NOAA gets to hitchhike with the Europeans
The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.
The Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits, instead of six satellites and three orbits.
The reduced system of four satellites will now focus on weather forecasting. Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data over long periods are being eliminated.
“Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors … places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy,” NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in the Dec. 11 report obtained by the AP.
Political hacks will continue to lie about adequate support for science. Bush probably figures if Americans don’t have information at hand contradicting his ignorance – no one will notice.
He needs to save money to spend it in Iraq.
Interesting conclusion. I hate debating only knowing one side of the story on something like this. FTA :
Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost
Then isn’t the real reason, that NASA aren’t the engineering marvel they were in the past?
The (BUSH) administration has been spending about $5 billion a year on global warming: $2 billion on climate research and $3 billion on technologies for combatting it.
That’s major $$$.
How the hell can putting sensors in four satellites and launching them cost billions? Something is very wrong.
For comparison, Mark – with all the wasted money, death and destruction, counter-productive results, if the dweebs in DC followed the same logic in this example, troops from the coalition of the ignorant would be returning home instead of increasing.
No doubt, NASA has some screwed-up contracts. So, you cut back on the project instead of sorting the screw-ups?
Great. Scaling back NASA is the most ridiculous way to “save money” there is. Instead of gathering knowledge and promoting exploration, we’ll just pour more money down the Halliburton drain. Wonderful.
Military budget for 2007: $463Bn
Total science and NASA: $16Bn
Almost 30x military vs. science. This just doesn’t make sense to me, and I feel helpless as I have only one vote to try and change it.
Please, please check out this link:
http://tinyurl.com/36ney3
So, why is this such a big deal? Is it mission-critical to closely MONITOR global warming when we know it’s already happening (and given that it’s a slow-fuse event)? Being a meteorologist myself, I’m all for funding atmospheric research, but it still amazes me to see public outcry to ANYTHING that cuts funding for anything remotely related to global warming. It’s already a $200 billion a year industry. It’s well known among scientists that if you can put a global warming spin to your research, you’ll get funding.
@Mark Derail The billions you mention are not only on satellite monitoring but on other things that monitor climate. Satellite development, construction, deployment, and monitoring IS a HUGE chunk of cash, and likely the most substantial single part of the US government’s direct spending on global warming.
BTW: The $200 billion I quoted is worldwide, including private sector money.
Someone should show Bush a picture of that dark spot on Mars and tell him it’s a big pool of oil — we’ll have a Starfleet-sized space program in five years!
Hey, seriously, this is a story about the reducing the number of satellites being put into orbit. This means THEY AREN’T THERE YET!!! That means we have none right now, and he’s putting 4. We’re not reducing anything, we’re adding 4. You can argue that 4 isn’t enough, but, there is no cut.
Classic liberal argument of calling a reduction in an increase a cut…
President Bush actually CUT spending on something? Un-freakin-believable! Now if we could get him to abolish the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, the F.D.A., and the stupid “war on drugs” he might not go down at the worst president in history.
I know it’s crazy. But a guy can dream.
Makes sense for Bush to cut monitoring the health of our planet which the US pollutes more than any other nation of earth – the expected results are “INCONVENIENT”.
#5 – I’m all for funding atmospheric research, but it still amazes me to see public outcry to ANYTHING that cuts funding for anything remotely related to global warming
It isn’t that it is related to global warming… it is that it is another example of science, technology, and progress toward a better tomorrow taking a backseat to the global murder industry.
Why do we call defense contractors, “defense” contractors?
If they were defense contractors, wouldn’t they be selling technology designed to defend the United States… and not designed to maximize the death rate of foreigners? I think they should be called Offense Contractors.
NASA gets no money because NASA isn’t in the business of making foreign people die.
I can’t wait for the Atlantis to blow up in space too.
(sarcasm) What a shock. I can’t believe it. And right after the G8 too. (/sarcasm) Anyone want to guess what Bush really thinks of the G8?
#4 – BubbaRay,
Excellent point!! Perhaps someone should inform Bush that the technology he uses to fight war was discovered by science. (Wait a minute … I may be arguing the wrong side of this.)
#5 – Ed Roberts,
You have an interesting definition of slow fuse. A billion climate refugees by 2050 is not that slow. And, being from the IPCC, we can assume the estimate to be the low end of the range. Early predictions from IPCC have already been shown to be overly conservative.
Oh, and without monitoring, how will we know if the plans we implement have the desired effect?
#7 – Rob – ROFL!!
#11 – OFTLO – Good question!! I think it may be taken as offensive by the few remaining Bush supporters.
Satellite data has been contradicting the global warming models for years. They don’t show the warming that is predicted. Yet then the enviros just explain it away to defend their life-restricting fantasies. Anything collected by new satellites would be treated the same way: ignore any inconvenient facts.
#14 – MikeN,
False!!! Initially, the satellites were detecting the temperature too high up in the atmosphere, above the tropopause, if I remember correctly. At that altitude, temperatures were/are genuinely cooling precisely because the heat from below was being absorbed before getting that high. Once they corrected the satellites to measure surface temperature correctly, the two came into complete agreement. This was quite a while ago.
#7 – LOL! Here’s another option, have one of the true believers publish a paper outlining how controlling Global Warming(TM) benefits the military. We’ll be under glaciers in a year.
If we don’t know about it, it doesn’t exist. Hallelujah!!
>Early predictions from IPCC have already been shown to be overly conservative.
Funny, in the most recent report they’ve watered down their worst case scenarios from the 2001 report. Their estimates fo sea level rise and temperature warming are lower than before.
#18 – MikeN,
Actually, I believe the range is simply tighter. The low end moved up and the upper end moved down. Don’t just look at the high number.
There is an interesting topic in this story:
Isn’t part of good science being able to estimate the costs involved with a project? LIkewise, isn’t a good scientist one that has the balls to say a project needs to start over if those estimates are proven to be false?