Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

[Steven P. Administrators]

I read somewhere on the BBC this week that Trump had already done a 180 regarding Climate change, and admitted that "man probably does contribute to climate change" (or words to that effect) so this surprises me a bit.. this, and many other campaign promises already reversed. Wonder what diehard Trump supporters are thinking now  

[JoseyWales]

Media lies.. It's already come out that they cherry picked stuff from his talks with CNN and used it all out of context to give the appearance that they are flip flopping. Just more of the same political lies and grandstanding from the MSM.

[neufuse Veteran]

could you imagine science today if politicians interfered with it in the past when the atomic structure was discovered? Say having democrats say there is a small particle we call it an atom it has electrons protons and neutrons.... then republicans say we have no proof atoms exist, have you ever seen one? We shouldn't spend money on atomic research since you can't see them!

2 hours ago, Steven P. said:

I read somewhere on the BBC this week that Trump had already done a 180 regarding Climate change, and admitted that "man probably does contribute to climate change" (or words to that effect) so this surprises me a bit.. this, and many other campaign promises already reversed. Wonder what diehard Trump supporters are thinking now  

he is and always was a RINO (republican in name only) before that he was an independent and a democrat... so this really shouldn't surprise anyone...... the democrats that are flying off the wall should of known this, and expected him to move more center than far right or left.... I think over time it will come out he's possibly more left on most things and more right on financial stuff

Edited November 24, 2016 by neufuse

[Iridium]

Im a moderate, but I really dont understand the logic of the right wing on this. The evidence by far and large points to human activity as a primary cause of the current warming trend. If we keep on deforesting while simultaneously burning million of years worth of organic stored carbon, there wont be any economy to protect. This is literally the most important issue facing not just our species, but a large portion of complex organisms that will be unable to adapt given the rate of change. 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

11 minutes ago, neufuse said:

could you imagine science today if politicians interfered with it in the past when the atomic structure was discovered? Say having democrats say there is a small particle we call it an atom it has electrons protons and neutrons.... then republicans say we have no proof atoms exist, have you ever seen one? We shouldn't spend money on atomic research since you can't see them!

he is and always was a RINO (republican in name only) before that he was an independent and a democrat... so this really shouldn't surprise anyone...... the democrats that are flying off the wall should of known this, and expected him to move more center then far right or left.... I think over time it will come out he's possibly more left on most things and more right on financial stuff

Problem with NASA ... is that politics directs its missions/goals/visions etc. with every new President....which is a shame really.  For a very simplistic example:  NASA could be focusing on returning to the moon but have to shift that focus to an asteroid/Mars.  Either one of those goals or visions will take a while ... and when a new POTUS takes over it gets redirected ... thus taking several more years for research/planning/building/etc.... and then yet another POTUS takes over once again shifting that vision .... and the cycle continues. 

 

What should be part of the solid foundation are studies of our own planet...and it is one of the primary reasons for NASA's formation.  Unlike the moon or Mars or research into the cosmos ... we can not just plant a flag here on Earth and not come back.  We will always (unless we end ourselves or get smashed by an asteroid) be on Earth (at least for the next 1B-2B years).  Reason I mentioned 1B-2B years is because that is when some scientist believes (that as the sun gets hotter) ... the greenhouse effects of Earth will take hold ... basically turning this planet into another Venus.  Though with human effects on climate and reliance on finite fuels ... I often wonder what our prospects are for the next thousand years.

 

Mind you ... I'm all for space exploration.  I want to see astronauts/cosmonauts/taikonauts/etc. on the moon, or Mars or an asteroid or another celestial body.  Knowledge (technological, biological, etc.) gained from this ventures will benefit all mankind ... but our number 1 focus should always be this planet and how to prevent the premature destruction of ourselves.

 

Research into the cosmos is a luxury ... research into our own planet is about survival.

