Utah climate scientists whine about possible NASA cuts

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The squealing of pigs: In the kind of journalistic pro-government spending propaganda that I despise, the Salt Lake Tribune today published this article giving climate scientists in their local area a platform to lobby the public in favor of their NASA funding.

The article provides a quick quote from a Trump campaign official noting their strong hostility to the politicization of climate research, and then spends the rest of the article allowing scientist after scientist to condemn that position and to defend that spending, repeatedly implying that should the NASA cuts go through, the research will end and even possibly that access to the data from NASA climate satellites will be denied to the public and to the scientists. At no time does the article provide any thoughtful information to explain that Trump administration perspective, which is based on some reasonable and very justifiable concerns.

I note this article as a warning. Expect more of this very bad journalism. Most of the press are blindly liberal and Democratic Party partisans. They are going to work blindly with the climate community to help them defend their funding, without the slightest effort at objective reporting. The public should be aware of this, and see this political lobbying for what it is.



  • wodun

    Scientists respond to criticism of politicization with political attacks. They apparently didn’t do any due diligence and relied almost entirely on an overactive imagination for determining what will happen under Trump. Underlying is an entitlement to taxpayer money with no regard or respect for the people who toil to make their lifestyles possible.

    What researchers need is a gofundme type of site to generate research funds. Then they can do whatever they want and convince people to fund rather than make the science industrial complex a larger problem.

    The only way researches and scientists are going to be able to avoid political accountability and government control is if they are not a part of government.

  • LocalFluff

    Why don’t the climate panic enthusiasts fund their own research and start a Kickstarter or something? Oh dear, all of their income comes from tax payers! When the cash flow is cut off, there will be no more monies anywhere in the climate panic system.

    I’m confident that within a couple of years, as long it takes for the cash flow from US tax payers dry out, the whole climate sham will be forgotten. I think we’ll all be surprised by how very fast and sudden it happens, since the smart rats already realize that there’s no more parasiting to do here and are going on to Nibiru or some other climate-like doomsday scam.

  • Edward

    I think we’ll all be surprised by how very fast and sudden it happens

    I wouldn’t be so surprised. The general public never really bought into the scare, as they continue driving cars, and otherwise using CO2-generating energy at a rate the alarmists consider alarming.

    Hah! Even the alarmists continued to generate CO2 at alarming rates, and some alarmists generated CO2 enough for a dozen people (e.g. Al Gore himself and Leonardo DiCaprio).

    Unfortunately, some people have been frightened by the global warming scam (since the alarmists don’t believe it, they are scamming us). Sometimes literally frightened to death:

    Thanks, Al Gore. I hope your Oscar, Peace Prize, and hundreds of millions of dollars of bogus carbon credit profits were worth the deaths.

  • Insomnius

    Climate change? I think it used to be called “weather”. Progressives try to politicize everything, including the weather.

  • Edward

    You have it right. The weather used to be the only safe thing to talk about, but the Climatologists have taken even that from us, making it a controversial topic.

    They continue to insist that storms will get worse, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. They insisted that Hurricane Katrina (which was only a category 3) would be followed by more and worse hurricanes. Worse is a low bar, and we have been having fewer make landfall, not more. That’s the fickle weather for you. The climate true believers gave it a shot, had a 50% chance of being correct, lost the bet, but continue to refuse to acknowledge their loss.

    Climate change used to be called global warming, but when the globe stopped cooperating with their story, and the skeptics were proved correct to be skeptical. The Climatologists decided to change the name to something that happens naturally and continuously. How could they lose?

    They lost, because climates do not change overnight, and they needed evidence overnight; otherwise the skeptics would once again be proved correct. Thus, any difference in weather became proof of climate change. Even if the difference was routine. A heavy snow day became a change in climate.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm05Mcah0i8 (5 minutes)
    From Bill Nye in the video: “We remind you that global warming was the first term for this phenomenon that we now call climate change, so it’s very reasonable for a snow storm in Washington that’s this severe is the result of climate change.” The evidence is a change of the term for the phenomenon, the non sequitur conclusion is that a storm is the result of climate change. Nice logical thinking, don’t you think?

    Me neither.

    For Bill Nye, the pseudoscience guy, seasonably appropriate storms can also be a sign of climate change. Thus, normal weather is just as much a sign of climate change as abnormal weather. Where is the science in that? If everything is proof, then there is no possible evidence to show the contrary may be true. In essence, climate change, global warming, or any other term for the supposed phenomenon, has been declared a tautology. There are no conditions under which the phenomenon could ever be proved false.

    With science like that, we could make a flat Earth a tautology, or prove that the sky is black rather than blue.* A hypothesis that cannot be proved false also cannot be proved true.

    In Nye’s type of science, average, ordinary weather and related events, such as no snow near the city of Vancouver on Mount Cypress and mudslides in southern California, are considered signs of climate change.

    Never mind that for the past couple of centuries or so we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age with the warming of the planet.**

    That could not possibly have anything to do with global warming, climate change, or variations in weather. To suggest such a thing is heresy and denial of the Climatologists’ true beliefs. [Oops, that’s sarcasm, but climate true believers believe it.]

    Nye even uses anecdotal evidence as science. If this is the kind of science that Nye thinks I and others are denying, well then yes, we are denying that kind of pseudoscience. The word “science” has a real meaning, and it does not mean what Nye teaches that it does.

    After saying that the weather in Washington is the result of climate change, he then states that it is actually a result of the continual phenomenon of El Nino. Nye tells us that it is both ways. It is the result of abnomality and the result of normality. Nye is being goofy.

    Further evidence of climate change is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) got a Nobel Award for discovering … wait for it … climate change. Yay! It isn’t as though this phenomenon has been known for decades or centuries, but according to Nye, the UN’s panel that was formed to study the phenomenon has received a Nobel Prize for discovering it.

    But the best part of that entire interview is that they took so seriously the tease by skeptics that “a snow storm disproves global warming.” They are rightly frightened that even the mere hint of criticism could be fatal to their belief system, because their bogus evidence is such nonsensical tripe. Anecdotal evidence, of all things! No wonder they use insults to try to shut up the people who actually know what science is, and know that Nye, Mann, and others are not using science to prove their belief system.

    Nye says that we know global warming to be true because we feel it in our “parts?” That’s science? That’s proof? That’s evidence? That’s goofy.

    * Actually, the sky is black a greater percentage of the time than it is blue, but we all know what we mean when we say that the sky is blue rather than sunset/sunrise orange, or cloud white, or storm gray.

    ** For Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick Chart to eliminate the LIA is for Mann to deny science. but don’t tell anyone that I said so, because they might call me the denier and unpatriotic instead, what with Mann and Nye being high priests of Climatology, the climate change religion. The video is even one of Nye’s sermons. They get shaken up pretty easily by any kind of doubt or criticism. [Oh, how I wish this were a sarcasm alert, but it is actually true. Mann is even suing Mark Steyn for saying that his fraudulent Hockey Stick Chart is fraudulent.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *