War on Science: Trump Picks Controversial CEO to Lead NOAA

[Milchshake]

President Trump made his pick to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week, and Barry Myers, CEO of weather firm AccuWeather, is already causing a storm.

A lawyer by training, Myers would be the first nonscientist to head NOAA in decades and, despite his experience working in weather, he lacks expertise in the agency’s other research areas, including climate change, endangered species, fisheries, and marine sanctuaries.

More troubling, though, is that Myers continues Trump’s pattern of topping government agencies with people who are openly hostile to the agency’s mission. Think Betsy DeVos at the Education Department, Scott Pruitt at the EPA, and Rick Perry at the Department of Energy. Myers’s opposition to a portion of NOAA’s work is clear and on the record. More than a decade ago, he supported a bill that would have prevented the National Weather Service from making forecasts available online, a service that competed with those offered by his companies.

“Barry Myers defines ‘conflict of interest,’” Ciaran Clayton, NOAA communications director under President Obama, told the Washington Post. “He actively lobbied to privatize the National Weather Service, which works day in and day out to protect the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans, to benefit his own company’s bottom line.”

• Non expert
• Wall Street or Business HAck
• Conflict of Interest

Trump Administration Bingo is getting to be predictable. Whats a point of getting a STEM degree if the boss puts a business or law major in charge of a science department?

[Deletedaccount1]

I don't see how someone without a STEM degree leading a department or agency is part of the war on science. That position is administrative and someone who ran another entity that is largely comprised of scientists is arguably more qualified to run it than a scientist with less administrative experience. None of his views seem to be anti-science either since he doesn't seem to be an Evangelical Christian or a global warming denier. He might be in favor of privatizing some of his agency's responsibilities and you might think he is a bad pick for it but that doesn't make him anti-science.

[Ripster42]

I don't see how someone without a STEM degree leading a department or agency is part of the war on science. That position is administrative and someone who ran another entity that is largely comprised of scientists is arguably more qualified to run it than a scientist with less administrative experience. None of his views seem to be anti-science either since he doesn't seem to be an Evangelical Christian or a global warming denier. He might be in favor of privatizing some of his agency's responsibilities and you might think he is a bad pick for it but that doesn't make him anti-science.

Show me a leading scientist w/out administrative experience. They don't exist. How do you think university research projects are set up?

The only thing that's arguable about this appointment is if it's a bigger conflict of interest than the devos of pruitt appointments.

[Felya]

Show me a leading scientist w/out administrative experience. They don't exist. How do you think university research projects are set up?

The only thing that's arguable about this appointment is if it's a bigger conflict of interest than the devos of pruitt appointments.

Rick Perry is the one that is the biggest problem I see, because of how obvious it is. The last heads of department of energy, a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist, then a highly acclaimed nuclear physicist, then the guy that forgot the word "energy" when he was listing department of energy, as one of the departments he would cut... and he is neck deep in oil...

[Ripster42]

Rick Perry is the one that is the biggest problem I see, because of how obvious it is. The last heads of department of energy, a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist, then a highly acclaimed nuclear physicist, then the guy that forgot the word "energy" when he was listing department of energy, as one of the departments he would cut... and he is neck deep in oil...

He was at least a politician instead of coming directly from the private sector with no public service experience. I would put shit pie in the running for biggest conflict of interest at the FCC too.

[Skroe]

I'm going to offer a counter-argument here, because this is actually an interesting topic worthy of debate.

Currently over at NASA, Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) is currently nominated to become the next NASA Administrator. He would be the first politician to become NASA Administrator. Although a long time aerospace and space enthusiast who has been involved in those issues at the political level, he is not a trained scientist or engineer. He's also not a trained manager.

Now there is some degree of anger at this. "The Head of NASA not a scientist?!" But at the same time, let's review the last few decades of NASA Administrators in reverse order.

The Administrator for nearly 8 years whose term just ended was Charlie Bolden, a former NASA Astronaut and Marine General. He became one of the longest serving NASA Administrator. He was also terrible at his job and deeply distrusted by NASA and by Congress. His relationship with Congress (Democrats and Republicans) got so bad, they compelled him to testify in person every 3 months about the status of congressionally directed programs. The feeling with Bolden was that he was (1) Obama's Man at NASA first, NASA Administrator second... and (2) he let the NASA Field Offices run absolutely wild... and (3) he was a very poor advocate and manager of NASA's programs. Charlie Bolden had a gold plated resume, but was a very, very poor NASA Administrator and nobody was sad to see him go.


His Predecessor was Dr. Michael D Griffin, from 2005 to 2009. Griffin is a majr figure in human spaceflight, a physicist and aerospace engineer. As far as "scientists" go, you can't have a better resume for Running NASA than Griffin. He was also perhaps the worst manager NASA had since the 1980s. He failed to cultivate allies. He alienated pretty much everybody. His numbers for programs were work of fictions. He also let the field offices run absolutely wild. He raped space science and shifted priorities towards lunar missions that ended up not happening. He knee-capped new technology programs. Griffin oversaw much of the ISS completition and return to flight for the Shuttle,, but aside from that was seen as a disasterous administrator.

Griffin's predecessor was Sean O'Keefe, a trained manager, professional beancounter. He was briefly Secretary of the Navy before and DoD Comptroller. O'Keefe was a budget guy whose job it was to bring NASA's spiriling programs under control. And by in large at the time he did just that (Griffin undid most of it). The Columbia disaster happened on his watch though, which as soon as the investigation was largely wrapped, led to his resignation. O'Keefe's non-Columbia related job though was largely successful in getting NASA back on budget and on schedule.