[TPreston]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-24/nasa-director-schools-malcolm-roberts-in-climate-change-letter/8052132?pfmredir=sm

[JoseyWales]

Global warming being caused by humans is nothing more than a theory.. A bad one at that. One modest volcano spews out more than all of the emissions from man throughout history, including the industrial revolution. While I do not disagree that the climate is changing none of us can pin it to any one thing and all the talk is just that, talk.. I get a little put out by those that claim what is put there now as fact when it is anything but factual and nothing more than theory. There have been massive changes in climate throughout history and none of it has had anything to do with man..

[Jim K Global Moderator]

27 minutes ago, JoseyWales said:

Global warming being caused by humans is nothing more than a theory.. A bad one at that. One modest volcano spews out more than all of the emissions from man throughout history, including the industrial revolution. While I do not disagree that the climate is changing none of us can pin it to any one thing and all the talk is just that, talk.. I get a little put out by those that claim what is put there now as fact when it is anything but factual and nothing more than theory. There have been massive changes in climate throughout history and none of it has had anything to do with man..

The scientific consensus would disagree with you.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Yes, there have been massive climate changes throughout the history of the earth ... but those climate changes happened over very long time scales.  We can only control what we can (and volcanos isn't one of them) ... but we continue to add greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.)  ... which is something we can control.

 

Now, let's say that human climate change is just a "bad theory" ... would you want to risk your child's future or their children's survival by chalking it up to just a "bad theory" ... or would you want to continue the research in order to better understand and minimize (for sake of argument) the potential catastrophic effects of global warming?  

 

I wouldn't

[TPreston]

Also learn what a theory is from a scientific dictionary.

[Gotenks98]

Personally I think NASA should be stripped of all funding. There is no point in space exploration if we can't get along with each other on this planet. Last thing we need is someone who is racist pissing aliens off to kill us all off.

[ctebah]

36 minutes ago, JoseyWales said:

Global warming being caused by humans is nothing more than a theory.. A bad one at that. One modest volcano spews out more than all of the emissions from man throughout history, including the industrial revolution. While I do not disagree that the climate is changing none of us can pin it to any one thing and all the talk is just that, talk.. I get a little put out by those that claim what is put there now as fact when it is anything but factual and nothing more than theory. There have been massive changes in climate throughout history and none of it has had anything to do with man..

 

That is, by far, the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet in a very, very long time.  

 

Quote

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons ofCO2 emissions every year worldwide

 

[TPreston]

4 minutes ago, ctebah said:

 

That is, by far, the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet in a very, very long time.  

 

 

He meant a supervolcano ELE event, This is the same thing that happens with people claiming the big bang was an explosion.

[ctebah]

53 minutes ago, TPreston said:

He meant a supervolcano ELE event, This is the same thing that happens with people claiming the big bang was an explosion.

Ah, yes, I forgot how common those are.  Emissions are the last thing we would need to worry about from a supervolcano

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

 NASA could be focusing on returning to the moon but have to shift that focus to an asteroid/Mars.

No, we shouldn't return to the moon, the moon is a dead end with little practical benefit, the only reason to return to the moon is for a lunar base, and even that doesn't have the benefit many think it would. practically all scientists agree that the moon isn't a primary target and Mars is a far better and more useful target to aim for next, the biggest benefit of the moon is to say "we did it" and we already did that part, the only reason to return to the moon now is because it's cheap and easy and gives political points by again saying "we returned to the moon", which again is pretty useless. 

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, JoseyWales said:

Global warming being caused by humans is nothing more than a theory.. A bad one at that. One modest volcano spews out more than all of the emissions from man throughout history, including the industrial revolution. While I do not disagree that the climate is changing none of us can pin it to any one thing and all the talk is just that, talk.. I get a little put out by those that claim what is put there now as fact when it is anything but factual and nothing more than theory. There have been massive changes in climate throughout history and none of it has had anything to do with man..

