GOP to NASA: Forget Climate Science, Focus on Space

>But ProPublica senior reporter Andrew Revkin in an interview with NPR said that NOAA might not be as well equipped to study climate change.

>"If they say—well, we're just going to shift [climate science] over to, let's say, NOAA, the oceanic and atmospheric administration, that doesn't really work well because NOAA doesn't necessarily have the skill sets to do some of the work that would be easier done at NASA," he added.

>Additionally, he highlighted how one of biggest proponents of scrapping NASA's climate science program is actually a lobbyist for rocket companies.

>"There was someone who was part of the Trump campaign who was pushing for, you know, moving all this climate science out of NASA—that doesn't need to happen there—and making sure NASA's focused on its missions to other planets and back to the moon or that kind of thing," Revkin said. "And of course, he is a lobbyist for companies that build rockets and stuff then."
...

>The GOP has previously waged war with NASA's research on our home planet. In 2015 and in 2016, Congressional Republicans sought deep cuts to climate research while favoring space exploration instead.

>Former Republican Rep. Bob Walker, who is a senior Trump advisor has been actively involved in deliberating the administration's space policy. Walker told the Guardian in November that NASA's earth science program amounts to "politically correct environmental monitoring."

>"We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," he added. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."

>There are many reasons why de-funding NASA's climate change science would be a major mistake. As James Dyke at The Conversation pointed out, NASA organizations such as the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Jet Propulsion Laboratory have made significant contributions to our understanding of how humans are changing the Earth's climate.

>NASA also has more than a dozen satellites that orbit the Earth and remotely sense ocean, land and atmospheric conditions. Its research encompasses solar activity, sea level rise, the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, the ozone layer, air pollution, and changes in sea and land ice.

>Despite the Republicans and the Trump administration's seemingly hostile feelings about the established science of climate change, NASA has been frequently posting tweets about the topic on its Twitter page.

>>113775
Fucking finally.

The world has PLENTY of scientific research groups studying climate change. There's groups in Europe, Australia, even others in the US.

How about NASA does what it's supposed to and research fucking space?

>>113789
Somehow I doubt the Trump administration is going to pull funding from one science department to a different one. Prepare for government science to become non existent

>>113775
If they're actually being honest about wanting to get NASA to focus more on space exploration I wouldn't be averse to that. But these are politicians we're talking about.

We already know global warming is happening. So can NASA just please fuck off and focus on looking for ayy lmaos

>>113795
>focus on looking for ayy lmaos

SETI is not eligible for federal funding.

>>113793
>Prepare for government science to become non existent

So because Trump isn't going to pull funding from NASA and give it to a group studying climate change, and instead NASA is being told to put it to space science, we're going to have government science become non-existent because NASA isn't a government agency anymore and therefore their science isn't government science?

>"There was someone who was part of the Trump campaign who was pushing for, you know, moving all this climate science out of NASA—that doesn't need to happen there—and making sure NASA's focused on its missions to other planets and back to the moon or that kind of thing," Revkin said. "And of course, he is a lobbyist for companies that build rockets and stuff then."

Who cares what the fucker builds, at least he's not the cocksucker ignoring HIS FUCKING JOB to focus on his fucking feel-goods. The S in NASA stands for SPACE you chucklefuck. Do your fucking job and send humanity to space.

>>113775
USA. They can't feed their children but they can keep wasting money on space on the public dole.

>>113793
Your opinion is really valuable.

Please tell us every thing else you learned about republicans watching comedy central.

>>113853
More than what you learn about liberals from Breitbart and Infowars

aaaaaaaaye even Trump realized this planet is too far gone to be saved

>>113857
>no u
There isn't a lot to learn. For instance, you just used the liberal most favorite insult. You lack originality, and cannot acquire it without growing out of preschool philosophy.

Please keep posting so I may point out more of your sheeplike qualities.

Conservatives simply cannot be understood so easily.

finally, something good happen in America, we are on track to greatness. Space is the future and America is leading it. Does anyone talks about OP rather than bashing each other?

