PDA

View Full Version : Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientist


jAZ
04-07-2008, 09:41 AM
http://www.physorg.com/news126761406.html

Published: 6 hours ago, 04:30 EST, April 07, 2008

Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientist

Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.

"We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, told AFP here.

"But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.

In a paper he was submitting to Science magazine on Monday, Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.

The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.

"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained.

"What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.

In a recent survey of what concerns people, global warming ranked 25th.

"The industry is misleading the public and policy makers about the cause of climate change. And that is analogous to what the cigarette manufacturers did. They knew smoking caused cancer, but they hired scientists who said that was not the case."

Hansen says that with an administration and legislature that he believes are "well oiled, our best hope is the judicial branch."

Last year Hansen testified before the US Congress that "interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career."

Government public relations officials, he said, filter the facts in science reports to reduce "concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions."

While he recognizes that he has stepped outside the traditional role of scientists as researchers rather than as public policy advocates, he says he does so because "in this particular situation we've reached a crisis."

The policy makers, "the people who need to know are ignorant of the actual status of the matter, and the gravity of the matter, and most important, the urgency of the matter," he charged.

"It's analogous to an engineer who sees that there's a flaw in the space shuttle before it is to be launched. You don't have any choice. You have to say something. That's really all that I'm doing," he explained.

Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement, along with the former prime minister of Australia John Howard, the US actress Glenn Close, and NBC news anchor Ann Curry.

The awards are provided by a trust of the late Ralph Hayes, a former director of Coca Cola and Bank of Delaware, now PNC. In 29 years, 165 former honorees in seven fields have included former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former US newsman Walter Cronkite, French marine biologist Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Howard, who would not sign the Kyoto protocol when he was in office, told AFP: "I thought it was the right policy at the time because the major emitters" were not on board."

He added: "You need a new Kyoto protocol with all the major emitters committed to it. Then you are cooking with gas."

© 2008 AFP

Bowser
04-07-2008, 11:05 AM
NASA IS JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE LIBERAL CIRCLE JERK!

Donger
04-07-2008, 11:10 AM
Hey NASA? How about focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff.

Brock
04-07-2008, 11:15 AM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030115070306.htm

They said their new fuel "only" emits CO2 and water as a by-product making rocket launches more environmentally friendly.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:15 AM
Hey NASA? How about focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff.
ROFL

Bootlegged
04-07-2008, 11:16 AM
NASA’s Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report
By Noel Sheppard | September 26, 2007 - 17:51 ET


As NewsBuster Jake Gontesky reported, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily Monday claimed one of billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.

Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations.

Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter - you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! - they would have found Hansen's name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Scientist Protests NASA's Censorship Attempts

James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen's defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree?

Here, in Soros Foundations' annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that "The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy."

As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don't find this newsworthy. Think they'd be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official?

While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added):

note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed - that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science -- is actually available in this annual report.

Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.

How disgraceful.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:17 AM
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree?
Not really.

Donger
04-07-2008, 11:18 AM
ROFL

What's funny?

Taco John
04-07-2008, 11:18 AM
NASA just committed treason.

mikey23545
04-07-2008, 11:29 AM
Hansen is very well known as a liberal idiot who every one else in NASA laughs at. He has taken a fortune from Soros to hold his views which almost every other scientist at NASA disagrees with.

He has been very close to losing his job several times because he spends so much "company time" working on his political agenda.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:33 AM
What's funny?
I can't decide which is funnier...

Chastizing NASA for studying a planet in Space.

Or

Implying that Earth is no longer a planet in Space at all.

Brock
04-07-2008, 11:35 AM
He has been very close to losing his job several times because he spends so much "company time" working on his political agenda.

There are some people on this board who could probably learn from this.

Donger
04-07-2008, 11:39 AM
I can't decide which is funnier...

Chastizing NASA for studying a planet in Space.

Or

Implying that Earth is no longer a planet in Space at all.

I don't think it's funny either way, personally. NASA has long lost its way, and it makes me sad. It really does.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:54 AM
Hey NASA? How about focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff.

I don't think it's funny either way, personally. NASA has long lost its way, and it makes me sad. It really does.

I never took you to so stunningly ignorant or so endlessly partisan as to lie about the history of NASA in order to silence the study of facts you prefer not to hear.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY

AN ACT
To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958."

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
Sec. 102. [...]
(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;


The #1 stated objective in the Congressional Act establishing NASA is to study Earth and it's atmosphere, even being noted before space itself.