Maybe you should read actual scientific articles on global warming/climate change. then you'd learn why we are changing it, and why the fact that a volcano spews out more carbon doesn't matter. maybe you hear of the straw and the camels back ? except humans are a pretty damn big straw. 

 

but hey, the fact the climate shift has changed by thousand and tens of thousand of year, and the only difference is humans and what we're doing, and that we can measure the temperature change cause by us is probably irrelevant... right ? Maybe 100% of real scientists except 2, that aren't even actual accredited scientists are wrong ? 

[Andre S. Veteran]

Anyone who's upset about this, go ahead and mobilize, do something. Democracy is not about choosing between two rich clowns subservient to corporate interests to do whatever stupid things every 4 years, it's about making your voice heard and that's every day on every issue. Educate the public, write, speak, protest, sign petitions, lobby, get involved. These absurd policies get passed because nobody cares; it doesn't have to be this way.

[PGHammer]

4 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Maybe you should read actual scientific articles on global warming/climate change. then you'd learn why we are changing it, and why the fact that a volcano spews out more carbon doesn't matter. maybe you hear of the straw and the camels back ? except humans are a pretty damn big straw. 

 

but hey, the fact the climate shift has changed by thousand and tens of thousand of year, and the only difference is humans and what we're doing, and that we can measure the temperature change cause by us is probably irrelevant... right ? Maybe 100% of real scientists except 2, that aren't even actual accredited scientists are wrong ? 

HawkMan - part of the problem is that even accredited scientists can have biases (or can be influenced by non-scientific motives); unfortunately, science has fallen into the same flaw that religion fell into centuries ago - things wind up being taken on "faith" - EWWW.  (Do I like it?  Not only no, but HECK no - solar and wind power have both become "infected" with politicization.)  How do you make sure that the science itself is clean?

[TPreston]

6 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

HawkMan - part of the problem is that even accredited scientists can have biases (or can be influenced by non-scientific motives); unfortunately, science has fallen into the same flaw that religion fell into centuries ago - things wind up being taken on "faith" - EWWW.  (Do I like it?  Not only no, but HECK no - solar and wind power have both become "infected" with politicization.)  How do you make sure that the science itself is clean?

Peer Review also lol @ the unfounded assertion that things are taken on faith.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

2 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

No, we shouldn't return to the moon, the moon is a dead end with little practical benefit, the only reason to return to the moon is for a lunar base, and even that doesn't have the benefit many think it would. practically all scientists agree that the moon isn't a primary target and Mars is a far better and more useful target to aim for next, the biggest benefit of the moon is to say "we did it" and we already did that part, the only reason to return to the moon now is because it's cheap and easy and gives political points by again saying "we returned to the moon", which again is pretty useless. 

It was an example ... I wasn't necessarily saying what we should be doing.  Bottom line of what I was implying:  the goals/vision/mission of NASA seems to change with every election ... and at some point (because of the complexities and time needed for space travel/research/etc.) ... the goals/vision/mission should be, at some point, set in stone.  A 25 year (or insert any appropriate number) mandate ... if you will.

 

Though, I will say (if it were up to me...which it isn't) ... I would go back to the moon ... which in turn will help us build and develop technologies necessary for deep space travel.  Yes, we've already been there ... but our primary reason was to get there first ... before the Soviets.  Our advances from 1961 (first man) to 1969 (moon landing) was incredible .. no doubt.  However, our primary purpose of landing on the moon wasn't for scientific purposes ... but to be there first.  We have yet uncovered what all is there ... if it could be used as a "launching platform" for other deep space missions ... or if it just a big ball of dirt without any useful purpose.  Setting up a colony on the moon would in turn help us create technologies needed to set up colonies on Mars (or even if it is financially feasible.)  

[DocM]

WRT the 4,425 satellite constellation,

 

It'll be usable by anyone. There'll be a pizza box size phased array antenna on the roof which can see several satellites at once, so the connection won't suffer rain outage as easily. Latency is expected to be 25-50 ms. Worldwide internet 24/7/365, even at the poles and mid-ocean. Routing done in space by laser sat-to-sat links.

