Jo Nova on the implication of Trump’s plans for NASA

Jo Nova explains how NASA was recruited into the warming PR machine and what can happen when sanity and professionalism return to the organization. BTW I totally endorse Sinc’s views on the waste of money in space.

Divert the funds into research under the oceans if you insist on spending it somewhere. Background, 20 thousand leagues under the sea.

Don’t underestimate how important this is

NASA always should have been the first and foremost agency to remind everyone of how important solar and astronomical events were on our climate. NASA could have killed the green machine stone dead anytime in the last 20 years. Capturing NASA GISS was one of the most vital of PR tools for the regressive-progressives to damp down any suggestion that the Sun has a big influence on our climate. Look at the way Brian Cox used NASA’s good name to mock Malcolm Roberts on national television even though Cox was absurdly pretending that NASA always produces perfect graphs and never gets anything, ever wrong. NASA has a “God like” status, above question. Or it did. That’s over.

Can you imagine if the head of NASA had got out three of the guys who walked on the moon, Harrison Schmitt, Buzz Aldrin and Charles Duke and held a press conference saying that the links between the sun and our climate were recorded all over the planet. Imagine if NASA rolled out its prizewinning former employees John Christy and Roy Spencer to tell us how satellites showed the models were abject failures. If that had happened ten years ago, the world could have been saved billions (probably trillions) of dollars.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Jo Nova on the implication of Trump’s plans for NASA

  1. Herodotus

    There has been an interlocking system of appeals to authority which went unchallenged by a complicit media, politicians, and assorted in the tank persons with a degree in this that or the other.

  2. Totally disagree, space exploration is and will be vital to not just our survival, but prosperity as well.

    If you care to investigate, just about everything that we take for granted in technology, medicine etc comes as a result of the space program. Just a few: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html.

    I’d rather have money spent on developing those things than figuring out how to talk to whales.

  3. A Lurker

    BTW I totally endorse Sinc’s views on the waste of money in space.

    I disagree, after all, it is wise to not “keep all our ‘eggs’ in one Earth-sized basket”. Who knows when a planet-killing asteroid will appear on the scene – either knocked out of orbit from the asteroid belt, or an interstellar intruder captured by the gravity of the sun. It would be prudent to start establishing colonies on the moon and other planets as soon as practical.

  4. RobK

    Jo makes a good point. I suspect Trump will try to corral the climate capper into one or two institutions such as NOAA where the expenditure can be more easily managed. US space capabilities have slipped in the past decades and it takes time to develop these disciplines. A measured expenditure in this capacity is not wasted in my view. (being mindful that it can be a bottomless pit of expenditure).
    The IPCC should be changed to look at all climate change not just anthropogenic climate change as is now the case. It’s current bias should be totally unfunded as it is not scientific.

  5. Megan

    I think he has been watching old videos of JFK.

  6. Wozzup

    Tutt, Tutt Mr President elect. Everyone knows that NASA’s proper function is and should be “outreach to Muslims.” Saint Obama the first said so!

  7. Wozzup

    “NASA needs to focus on a manned LGBTQ mission to Uranus.”

    In the words of an old British comedian, (was it Kenny Everett?) “Oh! You are awful……But I like it.”

  8. There a very close planet with water whose main bulk and deep hydrosphere are largely unvisited. How close? You’re sitting on it.

  9. Thank God that Rapunzel (NASA) has her white knight yodeling at the base of the tower.
    The Kingdom is saved.

  10. mosomoso

    #2218837, posted on November 25, 2016 at 9:12 am

    There a very close planet with water whose main bulk and deep hydrosphere are largely unvisited. How close? You’re sitting on it.

    Yes, but the Green Left is making certain that no one is allowed to enjoy any of the riches that may lie beneath the surface (other than having a guided tour – a bit like Tasmania).

    Maybe, just maybe, they may allow mining etc to happen on other local planets and the asteroid belt. Unless they start campaigning that doing so will cause climate change on Earth.

  11. Combine Dave

    Maybe, just maybe, they may allow mining etc to happen on other local planets and the asteroid belt.

    No they won’t allow it.

    I’m pretty sure greenies and others have already come out against mankind polluting space and against the idea of private (or even national) ownership of space based objects.

    Look at the comments

  12. egg_

    There has been an interlocking system of appeals to authority which went unchallenged by a complicit media, politicians, and assorted in the tank persons with a degree in this that or the other.