Donger
04-07-2008, 12:02 PM
I never took you to so stunningly ignorant or so endlessly partisan as to lie about the history of NASA in order to silence the study of facts you prefer not to hear.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY

AN ACT
To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958."

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
Sec. 102. [...]
(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;


The #1 stated objective in the Congressional Act establishing NASA is to study Earth and it's atmosphere, even being noted before space itself.

Wow. Touchy today, eh?

No, I'm quite familiar with that one. You might note, however, that the following eight activities are directly related to flight in both the atmosphere and space.

Ironically, I think I read that the Democrats recently slashed NASA's budget. I wonder why they don't care about global warming?

jAZ
04-07-2008, 12:10 PM
Wow. Touchy today, eh?

No, I'm quite familiar with that one. You might note, however, that the following eight activities are directly related to flight in both the atmosphere and space.
If you were aware and still said something as baseless as you did... then it really goes to show your claim as one of dishonesty rather than of ignorance.

NASA was founded with the 1st objective to study earth's atmosphere and you claim it's lost it's way by (gasp!) studying the athmosphere.

How dare they follow the objectives set forth into law by Congress.

Donger
04-07-2008, 12:13 PM
If you were aware and still said something as baseless as you did... then it really goes to show your claim as one of dishonesty rather than of ignorance.

NASA was founded with the 1st objective to study earth's atmosphere and you claim it's lost it's way by (gasp!) studying the athmosphere.

How dare they follow the objectives set forth into law by Congress.

You really think the primary objective of NASA is to study the Earth's atmosphere?

jAZ
04-07-2008, 12:21 PM
You really think the primary objective of NASA is to study the Earth's atmosphere?

I think it's far from "losing it's way" to study the atmosphere given that it is the first stated objective in the law establishing NASA.

It's a stunningly ignorant or dishonest (in your case) view of reality for you to make the claims you have given the reality and the facts.

Donger
04-07-2008, 12:27 PM
I think it's far from "losing it's way" to study the atmosphere given that it is the first stated objective in the law establishing NASA.

It's a stunningly ignorant or dishonest (in your case) view of reality for you to make the claims you have given the reality and the facts.

Someone really should tell NASA that, considering that NASA spends ~$5 billion on its science directorate, and the rest on spaceflight activities.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 12:48 PM
Hansen is very well known as a liberal idiot who every one else in NASA laughs at. He has taken a fortune from Soros to hold his views which almost every other scientist at NASA disagrees with.

He has been very close to losing his job several times because he spends so much "company time" working on his political agenda.


You wanna post any links or support for any of these claims?

Logical
04-07-2008, 12:50 PM
You wanna post any links or support for any of these claims?
I am sure Rush (or some other dimwit) made such claims, now real sources I doubt it.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 12:52 PM
Someone really should tell NASA that, considering that NASA spends ~$5 billion on its science directorate, and the rest on spaceflight activities.


While I appreciate that NASA gets its headlines for what it does in orbit and beyond, I think it's fairly silly to suggest that NASA shouldn't be studying our own atmosphere.

What do they do if not study planets, atmospheres, what is needed for life, how the preconditions for life are created and extinguished on any planet etc.

The only way to study what atmosphere is suitable for life is by studying ---- wait for it ---- OURS, since we don't know any other planetary atmosphere that supports life.

I think mainly you're annoyed at NASA's interjecting itself into a highly politicized topic, which it doesn't often do. That doesn't mean it's beyond it's subject matter of study, or that it's doing anything improper. All it really means is that it's annoying you by doing so. :D

jAZ
04-07-2008, 12:52 PM
Someone really should tell NASA that, considering that NASA spends ~$5 billion on its science directorate, and the rest on spaceflight activities.

So what you are saying, is no matter what you think the priorities should be... the one thing we can all agree on is that your statements....


How about focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff. [...and...] NASA has long lost its way

... are really just wildly stupid statements.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 12:53 PM
Hrm....clearly NASA is, does, and is supposed to, study our atmosphere. They have a whole freaking department, with a separate website, on it for chrissakes...

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/statement.gif
The Climate and Radiation Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center supports a key NASA mission, namely, to understand and protect our home planet. We seek a better understanding of Earth's climate on all time scales, from daily, seasonal and interannual variability through changes on geologic time scales. Our research focuses on atmospheric measurement, numerical modeling, and climate analysis. We investigate atmospheric radiation, both as a driver for climate change and as a tool for the remote sensing of Earth's atmosphere and surface. The Branch research program seeks to better understand how our planet reached its present state, and how it may respond to future drivers, both natural and anthropogenic.

