Congress Slashes Funding For NASA’s Global Warming Research

Is there any reason why we can't let EU do all the research and just share it with us for free? Why should we spend the money when we don't have to? Aren't they smart enough to do it themselves, since we're just stupid Americans=) Think about how they treat defense? They spend very little and let us do all the work. Time to return the favor right?

 

Hey remember this one...

"we only have 10 years left until global Armageddon" --Al Gore

 

"The fossil fuel lobby pays Congress to slash funding on climate change" is probably a more accurate summary of what happened here. Hell, why fix the bad parts when you can simply stop people from researching the bad parts and telling everyone else how bad they are.

 

In the abstract, this was pretty much the comment I was going to make.

But I didn't want to grant the premise that "global warming" is something that can be "solved".

Liberals think "fixing" the climate its just a matter of taxation ...and limiting of freedoms of course.

Why do they think that?

Because they've been duped, no different than any other fool has been parted from his money throughout history.

And of course, you'll never be able to find a Democrat voter who will show you just how "taxation = solution" thing works.

But yea, fine, lets just say Europe can do all the work.

And then once they've pissed away trillions of their dollars and limited the freedoms of their own people they can hand us a stack of "research" and we'll gently pat them on the head and toss it in the trash where it belongs.

 

Effect & control are two entirely different things.

 

So basically you don't like the idea of consolidating it into the NOAA instead of having too much bureaucracy.

 

The commonness of "hot Jupiters" in other solar systems would tend to refute that.

 

Yeah but let's not get people all nervous about planets spinning out of control or glaciers melting and flooding coastal cities. That's all left-wing propaganda.

 

Yeah! Fearmongering belongs in threads about Muslims and immigrants!

 

This has already happened in California. Diesel trucks and delivery vehicles with the passage of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 would be punished severely. The full implementation has been delayed again and again. Every single diesel vehicle would need to replace their engines. Since 2006 I've seen a lot of those vehicles sporting out of state plates.

 

"NASA's Global warming research"? Is that really their name? As in, they don't get funding if they don't find any "warming"? Wow, I wonder why they find what they need to justify their funding?

 

I have said for years now, if they took it serious, we would see genuine action to thwart destruction to coastal cities. They make such a fuss over such minute changes to temperatures. Then I point out all the beauty we have today that can be blamed on global warming. My gosh, aren't the great lakes just beautiful?

Balanced science presents the pros and cons. Not just the con job.

 

I sold tools from my former machine shop to a man from India who owns and operates his own Walnut farm in the Chico area of California. He told me a sad tale. Seems that he had bought new trucks to use since aside from his walnuts, he also contracts to haul the crop of other walnut farmers. And it seems that due to CA law, after buying new trucks, he had to purchase by this time, brand new trucks to meet CA standards. Naturally his fleet of trucks that are out of date are worth next to nothing in CA. He had a heck of a mess on his hands. He hates the EPA.

 

NASA, by their very name, should be concerned with aircraft and space exploration. NOAA, by their very name, should be the ones concerned with oceans and the atmosphere. Why is NASA being funded to do NOAA's job?

If reducing pollution is critical, why do we want China and India--the worst polluters--to be excluded from any controls? Carbon taxes do not have the effect of reducing CO2 production, they just move money around. In an intellectual(?) environment like that, how is it possible to take it seriously? Follow the money!

 

She's quoted in my post, if you have some information she didn't say what she was quoted as saying, please post a link. Wallstrom was the EU's Environment Commissioner so she's not just some pundit on the side.

Note the quoted speech.

 

Margot Wallstrom was the EU Environment Commissioner not some pundit asserting an opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not just the EPA, in CA CARB are the real big bad guys.

 

Ah, al Bore, 2nd grade insult, dead giveaway for a limited education *******s next. I'm still waiting to see the professors climate science PhD thesis

 

I've done some studies and research. It is now settled science. All Chicken Littles need a tin foil hat, the new OSHA standard for climate crazies.

 

Follow the money, absolutely. I guess you were not prevailed on to provide experiments to do in space. I was. Apart for few decent ones, the majority were totally a waste of money. useless, just so they could say they were filling their time doing experiments , spend the grants and get their grants for the next year

 

You only need a couple of degrees genius. So are the 90% of climate scientists all bought off fools and your high school education knows better?

 

With all the riots and burning of stuff, I have a feeling the more pressing clear and present danger is the Left. I think I have a much higher chance or getting my stuff burned, than I do of my house flooding from any kind of sea level rise.

 

I see some complaint about perceived economic inequality between the EU and the US over the issue of Kyoto. So what?

You keep bringing it up as though it were somehow pertinent to a discussion of the scientific merits of AGW. It isn't.

 

The question of what we should do is not a NASA issue - it is a policy issue that must include policy decision makers. What we do is a matter of what we have the political will to do, what the population can get behind, etc.

They can ask NOAA or NASA or any of the other myriad climate science organizations to answer questions about policy choices - such as whether a particular policy would be adequate to meet a specific level of warming or CO2 output, or whatever.

The various climate summits are attempts to bring together science and public policy.

 

The current policy will reduce the increase in warming by 2100 by 0.2 degrees. The money is better spent adapting than throwing it away on fantasy and since the warming is not showing to be as alarming as the models predicted, it is also the sane thing to do.

 

Actually, the IPCC predictions have been quite accurate:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ccurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf