Slashdot Mirror


Politics Is Poisoning NASA's Ability To Do Science

An anonymous reader writes: Phil Plait just published an article about how politics is interfering with NASA's ability to perform vital scientific experiments. As expected when we heard that Ted Cruz would be made head of the committee in charge of NASA's funding, the Texas senator is pushing hard for NASA to stop studying Earth itself. Plait writes, "Over the years, NASA has had to beg and scrape to get the relatively small amount of money it gets—less than half a percent of the national budget—and still manages to do great things with it. Cruz is worried NASA's focus needs to be more on space exploration. Fine. Then give them enough money to do everything in their charter: Explore space, send humans there, and study our planet. Whether you think climate change is real or not—and it is— telling NASA they should turn a blind eye to the environment of our own planet is insanity." He concludes, "[T]he politics of funding a government agency is tying NASA in knots and critically endangering its ability to explore."

34 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. stop electing anti science politicians by llamahunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you care about our future, and especially if you live in a red state where these charlatans seem to originate, please stop voting for anti intellectual and anti science politicians. They are only doing what they perceive the electorate has sent them to Washington to do, which seems to be to put their heads in the sand and 'pray' for a 'savior'.

    1. Re:stop electing anti science politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I mean, if a Republican had said the "foremost" goal of NASA was to make Christians "feel good" y'all would have gone ballistic. But because Obama says it about Muslims, only the sound of crickets was to be heard.

      I repeat. Fuck you.

  2. wait what? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the EPA can worry about the environment, leave NASA to what NASA is supposed to do. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not the climatechange administration. not the muslim outreach administration but the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    Please give NASA more money, but make sure it is used for space exploration as intended. I dont see why this is getting so much heat

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aeronautics occur within the earths atmosphere. To not study it is completely insane. The EPA is a regulatory body. Noaa, Nasa do and should study the atmosphere.

    2. Re:wait what? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the EPA can worry about the environment, leave NASA to what NASA is supposed to do. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

      Arguably, the "aeronautics" bit could be taken as justification for NASA to study the planet. Even if you disagree, NASA's job is to study planets in general, and the easiest example of that is the Earth itself. I mean, the Earth is in space just as much as Mars or the Sun is, after all. And the effects of various gases in the atmosphere is definitely of interest to planetary science, even aside from any general human concerns over climate change.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:wait what? by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      not the point i was getting at at all. In fact quite the opposite.

      NASA should continue to do all those things... however the funding for them shouyld come from the other orgs that are using them, not NASA.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:wait what? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NOAA can worry about climate change with the EPA too.

      Phil doesn't seem to think it's worth mentioning that in recent years, NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%.

      That's almost 6 times as much increase for climate as for space. Phil still isn't happy? I don't know what the flat dollar figures are, but clearly climate has been getting attention.

      I am with GP on the main point here: let NASA concentrate on space. And let NOAA and others work on climate. EPA, however, is a vastly self-serving and corrupt organization, and I wouldn't put it in charge of scrubbing toilets.

    5. Re:wait what? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aeronautics occur within the earths atmosphere. To not study it is completely insane.

      "Aeronautics" != "[Enviroment|Climate|Earth Science]".
       

      The EPA is a regulatory body.

      One that has a considerable research arm.

      I'm with the grandparent - NASA should get out of the earth science business (and probably astronomy, and energy efficient houses, and all the pies the bureaucrat have stuck their hands in), leave that to more appropriate agencies.

    6. Re:wait what? by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But there is absolutely ZERO funding to prove the opposite

      There's funding to do research, and scientists all over the world are working on it. The fact that the opposite doesn't get any proof is not a problem of funding. It's a problem with reality.

  3. Price of politicizing science by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Neither side is pure here. I think NASA briefly said their mission was muslim outreach for example. Why would they do that? Does that have something to do with space?

    Just politics.

    And NASA has been staffed not just with scientists but wtih scientists that are big democrat supporters. So... guess what, the republicans are going to want to suppress them.

    Same thing happened in NYC with tammany hall. Every time parties would switch, the new party would staff the city institutions with political appointees that supported that political party. Everything. Fire departments, police departments, park service, road workers, etc... just everything. Parties would switch and everyone in authority in the city would lose their job.

    And that meant that in part the people that did things were often not competent because they weren't on the job that long. And also you'd get a lot of corruption because if lots of people lose their jobs when the parties switch everyone is more inclined to cheat or stuff ballot boxes.

    This was ultimately dealt with to some extent by protecting certain institutions from being used that way.

    But there is no such protection in Federal agencies. They get used all the time. You can't tell me that the EPA or the ATF or whatever are doing the same thing under a democrat that they'd be doing under a republican. You can't tell me that they're being run by the same sorts of people or under the same guidelines.

    It swings back and forth because all these institutions are political footballs at this point.

    So complain about it if you want but nothing is going to change unless that stops. And it needs to stop for BOTH sides. Not just the side you don't like. If one side can do it, then the other side can do it.