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Logical
04-07-2008, 12:53 PM
NASA just committed treason.
Now that is funny and excellent cross thread humor.

Donger
04-07-2008, 12:55 PM
So what you are saying, is no matter what you think the priorities should be... the one thing we can all agree on is that your statements....



... are really just wildly stupid statements.

Not at all. It's clear that NASA's primary mission is the exploration of space, not science. That's why the vast majority of its budget goes toward the other three directorates. That's why I said what I said.

NASA lost its way after Apollo.

You don't like that fact because it doesn't fit your agenda, I guess.

Logical
04-07-2008, 12:56 PM
You really think the primary objective of NASA is to study the Earth's atmosphere?
Primary, probably not, but definitely part of their defined objectives.

Donger
04-07-2008, 12:59 PM
Hrm....clearly NASA is, does, and is supposed to, study our atmosphere. They have a whole freaking department, with a separate website, on it for chrissakes...

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/statement.gif
The Climate and Radiation Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center supports a key NASA mission, namely, to understand and protect our home planet. We seek a better understanding of Earth's climate on all time scales, from daily, seasonal and interannual variability through changes on geologic time scales. Our research focuses on atmospheric measurement, numerical modeling, and climate analysis. We investigate atmospheric radiation, both as a driver for climate change and as a tool for the remote sensing of Earth's atmosphere and surface. The Branch research program seeks to better understand how our planet reached its present state, and how it may respond to future drivers, both natural and anthropogenic.

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I never said that they didn't. I know they do. But, it is not a large part of NASA's mission. Here, from the NASA website:

What Does NASA Do?

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for almost 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?

NASA Today

NASA conducts its work in four principle organizations, called mission directorates:

* Aeronautics: pioneers and proves new flight technologies that improve our ability to explore and which have practical applications on Earth.

* Exploration Systems: creates new capabilities and spacecraft for affordable, sustainable human and robotic exploration.

* Science: explores the Earth, moon, Mars and beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.

* Space Operations: provides critical enabling technologies for much of the rest of NASA through the space shuttle, the International Space Station and flight support.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 12:59 PM
Not at all. It's clear that NASA's primary mission is the exploration of space, not science. That's why the vast majority of its budget goes toward the other three directorates. That's why I said what I said.

NASA lost its way after Apollo.

You don't like that fact because it doesn't fit your agenda, I guess.


NASA is subject to far too much political interference and budgetary uncertainty, IMHO. Apollo involved a clean, neat program (difficult to achieve, without question) that had universal political backing. Heck, it even had Cold War implications (race to the moon) which were silly, but most people didn't understand that. Like going to the moon has any impact on who wins WWIII... Since then, however, there's been no program with such support.

The Hubble telescope program is probably by far the most important NASA has ever achieved in terms of its benefits to science, but most people have no clue.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 01:01 PM
I never said that they didn't. I know they do. But, it is not a large part of NASA's mission. Here, from the NASA website:


Sure, and I agree. But your "why don't you sit down and shut up cuz it's not your business anyway" is basically incorrect.

IMHO, it's not much different than if an asteroid was hurtling towards earth. That too would be NASA's mission to bring to the public's attention.

Who knows more about the sun's rays and the dangers to planet earth, after all, among governmental scientists??

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:01 PM
NASA is subject to far too much political interference and budgetary uncertainty, IMHO. Apollo involved a clean, neat program (difficult to achieve, without question) that had universal political backing. Heck, it even had Cold War implications (race to the moon) which were silly, but most people didn't understand that. Like going to the moon has any impact on who wins WWIII... Since then, however, there's been no program with such support.

The Hubble telescope program is probably by far the most important NASA has ever achieved in terms of its benefits to science, but most people have no clue.

Personally, I'd like a return to the Moon and to have Zubrin in charge.

Carlota69
04-07-2008, 01:02 PM
CAT FIGHT!
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r247/donpablo86/CAT.jpg

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:03 PM
Sure, and I agree. But your "why don't you sit down and shut up cuz it's not your business anyway" is basically incorrect.

IMHO, it's not much different than if an asteroid was hurtling towards earth. That too would be NASA's mission to bring to the public's attention.

Who knows more about the sun's rays and the dangers to planet earth, after all, among governmental scientists??

My comment was less about Hansen and his agenda than it was about the direction of NASA is general since Apollo. I guess that wasn't very clear.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 01:04 PM
Personally, I'd like a return to the Moon and to have Zubrin in charge.


No idea who Zubrin is.

I'd be glad to return to the moon if there is serious scientific benefit to be obtained. I have not heard that there is any, but I may just be underinformed.

My problem with the moon is that it is high cost and high risk (to human life), and I'm not sure there is much in the way of additional benefits to be achieved there.

I'd like to see the next generation of the Hubble telescope employed, and continued support for the international space station, which I understand has some benefits (don't ask me what they are).

Basically, I'd like to give scientists control, and some guarantees regarding funding. Instead, the Johnson Space Center is in Texas because LBJ had alot of clout, while the rest of it is in Florida for whatever reason, etc. etc. etc. It's just a highly politicized bastard child.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 01:06 PM
Not at all. It's clear that NASA's primary mission is the exploration of space, not science. That's why the vast majority of its budget goes toward the other three directorates. That's why I said what I said.

NASA lost its way after Apollo.

You don't like that fact because it doesn't fit your agenda, I guess.
ROFL

They've lost their way because "the vast majority of its budget goes toward ("the exploration of space, not science")"?

At a certain point, you just have to admit that you are wrong and concede that NASA's role is to study the atmosphere and that they are doing so in reasonable balance to space missions, even by your own budget figures.

Failure to do this just degrades your reputation further.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 01:07 PM
My comment was less about Hansen and his agenda than it was about the direction of NASA is general since Apollo. I guess that wasn't very clear.


It was, I thought, and I responded to that. Lack of clarity of mission, political meddling, budgetary uncertainty and who knows what else have combined to make NASA's challenge a difficult one.

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:10 PM
ROFL

They've lost their way because "the vast majority of its budget goes toward ("the exploration of space, not science")"?

At a certain point, you just have to admit that you are wrong and concede that NASA's role is to study the atmosphere and that they are doing so in reasonable balance to space missions, even by your own budget figures.

Failure to do this just degrades your reputation further.

Let's see, jAZ. If you were to ask people "what NASA does," what do you think the majority of the answers would be?

"They conduct atmospheric research."

Or

"They shoot rockets."

ONE of NASA's mission is science. They have a mission directorate for it. The problem with your assumption is that they have three others, all of which focus on FLIGHT.

What part of this don't you understand?

Iowanian
04-07-2008, 01:25 PM
This story was written long, long ago.

http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/

Chicken Little
Narrated especially for Harris, by his Dad
(who would rather be there in person) Click on the chick

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."

So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."

"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."

So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.

"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.

Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.

"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.

"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."

"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as Chicken Little and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.

The End

jAZ
04-07-2008, 01:35 PM
ROFL...

I've not seen anyone so lost in their own spin as Donger on this thread in a very long time.
I never said that they didn't. I know they do. But, it is not a large part of NASA's mission. Here, from the NASA website:

What Does NASA Do?

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

You are trying to use the currently stated "mission" of NASA to explain how NASA has "lost it's way" by not "focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff" all the while, dismissing the fact that the Act creating NASA specifically states as it's #1 mentioned objective, the study of Earth's atmosphere.

And simultaneously pointing out that NASA is indeed prioritizing exactly what he wants it to do, thus shredding his arguments from both the "supposed to be" angle and the "currently doing" angle.

I forgot how twisted Donger's discussions were here in the DC.

This is a pathetic display on every front, Donger. Let go and apologize for being ignorant of all of the original objectives of NASA.

Iowanian
04-07-2008, 01:36 PM
JAZ!! LOOK OUT!

http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/uploads/disney-chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

jAZ
04-07-2008, 01:37 PM
Let's see, jAZ. If you were to ask people "what NASA does," what do you think the majority of the answers would be?

"They conduct atmospheric research."

Or

"They shoot rockets."

ONE of NASA's mission is science. They have a mission directorate for it. The problem with your assumption is that they have three others, all of which focus on FLIGHT.

What part of this don't you understand?

Are you really trying to argue that NASA's purpose is defined by public perception rather than the law that created the agency?

What a twisted, quite literally deformed view of reality you have put on display here.

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:43 PM
ROFL...

I've not seen anyone so lost in their own spin as Donger on this thread in a very long time.


You are trying to use the currently stated "mission" of NASA to explain how NASA has "lost it's way" by not "focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff" all the while, dismissing the fact that the Act creating NASA specifically states as it's #1 mentioned objective, the study of Earth's atmosphere.