 

A SpaceX operation, with Google and Fidelity investing.

 

Those going after Graham need to understand that he's a space advocate, and respected in the space community. The plans he's discussed in space news site editorials represent an improvement over the drift NASA has been in for 20+ years.

 

As to the NSC being being brought back, it's what was used to guide NASA during Apollo. Rather than letting NASA plans drift as they have been it concentrates decisionmaking in a group; representatives from NASA, NOAA, USAF, the White House, the science community etc., dedicated to long term planning. There's also talk of multi-year NASA budgets to stabilize funding.

 

Rather than a poorly defined plan to launch the Space Launch System and Orion a few times a decade with nebulous goals they're planning both a major return to the Moon, lunar orbit and cislunar space leveraging commercial operators (who can do it cheaper), and fleshing out better Mars plans.

 

Finally, there are major space advocates in the House and Senate leaderships, and in both parties, so making a blanket statement like "Republicans hate space" just sounds silly to those who know the subject. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by DocM

[PGHammer]

9 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Peer Review also lol @ the unfounded assertion that things are taken on faith.

TPreston - the problem even applies to peer review - and I honestly wished it didn't!

 

As much as some folks want to blow it off as a sick joke, once you find out that such data-tampering is possible - and that is your ONLY data set - the joke stops being funny. (Hence "EWWWW".)  That means - in the interest merely of clarity - you HAVE to start ALL over again.  In order for the results to be trustworthy, the data collected must ALSO be trustworthy - if it (the data) can't be trusted, the study itself is screwed.  When it comes to climate change, the data HAS to be trustworthy, as you are asking for massive - if not monstrous - change in the lives all over the world - not merely the developed world; and nobody wants to make such a change based on bad data.

[Arachno 1D]

6 hours ago, Steven P. said:

I read somewhere on the BBC this week that Trump had already done a 180 regarding Climate change, and admitted that "man probably does contribute to climate change" 

You should know the BBC is the Fox news of English media 

[HawkMan]

44 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

HawkMan - part of the problem is that even accredited scientists can have biases (or can be influenced by non-scientific motives); unfortunately, science has fallen into the same flaw that religion fell into centuries ago - things wind up being taken on "faith" - EWWW.  (Do I like it?  Not only no, but HECK no - solar and wind power have both become "infected" with politicization.)  How do you make sure that the science itself is clean?

Well you don't have to be a scientists even to understand that climate change and humans affect and accelerating it is a thing you just need to be able to read basic data and have working eyes. for anyone having lived more than 30 years as well, it's pretty obvious things are changing, big things that shouldn't change in such time frames. 

[DocM]

26 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

TPreston - the problem even applies to peer review - and I honestly wished it didn't!

>

This can't be emphasized enough. 

 

There is a MAJOR crisis in science right now and it includes peer review; everyone agrees its seriously broken and not just in one field of study.

 

Papers have been submitted which were pure gibberish as test cases and they passed peer review, and in some areas of study its estimated more than half of findings cannot be reproduced. In some this jumps to 70% or more.

 

The bottom line is, saying a study of any kind should be accepted because it's peer reviewed isn't the good argument it once was.

 

 

[Emn1ty]

22 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Well you don't have to be a scientists even to understand that climate change and humans affect and accelerating it is a thing you just need to be able to read basic data and have working eyes. for anyone having lived more than 30 years as well, it's pretty obvious things are changing, big things that shouldn't change in such time frames. 

It's one thing to say it's changing and humans are contributing to the change. It's another to be able to directly link humans to the amount of change they are causing, which we haven't been able to do. We just measure the amount of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere but once that happens we have no way to measure what those gasses actually do or how it translates into warming because it's not that simple. Fluid dynamics are why it's not that simple, and honestly the people who are the best at fluid dynamics are people who do weather (NOAA).