Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On 'Politicized Science' (theguardian.com)

dryriver quotes a report from The Guardian: Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on "politicized science," his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said. Nasa's Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. This would mean the elimination of NASA's world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. [NASA's network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division's budget set to grow to $2 billion (PDF) next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8 billion in 2017.] Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be "a major setback if not devastating." "It could put us back into the 'dark ages' of almost the pre-satellite era," he said. "It would be extremely short sighted."

Comments

Re:HAHAHAH

[saloomy]

You do realize that most of what you posted is a lie, right? Of course you do. Lying is what you do.

You lost your argument right there. If you can't have civilized debate, go back to school and try out for debate club. Maybe then you'll understand that not everyone who conforms to you narrow-minded world views is trying to pull a fast one on you. What do I really even care about what you think anyway? I'm expressing my opinion on how our government spends our money.

But, lets pretend I do care, and I'm trying to convince you. Lets start:
Source: Geologic Temperature Record

The earth has been cooler for the entire period during which anything resembling human beings evolved.

No. Our branch of life flourished since just after the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (aka K-Pg Boundary). Thats when mammals developed into the variety they are today, and most of which was much more temperate than really recent temperatures (geologically speaking).

Antarctica wasn't in its current position when it was warmer than it is now.

Not as cold as it is now, which is ridiculously cold. From Wikipedia (again):

Africa separated from Antarctica in the Jurassic, around 160 Ma, followed by the Indian subcontinent in the early Cretaceous (about 125 Ma). By the end of the Cretaceous, about 66 Ma, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a subtropical climate and flora, complete with a marsupial fauna.[52] In the Eocene epoch, about 40 Ma Australia-New Guinea separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. During the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago, CO2 levels have been found to be about 760 ppm[53] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm.

And, without human carbon releases the planet maintains a relatively temperate climate over long periods of time through the action of the carbonate-silicate cycle.

Long being relative.

Of course when you dig up half a billion years worth of stored organic carbon and burn in in a century, the carbonate-silicate cycle ain't gonna fix that.

And of course, continuing to release more CO2, that's your fault, not mine.

How is that more my fault than yours? You live in the same culture as I do. You work on the same computers I do, have the environmental footprint that I do, and so on and so fourth (probably more so, since my work and home are solar powered, and my vehicle is electric). You eat the same food, which comes from the same farms, and drink water piped over the same infrastructure, powered by the same machines, built by the same machines. Don't get all holier than thou on me.

NASA is doing climate research because 4 decades of political leaders decided NASA should be doing climate research.

This is what I disagree with. Not that we are funding climate research, but that NASA should be focused, and we should have a vibrant and progressive space program. NASA is losing ground. We retired the Shuttles, we haven't done anything but LEO manned spaceflight since the 70's, and the number of humans to walk on another celestial body is decreasing, not increasing. All that is thanks to 40 years of mismanagement, lack of direction, and a terrible lack of focus.

If you are deluded enough to think Trump is just going to move things around to NOAA rather than eliminating inconvenient research, you deserve what you get.

I'm not deluded enough to think that, since it says so right there in TFS. I don't think that another 20 years of $2B research is going to solve anything, certainly not going t

Re:Quit blowing smoke!

[mvdwege]

You forget that if you tell the Breitbart crowd that's now infesting Slashdot that they are wrong, they will go to any lenght to beat you down so they can turn this into another wingnut safe space.