>>113775
GOP to Science: Please stop.. fire scare Frankenstein!

>>113865
>Complains about originality
>Practically uses the term "sheeple"

Kek

>>113888
>no u are unoriginal

You see? He did it again! Hahaha

>>113890
Lol

>>113793
Good. Public funds should not be going towards science. If people want to invest in science, let them do so privately, in a free market place of ideas.

All those billions of dollars and research time wasted creating computer models that can't even retrodict, let alone predict, and that don't include the wind, volcanoes, ocean oscillations, El Nino or even the fucking SUN.

Meanwhile, we can't have the space exploration our fucking GRANDPARENTS had because NASA's job is to a) provide "evidence" to back up the government's desire to tax the fucking air and b) reach out to muslims to make them feel good about their contributions to science.

I'm utterly amazed that space exploration and real science seem to be under better guidance with fucking Trump, of all people, at the helm. Un-fucking-real.

>>113939
yeah
#makeNASAbuildsomerocketsforafuckingchange

>>113789
You might think that but there is actually surprisingly little overlap between NASA and NOAA do in terms of climate research. And none of this work focuses on global warming specifically but they still get most of the data. There is also some significant benefit to be gained from studying the climate of other planets and more local climate under the same roof and this benefit cuts both ways.

If it helps. consider that Satellite aren't bought off the shelf, and that NASA folks are the best to do the first-line interpretation of the data, calibrating the sensors, developing new technologies that have to work in orbit, etc.

>>113881
>Do this science that nobody is doing instead of that science everyone is doing

>HA REPOOBLICUNTS HATE SIANS!

Fuck off. Just fuck off. Over a cliff. Dick in hand, masturbating as you plummet into the sea. You add nothing.

Liberals don't unserstand that pushing for space exploration in the past has lead to some significant advances in technology. New technology can improve our everyday lives and even our stance on the environment. Dumping billions into a research fund that is based entirely off of partisonship has weakened our grip on the technological race so some scientist can sit around and say thay humans are destroying the planet while making little to no progress on stoping said damage from being done. Automakers have done far more that said scientist have accomplished to reduce emissions. Its a scandal where a handful of scientist sell misinformation to politicians to fear monger everyone into not protesting against all the tax money that goes towards their pockets and its been happening forever. If you are willing to not question the legitimacy of this political scam, then you probaly don't care about if the sources for climate change are real or not because I have news, scientist can be wrong and lie as well.

>>113902
>lets privatize knowledge
howboutno.jpg

>>114091
Please learn how to write in English with proper grammar and spelling. This board uses English. I sense that you went to high school as you appear to know how to use the internet. However, if you honestly believe that climate change is simply a political argument and not scientific, then improve your use of English and, perhaps, you will convince others.

Accept my apologies if English is not your native tongue.

>>114109
>i like big government

Cool opinion

>>114120
Wow this shaming tactic really convinced me to be a communist.

>>114129
Whoa there Joe McCarthy. Not everyone who is to the left of you is a communist.

>>114156
No, but they're Pro-Nanny States.

>>113865
>also adding nothing to the conversation
>us conservatives are speshul and deep, you liberals are not!!!

>>114177
>>also adding nothing to the conversation
...
>us conservatives are speshul and deep, you liberals are not!!!
Correct.

Conservatism = liberty = life

Leftism = social engineerinng = death

>>114192

Conservatism = liberty = Screaming death

Leftism = social engineerinng = Silent death

I suppose if you have to choose, screaming is much more interesting.

>>114192
Jesus Christ was a liberal jew

>>114120

>Climate change isn't political because your grammar sucks!

How profound. I'm guessing that you'll call me Hitler next.

>>113789
This is why NASA is going to get out played by private space corporations like SPACEX. The fact that they hyped up a huge announcement and its basically weather channel tier maps is pretty disappointing.

>>114209
Oh so youre a revolutionary

Thats SOOO interesting

>>114215
The good kind. Are you some kind of antisemite?

>>114091
NASA did not begin conducting climate research until Ronald Reagan directed it to do so using a separate earth science fund.

>>113801
Well fuck you the A stands for Aeronautics..

>>114167
Term your looking for is statists, and statists are inherently authoritarian.

>>114309
No, he meant totalitarianism.

>>114316
The political right is inherently totalitarian in the US, however.
Right wing ideology values preservation of Christianity in American culture, where religions like Christianity provide the most extreme sort of totalitarian worldview.
The political right also questions the necessity of free press and free expression, the ultimate sort of totalitarian policy short of directly controlling thoughts is one that limits both press and expression.
Over history, the right was also responsible for defending the institution of slavery against emancipation efforts of liberals.

Yesssss

>>114331
Haha

>>114331
So liberals were republicans? and christians are totalitarian?

ugh, fail....

>>114331
You do realize that the republicans and democrats switch stance on certain issues in the past century; it's just that now they're both pro-free market above all else (thus they became neo-conservatives/liberals).

On the other hand, Environmentalists are anti-free market by nature.

>>114377
>So liberals were republicans?

It's almost as if a party's ideals can change over time.

>>114346
>>114377
Yeah, it is funny. Lincoln was a Republican and, for a time, he saved the nation. Now the GOP has Rick Perry and Donald Trump, reality tv stars. (And Mr. Unreality, Alex Jones, to bring up the rear . ..). It is pretty funny, what has happened to the Republican brand.

>>114397
>It is pretty funny, what has happened to the Republican brand.
Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush family destroyed it.... or more accurately, the neocons whom those presidents' appointed and elevated to positions of power destroyed it; Men like Dick Cheney and Casper Weinberger, Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.

>>114387
>republicans and democrats switch stance on certain issues
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?

NO. ITS A DEMOCRAT MYTH.

>>114397
Nothing changed. Donald Trump will do more for blacks than hillary ever could, but you psychos will call him racist all the way.

This is what democrats do. This is how "the big switch" bevame common knowledge.

This is a testimony to the nature of democrats.

>>114424
>>114426
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

>>114428
>im super serious guys
>the republican party was formed to abolish slavery BUT AFTER THAT THEY BECAME RACISTS LOL

>>114430
lern2history. The democrats *used to be* the party of states' rights. That changes when the Dixiecrats became Republicans.

>>114431
>lern2history

Let me guess you also think Washington chopped down a cherry tree.

Read a real book pussy

>>114435
>You start out in 1954, by saying nigger, nigger, nigger. By 1968, you can’t say nigger, that hurts you, back-fires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights, and all that stuff and you’re getting so abstract. Now you’re talking about cutting taxes. We want to cut this is much more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than nigger, nigger.

>>114426
Ha ha. Mr. Bannon will do as little as possible that is beneficial for anyone of colour. And the Republicans will likely get rid of him eventually. Trump is just his empty vessel who, of course, has a long history of racism.

>>113865
Ironic shit posting is still shit posting

>>114461
Can't stand these meme spammers

Try having an original thought, its cool.

>>113775
if they can give NASA funding for FTL so we can get the fuck off of this doomed fucking planet then I'll forgive the GOP this fucking once.

But how are you going to prevent something like global climate change with the free market?

I don't trust the average consumer to educate themselves and make purchases and sacrifices that are conscious of risks with hazards that may come to fruition on a scale beyond their lifetime. Especially in an environment with so many conflicts of interests in the parties doing the informing of the public.

Sometimes the more educated and intelligent and honest among us have to dictate spending habits to the rest. I know it's not maximum freedom today but that's how investments work. They have costs in the present and returns in the future. If the consequences of significantly mitigating risk of planetary disaster for our future generations are some people having some money taken from them and spent by others, I guess that might be against some peoples' principles but in balance of things I can live with myself, considering the stakes. You can claim that makes me a totalitarian with a hitler complex if you want. We're so willing to justify virtually any loss of freedom in the name of national security; maybe we can be at least equally concerned about the security of the biosphere, since our nation does exist within it.

>>114581
>But how are you going to prevent something like global climate change with the free market?

What climate change? Natural or did somebody prove man-made climate change?

How do we prevent it with the free market or otherwise?

Why should we prevent it? I don't want to enter an ice age like The Earth normally does.


Most importantly: what gives you the moral right to assume control over other human lives? Self righteous asshole.

>>114587
>Most importantly: what gives you the moral right to assume control over other human lives? Self righteous asshole.
Like you rather be under the rule of a criminal corporation that enslave their workers as opposed to a set of rules that make sure no tyrants ever exists.

>>114581
>But how are you going to prevent something like global climate change with the free market?
Free Market is a scam created by wealthy individuals to rob humanity of their rights so that they can enslave them for all eternity.

>>114587
Not an ice age, idiot. You will burn up, drown, or starve. Unless you are wealthy, you or your family will be forced to move to higher elevation or some other location that has less extreme weather. If you are wealthy, you could go under ground or, in the future, to outer space. (That’s where NASA comes in.)

>>113939
Why is this suprising? Bush wanted to go full Kennedy and take us to Mars.

The people who hold us back NASA space dollars are conservatives who want private industry to do everything and people with "our earth problems first" mentality.

>>114603
I'd rather all forms of tyranny fuck off.

So go on now. Shoo.

>>114613
Another commie? And you don't know about our planet's regular ice ages?

Fuck off ese

>>114615
Not all authoritarian is a commie, otherwise your mother and father are communist for restraining you during your child hood.

Everyone need order in their lives, otherwise it'll be chaos.

>>114641
Only a commie would have such contempt for the family unit.

Or do you think equating my family with communism will cause me like your shitty ideology?

Weak.

I don't need order. I need liberty.

>>114331
I'm sure you find it deeply ironic, then, that the modern left is embracing these same policies more and more as time goes on, albeit switching out Christianity with their own brand of dogma, i.e. political correctness gone berserk. Anyone who questions it is branded as a heretic. Witch hunts ensue. The right to free speech is questioned, or even straight up lambasted, on the basis that it could hurt someone's feefees or because of this bizarre notion that it's somehow the tool of the oppressor rather than that of the oppressed. You talk about thought control, but denying other people the right to even hear another side to things (see all of the college protests that have gone down in the last few years, the pulled fire alarms, and now at least one fucking campus riot) is the big rancid turd that the left shat out. This shit is authoritarianism at its worst.

I once had a history professor say with a straight face that fascism could only arise out of conservatism. And you know what? Maybe by the most stringent definition of the term (basically fascism infused with obsessions over racial purity) that's true. But if he was trying to suggest that totalitarianism is equivalent here, he was dead fucking wrong. Remember how Soviet Russia started out? Mao's China, maybe? Half a dozen other communist states? Brave liberal principles that would lead people into a shining utopia. And every single one of them devolved into totalitarian disappointments.

tl;dr Only partisan idiots think any one side has a monopoly on this shit.

>>114581
A command economy is a retarded concept and we know this because it's already been tried again and again and again.

1) It can't respond nearly as quickly or efficiently as a fee market. Part of the reason the U.S. won the space race is because our economy could shoulder the same strain that broke the Soviets' collective back. Which leads to our next point:

2) It's a sucker's game so long as someone else doesn't play ball. No matter how hard they tried to keep up, the U.S.S.R and Red China's manual resource management schemes couldn't deal with all the little nuances that come with functional economics, nor could it match overall Western standards of living. Part of that was because:

3) There is no guarantee that the people doing the managing actually know how to manage shit. Look at the Soviet famines that went down in part because "lol genetics is Western meme" and "incentives are for traitors to glorious state." Look at Mao's Great Leap Forward. Look at fucking Pol Pot.

Economies should absolutely have regulation to reign in greedy robber barons, apathetic polluters, and the like. The industrial revolution proved that very nicely. But tossing out free markets is the move of an idiot.

>>114656

The majority of space race accomplishments were Soviet, especially the earliest, most important ones. 16 more astronauts died in space than cosmonauts. The moon becoming a capitalist satellite wasn't simply due to economic strain.

The space race was just the pleasant propaganda factor of the missile race, and if the finish line is considered total destruction of a country, both participants were jogging well past it.

The USA enjoyed reaping the benefits of slavery, the gold rush, and never facing an existential threat or having powerful neighbors. It didn't suffer at all in the destruction of Nazism, but rather purely profited. That's a part of it too.

Of course a free market is the way to go. But you didn't actually answer what the guy you replied to asked. Neither the free market nor communism inherently protect the environment and prevent extinction of vulnerable animals.

>>114659

>But you didn't actually answer what the guy you replied to asked.

Who cares? Its a loaded question.

>>114659
>The majority of space race accomplishments were Soviet, especially the earliest, most important ones.
aka the Soviets burnt out early. Their accomplishments in that area were solid but they weren't able to keep up and the U.S. eventually pulled ahead. The Soviets also had to cut corners to keep their lead, and the U.S. ended up making a lot of very necessary improvements. A lot of the Soviet methods were pretty wasteful, essentially boiling down to scattershots and Hail Marys that, while providing useful data with every rocket that went up in flames, also bled their space effort dry. Ultimately, once laid out, the U.S. groundwork made for a much better chance of making the moonshot.

>16 more astronauts died in space than cosmonauts
All of which happened after the space race had wrapped up, specifically due to space shuttle failures. All the space-related deaths during the space race were Soviet.

>The space race was just the pleasant propaganda factor of the missile race
Started out that way with Sputnik but quickly spiraled into a theatre of ideological warfare. In an age defined by allegiance of proxy states falling on either side of the Capitalist vs Communist divide, planting the flag on the moon became the ultimate decider for Best Potential Ally. The Soviets couldn't cut it and it shook them hard enough for the cracks to set in.

>The USA enjoyed reaping the benefits of slavery, the gold rush, and never facing an existential threat or having powerful neighbors. It didn't suffer at all in the destruction of Nazism, but rather purely profited. That's a part of it too.

I agree that the geopolitical factor is a very strong one. I'll also point out that Western Europe did a hell of a lot better than any of the Soviet states (albeit propped up by the U.S., though that also means acknowledging they'd have been swallowed up by the Soviets otherwise, though through sheer strength of numbers rather than economic merit).

(cont.)

>>114674
>Of course a free market is the way to go. But you didn't actually answer what the guy you replied to asked. Neither the free market nor communism inherently protect the environment and prevent extinction of vulnerable animals.

The closest you're going to get to that goal is with a regulated free market. The previous administration's love affair with renewables is paying off in a big way as they've become more economically viable. Now free market forces are taking over and pushing them ahead over coal and oil. Meanwhile, cloning is becoming easier. Harvard is looking to resurrect mammoths within two years' time. Think about the implications for currently endangered or soon-to-be-extinct species. The tech might have to be fostered with non-market forces, but it'll only make a difference in a free market where the buyers care about that shit.

>>113775
>Republitards "Forget Climate Science, Focus on Space"
>NASA "Earth is a planet in Space"
Nasa 1
Republitards 0

Checkmate.

>>114701
>All funding to nasa cut and nasa disbanded

Not Another Stupid Acronym: btfo
Trump: 1000000

>>114910

And all the top American scientists and engineers move to Europe or Japan/RoK for ESA/ESF or similar programs that aren't at the whim of an entire party of science-denialists.

>>114942
Isn't that already happening?

>>114942
ha ha
fucking this
but after 4 years americans wil probably cry for them to come back after theyrealize only brainlets and methheads and niggers with guns areleft in the country.
still a shame tho

>>113865
>There isn't a lot to learn.

Go be stupid in /pol/.

>>113852
>wasting money on space

Space is where our future will be, so it's more important than most other science avenues.