    So think very carefully about what you're asking for and understand there are going to be consequences.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Price of politicizing science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is the exact reason why the founders of the USA wanted a limited federal system. If you have a limited mandate, you have limited funding and resources. Scope creep.

      You are correct that both sides do it. Doesn't make it right. When you have the federal law, the power of policing and the ability to raise unlimited sums of money... What the people want is really irrelevant.

    2. Re:Price of politicizing science by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not saying it is right. I think it is wrong of course.

      The issue is that it will take biparstain support to fix it. Both parties are going to have to realize that the greater good is in letting go and having the various institutions do their jobs rather then be tools for the political games the administration of the moment is playing.

      Democrats are going to be pissed at me here, but even many of your own people have realized that Obama is pushing the power of his executive orders to the limit. The border patrol is outright complaining about the nonsense they're being told to do by the administration in contravention of their actual legal guidelines.

      JUST ONE example. And I'm not saying republicans don't do this crap too. But Obama is doing it to a greater extent than any president I can think of with the possible exception of FDR... and that guy literally threatened the Supreme Court that if they didn't approve what he wanted, he'd appoint more people to the court until by simple numbers his view over ruled them.

      So... not great company to be in really unless you want to go fight WW2 again.

      Point is, the system is so heavily politicized at this point that you can't cry foul anymore unless you're advocating for systematic reform.

      You can't just point at ONE thing someone does and say "that's wrong" because its ALL WRONG. The whole system is terminally fucked up and it is getting much worse much faster than it ever has before.

      Is Ted Cruz a dick for saying NASA is being used to push global warming stuff? No more so than Obama is a dick for making global warming NASA's number one priority. What exactly does that have to do with space exploration?

      And here someone will say "but nasa has the ability to launch weather sats!"... Which has nothing to do with anything because NASA could launch them while another department actually monitors that data.

      In which case, if Ted Cruz went after anything, he'd go after that institution rather then NASA.

      Again... there are no virgins here. Everyone is compromised. Everything is corrupted. Bitching about one thing without going for systematic reform is just going to serve as a tool for the other side to gain an advantage.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Price of politicizing science by bhlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NASA was established to get America into space and to keep us there. If you want to go to space, don't have the chief of NASA say the President said to focus on making Muslims feel good. If you want to go to space, you have to put a LOT of carbon into the atmosphere. If Obama cared about carbon, he wouldn't have flown to California on TWO 747's on the same day. Its all politics.

  4. Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Geez ...

    Don't you guys ever get tired of bashing Ted Cruz?

    This is Slashdot, not some liberal media outlet specially set up to beat up people who do not agree with the liberal ideology

    We are here to discuss science, not to bash up politicians just because they belong to so and so camp

    C'mon folks, wake the fuck up!

    We are beating each others to pulp on issues like abortions / police brutality / TSA at the airport while other countries are rapidly gaining grounds

    Wasting webspace and valuable time in beating each others up don't get us forward, man! Grow the fuck up, please !

    1. Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      nearly all anti-science people are Republicans

      Explain anti vaxxers

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re: Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NASA should worry more about space exploration,
      the FAA should focus on commercial aviation,
      the EPA should worry more about air quality,
      and the NWS should worry more about the climate.

      Just because something should be studied, doesn't mean every branch of government needs to be involved.

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by StevenMaurer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.

      You fundamentally fail to understand science, "sumdumass". No hypothesis is ever proven right in science. It simply offers testable hypotheses that would falsify it, and then when such discoveries are made, survives the new information unchanged. When a hypothesis survives enough of these attempts, scientists will call it a theory, and start to believe it to be true.

      The problem with the "God planted the dinosaur bones (and the light of the universe, and stratification in sediments, radioactive dating, and the tens of thousands of interlocking details that show us how long the earth has been around, etc., etc., etc.)" idea, is that it offers no falsifiable predictions. There is literally no fact that an adherent to one of these belief systems would accept as proof it is incorrect. All of these ideas stem from magical thinking, and so, in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, they're not only not right, they're "not even wrong".

      That is not science. And it is absurd to pretend as such.

      (Alas, your attitude is quite common among the religious right and a tiny sprinkling of the kook left, which is a big reason why politics is doing such a disservice to science.)

    4. Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The earth being less than 10,000 years old is not anti science.

      It's not even wrong.

    5. Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you realize that many of those California counties with the lowest vaccination rates are solidly GOP, compare your map with this one.

      In reality to settle it we'd need some serious cross tabs on questions that have never seemed to been asked together. However, I still remain confident that 80% is an gross exaggeration and I would win any bet on it.

