NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Nothing new here.
NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional
pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious
program has been implemented or is likely to.
Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate
one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with
weak data.

NASA is not the only agency under environmental funding duress.
NOAA, USGS , and Forest Service typically receive huge budget
reduction every year in the White House budget, but congress restores
part of them.

rick++ wrote:

Nothing new here.
NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional
pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious
program has been implemented or is likely to.
Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate
one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with
weak data.

There is no weak data on global warming you ****ing freak.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Andy Resnick wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw


http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

I don't understand- you are surprised that a government agency is acting
like a government agency? Or did you think NASA is, for some reason,
different than every other government agency?

How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA
or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that the
administration believes should be (de-)funded.

Hmmm ... let me think, I know ...

they're ROCKET SCIENTISTS!

Now, what other brilliant observations do you have for us asshole.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz is the ****ing freak.

I'd guess rick forgot more than you know be the time he was 2 years old.

Go hug a tree, get warm and fuzzy, then explain why the earth is only 1 deg
c warmer, if greenhouse gasses have been elevating for 50 years?

Don't have a clue, I know, but you think you have all the answers. All
morons do.



"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
rick++ wrote:

Nothing new here.
NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional
pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious
program has been implemented or is likely to.
Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate
one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with
weak data.

There is no weak data on global warming you ****ing freak.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Rock Brentwood wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off*
the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying
*on* it!

Three down, only 6.5 billion more to go!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off*
the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying
*on* it!

greysky wrote:
Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely
rejected:

"You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..."

Or this one:

"NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our
Stuff to wherever the money comes from."

NASA: where every mission is a test flight risking the potential cost
of catastrophic failure because ... there is no such thing as a free
launch.

SBC Yahoo wrote:

Go hug a tree, get warm and fuzzy, then explain why the earth is only 1 deg
c warmer, if greenhouse gasses have been elevating for 50 years?

Actually, it's more like 150 years, but I'll let that slide.

Don't have a clue, I know, but you think you have all the answers. All
morons do.

Not into the science thing are you. Well, let's start with carbon flux :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Check back later once you grok it.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Ken Wood wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

The consolation prize here is that sometimes one has to
hit bottom before they realize there's a problem.

The political decisions by a few to steer Nasa away
from environmental issues, especially the hot one of
global warming, is a huge political mistake.


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

But space development and space science in the vicinity of the Earth is
a great application in which to spend finite resources in pursuit of
Earth sciences, and robotic photo exploration of the moon and Mars and
the moons of Mars and the asteroids, will keep the general public
engaged and interested in the science on which their very lives depend.

Once we have space in the vicinity of Earth sorted out, propulsion,
launch, life support, etc, the exploration of the solar system is trivial.

NASA definitely doesn't get it, but they are just following the fuhrer's
orders. The decider decided, and if you want to keep your job, shut up.

Further reading :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=4
http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=5
http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=6

In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.