    The ‘confluence of interests’ vs a conspiracy?

  13. egg_

    I’m pretty sure greenies and others have already come out against mankind polluting space and against the idea of private (or even national) ownership of space based objects.

    They need a Trump Train to roll over them – there’s already planned space mining vehicles and 3D laser printing of moonrock to manufacture vehicle spare parts on the lunar surface.

  14. egg_

    NASA needs to focus on a manned LGBTQ mission to Uranus.

    Wymminses and Qwerties?
    You could hear the bitching from Mars.

  15. Eyrie

    Earth First!
    We’ll strip mine the other planets later.
    We’ve already spent enough on green collar crime funding Antarctic and deep sea research. If there was anything to be gained private companies would be doing it as the technology already exists to reach any part of the sea.
    Space is essentially unlimited, probably easier to work in than the deep ocean, provides an unlimited outlet and expands the range of the human race should a catastrophe befall Earth.
    Now whether the current NASA and funding model is the right way to do things is a good question. Currently NASA is building a big rocket and manned capsule(Orion) costing tens of billions with little to show for it and which Musk and Bezos will make obsolete in short order.
    NASA should be a NASRO (National Aero Space Research Organisation) doing basic technoolgy research for use by private industry just like the old NACA.
    When the US government wants something moved from LA to NY it doesn’t institute a project to design and build a few airplanes, it calls FEDEX, UPS etc. Same should apply to space. We need this many kilos placed in this trajectory and it has to carry x people for y months/years.
    Rafe and Sincs opposition to space merely shows how short sighted the economics pseudo science really is. Macroeconomics is about as sensible as tea leaf reading , palmistry and crystal gazing. It should not be banned but taking money for it should be.

  16. mem

    The climate monster, like the Hydra of Greek mythology has many poisonous heads that can grow back and multiply. Trump like Heracles needs to identify and cut off its mortal head to secure its defeat. If he does not he will befall the same fete as Abbott and be attacked from another angle or even from within his own circle.
    Is NASA the mortal head or there other individuals or organisations that are part of this “head” ? I would have thought that Michael E Mann was pretty near the centre?

  17. cuckoo

    In the words of an old British comedian, (was it Kenny Everett?) “Oh! You are awful……But I like it.”

    No, it was Dick Emery. in his ‘Mandy’ persona.

  18. RobK

    Men,
    ” Is NASA the mortal head”
    ?
    Probably not but I suspect Trump is just arranging the pieces for the longer game. He has a lot to undo and influence. He has the advantage that he doesn’t think like an academic or journalist but he is displaying organizational skills that get things done by supporters. It will be a long road.

  19. mem

    He has the advantage that he doesn’t think like an academic or journalist but he is displaying organizational skills that get things done by supporters. It will be a long road

    .
    If your first statement is accurate as I think it is, he will act sooner rather than later. Otherwise they will regather (the strategy for this would have started at the latest climate confest). It’s my guess that they will aim at keeping the gig alive by targeting states and local government as they have done in OZ, and also spreading further into the developing nations as a way of buying time until they can get rid of him at a national level. Let’s hope he has the strategic smarts to hit this hard and fast where it hurts most. If not they will undermine him from many other fronts.

  20. mem

    Further to my above post I would draw your attention to the World Trade Union Movement and a woman called Sharon Burrows. Take a look at her friends and how she plays the propagandist line especially around climate change. She has a “dream”. Ms Burrows holds great stead with the Labor Party here (originally out of the teachers union or social workers(?) and rose to ACTU secretary. Visit Sharan Burrows on twitter and note messages from John Connor at the Climate Institute to Burrows currying favor. These guys know they can use climate change as a battering ram, as black mail and as an inducement provided they have money to go with it. As I say they have a bigger plan in store.

  21. RobK

    Mem,
    I agree that forces will gather. I’m hopeful that Trump has contingencies. Perhaps some of the “old money”in the US that has been going with the AGW meme might cut him some slack.

  22. Crossie

    he will act sooner rather than later

    After inauguration Trump should do everything he wants to do right away. Someone else has suggested before that by dumping everything at once he can overload the media. They can only concentrate on one thing at a time to gang up and bring it down. If they had to cover ten things at once their power of disapproval becomes diluted.

Comments are closed.