    6. Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I don't agree with the OP, it does seem to be gratuitous bashing of Cruz. AFAIK what he's pointing out is that NASA was chartered to explore space (the NOAA, not NASA, was chartered to do climate research), and yet in my entire lifetime, apart from the 1970s-era Space Shuttle, the only thing of note they've managed to do in this area is launch a few remote/robot probes. Holy fsck, this is an organisation with an $18 billion/year budget that's done basically nothing to further getting mankind into space since the Apollo program ended over forty years ago. They've been busy dicking around with various expensive toys for the last several decades, cancelling one pie-in-the-sky project after another, and presumably will be relying on some of their huge budget to eventually rent room on Russian, or Chinese, or Indian, or whoever else gets there, missions to the moon or Mars.

      Looked at another way, if some pro-science senator came along and told them to get their s**t together, would there be such an outcry?

  5. Climate is not for NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    At the end of the day, the climate has been changing since inception. You can argue about man made climate change, but the facts are the planet has been far warmer and far colder than it is now.

    That being said, I like federal institutions from getting scope creep. Every government agency simply looks for more ways to get more control and funding. Look at how many agencies have domain over things such as salmon, peanuts, water, air, etc.

    NASA should be studying space. But agendas abound.

  6. NOAA by PPH · · Score: 1, Insightful

    telling NASA they should turn a blind eye to the environment of our own planet is insanity.

    Why? That's what NOAA is supposed to be doing. If I were elected philosopher-king of NASA, I'd be more then happy to tell the climatologists to take their politics next door. We'll be more then happy to put a satellite up for you. But that's about the extent of it.

    And then there's the USGS. And a bunch of other agencies all poking and prodding the planet. It's really starting to look like everyone is having their funding held up pending the publication of a pro-AGW study. And that's a part of what makes the associated politics stink like hell.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Can you please give us a fucking break?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... nearly all anti-science people are Republicans

    Not only what you have said is baseless, it's utterly bullshit, and you can't even begin to proof what you said!

    One thing that is very wrong with the Democrats is that they think that everybody else who do not agree with them are idiots --- while some Republicans occasionally do the same thing, --- the way Democrats are portraying themselves --- from Hillary down to that motherfucker that uttered the above quote --- as though they have all the answers and their answers can not be challeged

    1. Re:Can you please give us a fucking break?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No, wrong.

      the way Democrats are portraying themselves --- from Hillary down to that motherfucker that uttered the above quote --- as though they have all the answers and their answers can not be challeged

      The nature of science is not to have all the answers, but to *look for* answers. The best science starts off with the attitude of Socrates: "I don't know". The precise problem with Ted Cruz, and other anti-science politicians like him, is that he knows the answer, and doesn't want scientists looking for it. If he really believed climate change was not real, he would want to INCREASE NASA's budget, to find out the truth. The most despicable thing, transparent in his actions, is that he KNOWS the truth, he is baldly LYING about it, and he cares more about his personal glorification than he cares about the future of the country.

  8. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be fair, the EPA can pay NASA to launch/operate satellites.

  9. NASA got MORE budget than they asked for. by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Left out is the fact that NASA, under Cruz, got MORE budget than they had asked for. Yes he wants them to spend less time and effort on climatology, but it is a space agency after all, we already have NOAA... shouldn't it be NOAA doing that research? It LITERALLY has "atmospheric" in the name after all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Science by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the point isnt that NASA should not launch these satellites, its that it shouldnt come out of the NASA budget, it should come out of the other federal orgs

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  11. Re: Climate change is politics by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can sell off their jet and get rid of the entourage of SUVs.

    The cut off for the top 1% is an income of $34k.

    Or did you mean the top 1% of just the rich people that live in the first world, because that conveniently excludes yourself from the definition?

  12. Re: Climate change is politics by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, this is an American story about American politics, why should it not use an American point of view? After all, the 1% moniker is currently Amerislang for the rich, it has been used to describe truck drivers, the Hells Angels, and others in the past.

    If this were about European politics, I would expect a European viewpoint.

    If it were about World politics, then I could see this metric applied, maybe.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  13. Re: Climate change is politics by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "An insignificant amount of water is used by car washes."

    You're absolutely right. Even back in the 1970's when I worked for a carwash, we recycled something around 80% of our grey-water. And that was in Washington state with no water shortages (at that time....anyway). I would imagine it has improved significantly since that time.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  14. Re: Climate change is politics by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point of listing the statistic like that is to hopefully reveal that people who whine about 'inequality' are mainly just people who want more for themselves.

    If they truly cared about inequality and suffering in the world, they would care about suffering and inequality in the world.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. Re: Climate change is politics by jma05 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed. Going by cumulative CO2 emissions since industrialization, US + EU contributed the bulk of the load (US + EU - 51%, China - 9%, India – 3%). So, by the logic of DigiShaman logic, and I fully agree with it when taken in a nation-state sense, the bulk of the burden must be borne by wealthy elite: Citizens of US and EU.

  16. Re: Climate change is politics by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only if you pretend that the cost of living is the same everywhere.

  17. Re: Climate change is politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    That's socialists for you. Anybody richer than them is too rich and should be pulled back down.