. I think most people see NASA has having to do with flight and related issues. Either in atmosphere or space. NOAA has its own satellites. I can see NASA operating them, but it seems redundant for NASA doing the Earth science that should be NOAA's bailiwick. Much rather see NASA's funds going towards putting a station on the moon.
I guess NOAA could be traded in for a Sharpie ...
On a more serious note:
For the record, I don't agree with what Trump is doing with NOAA and climate study. Defunding it is not the answer. Rather, what he should be doing is ensuring unbiased climate study, but I don't see him doing that.
Both NASA and NOAA are already doing unbiased study. Your Comment seems to indicate that you have doubts about that...
What I've never been able to understand is that NASA blocks China from any access, but partners with Russia using their Cosmonauts. China shares, as has recently been proven by its sharing with other nations samples of the substance it gathered from the other side of the moon. I guess blocking China is what has led to China's great advances concerning space, so maybe the American government has done China a favour.
When China went into her Mao-cocoon the Paper Tiger named her Mothra.
Exactly.