And simultaneously pointing out that NASA is indeed prioritizing exactly what he wants it to do, thus shredding his arguments from both the "supposed to be" angle and the "currently doing" angle.

I forgot how twisted Donger's discussions were here in the DC.

This is a pathetic display on every front, Donger. Let go and apologize for being ignorant of all of the original objectives of NASA.

No offense, jAZ, but I think I've made my case very clear. If NASA's #1 objective were atmospheric research, it seems logical that the majority of their funding would go toward it.

It doesn't, not even close.

It would also seem logical that if NASA's #1 objective were atmospheric research, the majority of its mission directorates would be focused on it.

They aren't.

The focus of NASA is spaceflight.

Again, I hope that I've made that clear and backed it up with facts.

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:45 PM
Are you really trying to argue that NASA's purpose is defined by public perception rather than the law that created the agency?

What a twisted, quite literally deformed view of reality you have put on display here.

No, just giving you another opportunity to look foolish.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 01:54 PM
No offense, jAZ, but I think I've made my case very clear. If NASA's #1 objective were atmospheric research, it seems logical that the majority of their funding would go toward it.

It doesn't, not even close.

It would also seem logical that if NASA's #1 objective were atmospheric research, the majority of its mission directorates would be focused on it.

They aren't.

The focus of NASA is spaceflight.

Again, I hope that I've made that clear and backed it up with facts.


What facts?

Atmospheric research is a helluva lot less expensive than space flight, wouldn't you say?

So if I gave you three jobs:

1. sweep the floor

2. vacuum the rugs

3. redo the landscaping around the house

you'd argue that 1 and 2 aren't really part of your job, that only #3 counts, and that your thoughts regarding the condition of the floors and rugs were entirely irreelvant because, after all, #3 is the bigger job?

It doesn't work.

You don't like what NASA had to say about the atmosphere, so you're acting like it's not a legitimate part of their function. That's not true, per both the enabling act taht Jaz posted, and the webiste that I posted that clearly reveals they are actively engaged in these matters.

Argue the science if you want. Say they are the minority if you want. Suggest they are politically tainted (re: Soros, etc.) if you want. But the argument that this is outside what part of their mission is just doesn't hold water.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 01:57 PM
No offense, jAZ, but I think I've made my case very clear. If NASA's #1 objective were atmospheric research...

No one said it was the #1 objecive. I said it was their #1 stated objective.

You are bitching that they aren't focusing on space flight while simultaneously pointing out that it's their #1 funded activity by far and bitching that they are conducting atmospheric research at all when it's part of their founding mandate.

You make no sense in the least. And I think you lied about knowing the #1 stated objective of NASA was to study earth's atmostphere.

Donger
04-07-2008, 01:58 PM
What facts?

Atmospheric research is a helluva lot less expensive than space flight, wouldn't you say?

So if I gave you three jobs:

1. sweep the floor

2. vacuum the rugs

3. redo the landscaping around the house

you'd argue that 1 and 2 aren't really part of your job, that only #3 counts, and that your thoughts regarding the condition of the floors and rugs were entirely irreelvant because, after all, #3 is the bigger job?

It doesn't work.

You don't like what NASA had to say about the atmosphere, so you're acting like it's not a legitimate part of their function. That's not true, per both the enabling act taht Jaz posted, and the webiste that I posted that clearly reveals they are actively engaged in these matters.

Argue the science if you want. Say they are the minority if you want. Suggest they are politically tainted (re: Soros, etc.) if you want. But the argument that this is outside what part of their mission is just doesn't hold water.

Again, I know that NASA studies our atmosphere. I haven't said otherwise.

Again, NASA has four mission directorates. One deals with science, the other three deal with flight. Therefore, it seems clear that the primary function of NASA is flight. That's why I said that they've lost their way. And, again, my statement was more a reaction to Hansen getting press instead of Orion and the other projects that are being worked on.

Donger
04-07-2008, 02:02 PM
No one said it was the #1 objecive. I said it was their #1 stated objective.

You are bitching that they aren't focusing on space flight while simultaneously pointing out that it's their #1 funded activity by far and bitching that they are conducting atmospheric research at all when it's part of their founding mandate.

You make no sense in the least. And I think you lied about knowing the #1 stated objective of NASA was to study earth's atmostphere.

Do you think that those nine objectives were listed in order of importance?