O'Keefe's predecessor was Clinton's NASA Administrator, Daniel Golden, also known as the architect of "Faster, Better, Cheaper", the Clinton-era tag line of NASA. He cut cost aggressively, but also lead to two major Mars mission failures, an end to NASA long term planning (including a Ban on Manned Mars mission planning), and a oversaw a spate of "Shuttle Successor" programs that lasted a year or two then sputtered out, probably by design. He was the NASA Administrator of an Administration that didn't really care about space (indeed, it tried to kill the ISS). Goldin, by the way, worked in the space industry for 25 years as a mechanical engineer and manager. He left an enormous mess for Sean O'Keefe to clean up.

So there is some healthy optimising now, about Bridenstine, who has support from people like Buzz Aldrin. Why? Because getting trained scientists, engineers and bean counters has lead to NASA Administration getting progressively worse. The next NASA Administrator needs to sort out programs that are managerial screwed beyond belief (describing how is a huge post in itself, so take my word for it) and fiefdoms that get worse and worse by the year. The hope is that after trying an Astronaut/General, a scientist, a beancounter and an engineer (in reverse order, since 1992), if NASA now tries a politician, with Bridenstine political connections could be established to protect and expand NASA programs, and bring congressional support to certain ones over others. This is crucially important because Congress would very much like a partner at NASA, as opposed to what they had with Charlie Bolden, which is a guy who was Obama's Advocate at NASA, not NASA's Advocate, and who clashed on nearly every issue with Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress.

So don't dismiss out of hand this NOAA nominee. Having science or engineering cred isn't automatically a plus. If it were, NASA would be one of the best run agencies of government, instead of a deeply troubled one.

[Ripster42]

So don't dismiss out of hand this NOAA nominee. Having science or engineering cred isn't automatically a plus. If it were, NASA would be one of the best run agencies of government, instead of a deeply troubled one.

Putting a politician at the helm of a public agency whose mission he supports is a lot different from putting a CEO in charge of an agency where they wants to cut its life saving services so their company can charge for them.

[Deletedaccount1]

Putting a politician at the helm of a public agency whose mission he supports is a lot different from putting a CEO in charge of an agency where they wants to cut its life saving services so their company can charge for them.

Accuweather is basically free for consumers since they make most of their money from ad revenue on their website, TV channels and mobile apps. NOAA and the NWS rely on taxpayer money which means they are charging for them.

[Powerogue]

Not really a surprise after the EPA incident. It really does make it seem like he's not merely incompetent, but actively trying to find the worst people for these positions.

[Grapemask]

Accuweather is basically free for consumers since they make most of their money from ad revenue on their website, TV channels and mobile apps. NOAA and the NWS rely on taxpayer money which means they are charging for them.

That should earn at least a silver in mental gymnastics, I think.

[Felya]

Accuweather is basically free for consumers since they make most of their money from ad revenue on their website, TV channels and mobile apps. NOAA and the NWS rely on taxpayer money which means they are charging for them.

Those advertisers are charging us in the same way. Those are not free, the consumer pays for that advertising.

[Deletedaccount1]

That should earn at least a silver in mental gymnastics, I think.

Not an argument.

[Deleted]

The left doesn't know which bathroom to use and yet WE are the one's denying science?

Give me a break,lol

infracted - trolling

[Polyxo]

The left doesn't know which bathroom to use and yet WE are the one's denying science?

Give me a break,lol

This is probably like explaining calculus to a banana, but neither bathrooms nor gender have anything to do with science.

[XangXu]

How about that Chinese Hoax that is currently burning down your homeland?

[Polyxo]

How about that Chinese Hoax that is currently burning down your homeland?

The fact that your name looks chinese makes it look kind of like you've come to gloat about burning down our homeland with your hoax.

[Deleted]

Rick Perry is the one that is the biggest problem I see, because of how obvious it is. The last heads of department of energy, a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist, then a highly acclaimed nuclear physicist, then the guy that forgot the word "energy" when he was listing department of energy, as one of the departments he would cut... and he is neck deep in oil...

Steven Chu is actualy a particle physicist, not a nuclear physicist, which means that his field has not half as much to do with what the DoE is doing as you might think.

[Thepersona]

The left doesn't know which bathroom to use and yet WE are the one's denying science?

Give me a break,lol

what the fuck this has to do with the topic?

[Crissi]

I know a few meteorologists, all of which are conservative. NONE of them are in favor of this because they know it will ultimately be a negative on the entire profession, because privitization of something thats not just a research or science thing but also a safety thing, is super super bad.

Why the fuck would you want tv stations to PAY to have access to weather phenomena beyond their radar scope? That harms preparation more than 2 days out and ups safety risk because tv stations are one of the big ways people get their info.

[Poopymonster]

I know a few meteorologists, all of which are conservative. NONE of them are in favor of this because they know it will ultimately be a negative on the entire profession, because privitization of something thats not just a research or science thing but also a safety thing, is super super bad.

Why the fuck would you want tv stations to PAY to have access to weather phenomena beyond their radar scope? That harms preparation more than 2 days out and ups safety risk because tv stations are one of the big ways people get their info.

You pay for the info for major bad shit coming through. Those that don't pay, end up having to pay to have houses repaired/restored because they were unable to get the info required. Home owners/renters insurance? Watch that go up too.

So you pay for info that could save your life, and/or you pay afterwards to put it back together, and you'll be paying more for something else related to what you pay/didn't pay for.

Are you finding problem with glorious capitalist society...Comrade Crissi?