Houston Chron blogger attacks Apollo-era NASA officials for saying climate change research ‘corrupted’ by politics and special interests

“The bottom line for me is that I wouldn’t ask a climate scientist to launch me into space, and I wouldn’t ask a rocket scientist to program the dynamical core of a global circulation model.”

Read more at the Houston Chronicle.

10 thoughts on “Houston Chron blogger attacks Apollo-era NASA officials for saying climate change research ‘corrupted’ by politics and special interests”

  1. You have to read Eric Berger every day to realize he is not attacking these folks. He is only stating that they are experts in their area and others are experts in theirs. Normally he is a very fair minded fellow. I really don’t take exception to his blog, I enjoy daily and have had many online discussions with him. I would hope that you would moderate your headline to this entry. I don’t see any attacks in his blog.

  2. But Mitchell, you have a JOURNALIST saying, “It is true that there is vigorous debate in the scientific community about how significant warming will be in the coming century, but there is almost no disagreement among climate scientists that the planet is, and will continue to warm due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    So which way is it? Can anyone participate, or only “climate scientists?” A journalist can speak out, but an astronaut can’t?

    “I would hope that you would moderate your headline to this entry. I don’t see any attacks in his blog.”

    Okay, you’re getting a little weird. This is the title of Berger’s article:

    “Apollo-era NASA officials say climate change research ‘corrupted’ by politics and special interests”

    Milloy says, “Houston Chron blogger attacks Apollo-era NASA officials for saying climate change research ‘corrupted’ by politics and special interests”

    Why should he “moderate” his headline when he just quotes Berger? Have you asked Berger to moderate his headline?

  3. I read Eric daily. He tries but so far has generally failed to be neutral altho I think his heart is in the right place. Much of this can be blamed on his journalism background, a training that places an unrealistic and undeserved higher priority of folks with advanced degrees and titles. And then, since he is a science blogger, somehow that in itself accords some added level of authority. It is more of the “argument by authority” problem.

    Or the Alex Trabek syndrome: since he hosts Jeopardy he must be very smart.

    The one to watch on Eric’s blog is one JohnD. He’s king of the “if it is on the internet it must be true” crowd, especially if it supports AGW.

    One of Eric’s commenters hits it squarely: many (including Eric to a degree) want to dismiss these scientists’ opinions since they aren’t ‘climate scientists’ yet continue to place unwarranted faith in the IPCC non-climate scientist, the vast majority of whom are even less qualified in any measure.

    I don’t think any of the NASA folks is a railroad engineer for example, and most have actualy completed the degrees for which they are given credit.

  4. Ok – if only climate scientists can comment about climate science then they should be ignored on stastics.

  5. Wait a minute. There’s a huge (no, HUGE!) difference between a “rocket” scientist and a “climate” scientist. The former deals with well established, verifiable, physics, and the latter with not established, barely verified, and mostly conjecture science. Who do I trust most? Duh.

  6. I’d rather have the engineers program the model than have the modelers send me into space, that’s for sure.
    The two leading voices in climate crisis advocacy are James Hansen, an astrophysicist, and Michael Mann, whose claim to fame is based on statistical meddling with tree rings. Dr. Mann’s background is also primarily in physics. Both developed an interest in climatology but it became their field of study after they had their PhDs. “By their fruits ye shall know them”, and these two are qualify. Most of the well-known advocates of catastrophic anthropogenic warming are people with backgrounds in everything except actual climate study — we have actors and performers, economists, politicians, a failed candidate for the ministry, physicists and geologists — but not, with any consistency, climatologists. It’s interesting that the “believers” are nearly all socialists or social-justice types as well.
    Climatologists — those with academic backgrounds and research in this new field — cover the gamut on climate change and its causes. Some believe it is overstated, some believe it is serious, and climatologists range from “we did it all” to “we did none of it”.
    As for the railroad-engineer-economist, well, the less said the better for his cause. Same for Ban Ki-Moon.

  7. As a professional Software Engineer, I don’t believe I’d trust ANY other profession to write something as simple as an input dialog, let alone as complex as a Climate Model! I’ve been exposed to a lot of code in my 30 year career, and so much code by programmers looks like amateur hour stuff that I’d never trust a model written by a “climate scientist.”

  8. Amen. When people asked me what I did, as a computer scientist, I often said I was a “systems archeologist.” I tried to figure out what people were thinking when they wrote the code.

  9. I’d say the “engineer” approach would be more valid than the socialist-disguised-as-environmentalist approach, though. I’m a programmer too — do we need a j=1to12 loop program to recover?

Comments are closed.