I'm well aware of NASA's budget and the fact that most of it goes toward flight, and the history of NASA.

Uncle_Ted
04-07-2008, 02:04 PM
I don't know why you guys care so much about this "climate change" thing ... it's all just some big liberal scientist conspiracy funded and backed by the U.N. and France. What's next, they're going to tell us that smoking causes cancer?

:rolleyes:

alanm
04-07-2008, 06:22 PM
I don't know why you guys care so much about this "climate change" thing ... it's all just some big liberal scientist conspiracy funded and backed by the U.N. and France. What's next, they're going to tell us that smoking causes cancer?

:rolleyes:
It's gonna be that Soda Pop f*cks with your DNA. ROFL

Logical
04-07-2008, 06:34 PM
Again, I know that NASA studies our atmosphere. I haven't said otherwise.

Again, NASA has four mission directorates. One deals with science, the other three deal with flight. Therefore, it seems clear that the primary function of NASA is flight. That's why I said that they've lost their way. And, again, my statement was more a reaction to Hansen getting press instead of Orion and the other projects that are being worked on.I understand there are four directorates, do you? If one is mandated to study earth sciences (our atmosphere) how have they not met their primary objective and lost their way, just because they have a 4th directorate and it is doing it's job?

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 06:40 PM
Another reason to dismantle NASA!! LMAO

Braincase
04-07-2008, 06:43 PM
Maybe if NASA were to launch a satellite for the purpose of studying the weather they'd be able to make a more informed decision.

Logical
04-07-2008, 06:53 PM
Maybe if NASA were to launch a satellite for the purpose of studying the weather they'd be able to make a more informed decision.
I hope this is sarcasm.

Otherwise...:doh!:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-07-2008, 07:09 PM
Again, I know that NASA studies our atmosphere. I haven't said otherwise.

Again, NASA has four mission directorates. One deals with science, the other three deal with flight. Therefore, it seems clear that the primary function of NASA is flight. That's why I said that they've lost their way. And, again, my statement was more a reaction to Hansen getting press instead of Orion and the other projects that are being worked on.

A visual representation of this post:

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/pork/images/apply/mmcd165.jpg

Chiefmanwillcatch
04-07-2008, 07:48 PM
We can cool the planet by blocking the sun if there is runaway global warming.

Actually everything is balanced well.

If the earth's oceans start rising and there is drought then there will be action.

Don't worry.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 08:02 PM
Just run it off in the low land, all the smart folks are on high ground already

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 08:08 PM
We can cool the planet by blocking the sun if there is runaway global warming.

I've been reading that it's easier for man to cool things than to warm things say if we were in an ice-age. So we should be thankful we're dealing with warming and not cooling. Something about putting particles in the air that block some of the sun's rays. Can't remember details...that's off the top of my head from memory.

bango
04-07-2008, 09:38 PM
I am confused when someone says that someone else might be endlessly partisan when they are endorsing an idea that is being promoted by the endlessly partisan.

tiptap
04-08-2008, 07:04 AM
It might be interesting to some as to why Hansen is speaking up again at this time. He, and several others, have just released a formal paper centered around the sensitivity question. That is how much increase in temperature will result with say doubling of CO 2. Most sensitivity studies including the IPCC, put it at about 2 degree C. However Hansen et al, new paper, and one I am sure he has confidence in, suggest a 6 degree sensitivity effect.

I have to say that the IPCC has always been conservative in its estimates about this. And the reported average includes a range that at the upper end included 6 degrees. The 2 degree passed around in the public forum is actually at the low end of the range. I am unqualified to speak about the merits of Hansen's number since I haven't had time to read it critically. And it is only now being looked at by the real experts. But if he is convinced of this is makes the situation much more dire.

whoman69
04-08-2008, 07:19 PM
Hey NASA? How about focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you know, like launching rockets and stuff.

Who do you think puts up all the satellites up that monitor the weather?

mikey23545
04-08-2008, 09:33 PM
<b>You don't like what NASA had to say about the atmosphere</b>, so you're acting like it's not a legitimate part of their function. That's not true, per both the enabling act taht Jaz posted, and the webiste that I posted that clearly reveals they are actively engaged in these matters.


You have as poor a grasp of written language as any "lawyer" I could imagine. This is <i>not</i> NASA speaking. This is a renegade NASA scientist who is on the take from Soros and others to deliver their left-wing diatribe without any backing from NASA the organization. He is a first-class idiot, and is regarded as such by most of his co-workers and superiors.