SCIENCE MUST PREVAIL
Jim Bridenstine and Michelle Thaller
Quite recently, the President Of The United States appointed Jim Bridenstine to be the new chief of NASA.
The NY Times of 09/02 printed:
>While Mr. Bridenstine has criticized NASA’s spending on global warming science, he has voiced support for some of the agency’s earth observation missions, particularly for studying extreme weather. “People often say, ‘Why are you so involved in space issues?’” Mr. Bridenstine said at the commercial space transportation conference. “‘You don’t have any space interests in Oklahoma.’ You bet I do. My constituents get killed in tornadoes. I care about space.”<
That may make some people cheer, but The Guardian issued on 09/12:
>Bridenstine is a climate denier - Scientists and astronauts are usually chosen to lead Nasa, for obvious reasons. Bridenstine is neither – he’s a member of Congress (and would be the first politician ever to lead Nasa), formerly executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium and a Navy Reserve pilot. He reeled off this string of climate denial myths on the House floor in 2013: "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.—long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution—temperatures were warmer than today"< [read it all here].
The net result is, that Michelle Thaller's speech on Science Denial became ever so relevant.
Michelle didn't lie. Anything she said, is proven fact. The youtube video, however, has been removed from youtube, although that specific speech must be somewhere in other videos.
In my opinion, science must prevail. We owe it to all our relatives and in essence, to everyone to inhabit this planet. Let us continue the good work that NASA has done over alsmost 60 years.
What is your view on this subject? Should NASA's budgets be cut back to meet the federal budget, or should one go on investing in our future and in educating new generations of leading scientists? Do not hesitate to leave your comments; if in my humble opinion they are worth publishing, I will do so. And of course, I very much appreciate if experts on these subjects submit their views. Would you then please add your own brief ‘about me’?
Quite recently, the President Of The United States appointed Jim Bridenstine to be the new chief of NASA.
The NY Times of 09/02 printed:
>While Mr. Bridenstine has criticized NASA’s spending on global warming science, he has voiced support for some of the agency’s earth observation missions, particularly for studying extreme weather. “People often say, ‘Why are you so involved in space issues?’” Mr. Bridenstine said at the commercial space transportation conference. “‘You don’t have any space interests in Oklahoma.’ You bet I do. My constituents get killed in tornadoes. I care about space.”<
That may make some people cheer, but The Guardian issued on 09/12:
>Bridenstine is a climate denier - Scientists and astronauts are usually chosen to lead Nasa, for obvious reasons. Bridenstine is neither – he’s a member of Congress (and would be the first politician ever to lead Nasa), formerly executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium and a Navy Reserve pilot. He reeled off this string of climate denial myths on the House floor in 2013: "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.—long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution—temperatures were warmer than today"< [read it all here].
The net result is, that Michelle Thaller's speech on Science Denial became ever so relevant.
Michelle didn't lie. Anything she said, is proven fact. The youtube video, however, has been removed from youtube, although that specific speech must be somewhere in other videos.
In my opinion, science must prevail. We owe it to all our relatives and in essence, to everyone to inhabit this planet. Let us continue the good work that NASA has done over alsmost 60 years.
What is your view on this subject? Should NASA's budgets be cut back to meet the federal budget, or should one go on investing in our future and in educating new generations of leading scientists? Do not hesitate to leave your comments; if in my humble opinion they are worth publishing, I will do so. And of course, I very much appreciate if experts on these subjects submit their views. Would you then please add your own brief ‘about me’?
<<
Comments
Post a Comment