Why is this allowed?

>>8630438
Why wouldn't it be allowed?

>>8630438
as long as these people are tweeting outside of work, and they aren't in any position of authority within nasa, there isn't any problem with it. If it's the deputy director or something, then that'd be a problem and merit the firing of said employee.

>>8630448
Because only commy socialist cucks question the actions of their leaders.

>>8630465
I thought it was smart to do things that weren't illegal but frowned upon?
I thought cucks described those subservient to their bulls and this act is the polar opposite?

>>8630438
>Unofficial NASA acccount

>Scientist resisting that studies undergo mandatory reviews by POLITICAL parties
>Bad

>>8630518
I agree, a cursory review through a non-biased lense shouldn't be considered anti-science. It's anti-agenda and that is why they are "mad". But we know this is probably not a nasa employee and certainly not a nasa scientist.

>>8630461
They should put disclaimers or they can be fined and even jailed.

>>8630438
1st amendment

/thread

>>8630438
because liberal chimpouts show their true colors

>>8630438
leftists had 24 years of constant appeasement, 8 from clinton, 8 from bush and 8 from king nigger, so now seeing their world shatter is driving them mad.

>>8630438
So what happens if the politicals don't like what the study reveals?

>>8630566
1st amendment doesn't give you the right to impersonate a federal agency, those accounts should be reported

>>8630542
>certainly not a nasa scientist
Yup, they all have signed their NDAs.
>>8630566
The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech because it does not agree with the message. Nowhere does it say your freedom of speech cannot be confined to your basement. As long as you whisper.
"You are reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest. We appreciate your cooperation." -- Airport announcement

>>8630903
Find one person who actually thinks its run by the government

File: 1485381570420.png (721KB, 932x649px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 932x649px

>>8630448
Because a government agency shouldn't badmouth the head of state unless it is law enforcement and it is related to criminal charges against the person.

Also if you don't want science to be a partisan issue, don't make it one.

File: 1485381599745.png (583KB, 797x547px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 797x547px

Those agencies got into the ring and now whine they lost.

>>8630915
they are using the official logos so it's a gray area
it's like dressing as an leo for halloween, it's legal in some places and illegal in others

File: SYkavTB.png (620KB, 504x600px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 504x600px

>>8630893
>>8630877
>>8630555

>>8630461
The problem is, despite saying "unofficial", they use the NASA logo and claim to be people in NASA, who represent NASA's *real* view, as opposed to what they're forced to say by the evil tyrant Donald Trump.

It's a misrepresentation. Even if they do work at NASA, their personal opinions don't represent the whole agency, which is made up of thousands of people. In any case, they have no right to use the NASA name and logo this way.

It should be shut down.

>>8630925
Its literrally called rogue.
If you think rogue means government sanctioned science, you deserve to be euthenized

>>8630438
For the last 50 years, scientists have been getting funded and paid for by the state for regurgitating the same fucking research papers that lead to no results. The only innovation and development has occurred in the private sector, where R&D is exclusively focused on the interests of the market.

>>8630937
and you should pick up a dictionery

>>8630465
>commy socialist cucks
Excellent satire.

#scidoesitbetter

>>8630943
I find it weird how many non-researchers hang out on /sci/. I just don't get how someone who supposedly likes science can have such a shitty view of it/an inaccurate view.
If you go to a couple labs, learn some shit, you'll realize quite quickly that most labs are doing stuff you've never even heard of.

t. current machine vision researcher

>>8630925
You should form a 'Right Wing IP Squad' to grass on people using logos without permission.

>>8630956
>you'll realize quite quickly that most labs are doing stuff you've never even heard of.
because it has a minuscule impact.

>>8630956
Mate, if you ever worked in a lab, you'd realize that every person working in them is a glorified prostitute prone on the ground begging for funding and sucking any dick they can find. There is absolutely no dignity in being a researcher.

>>8630964
More likely that the breakthroughs are better publicised when funded by a charity.

You can't trust just what you've heard of as an accurate sample.

>>8630964
So all government-funded science in the us for the past 50 years is bullshit because you don't understand it?
Hilarious

>>8630438
SpaceX just got ten times the subsidies

Is /pol/tardation incompatible with rational thought?

>>8630987
That question is worth it's own thread.

>>8630916
We've never had a head of state who publicly shitposted about vaccines causing autism.

>>8630981
SpaceX doesn't replace NASA

>>8630916
This

>>8631001
A head of state with the maturity level of getting in twitter wars with people he dislikes or giving a speech where he says the government will "bomb the shit out of" our enemies will not inspire an atmosphere of respect.

>wah wah dey makin fun of my Pwesident!

/pol/tards really are childish hypocrites.

File: a5b887d8084366a7507370f5e6ed1e71.jpg (39KB, 374x347px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 374x347px

>this isn't a partisan or political issue
>btw fuck that nazi Trump

SpaceX can launch 55 tons into LEO for $65 million by 2018
Blue Origin can launch 70 tons into LEO for $90 million by 2020
NASA can launch 70 tons into LEO for $500 million by 2026

Clearly only a fascist who hates science would pick anybody except for the brave American heroes at NASA

>>8630987
>>8630988
>replying to yourself
kill yourself

>>8630979
So you're arguing against a claim that was never made?
Hilarious

>>8631080

>finding the most cost effective design after 60 years of Nasa demonstrating how to shoot rockets.

>>8630438
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAINST GODKING TRUMP

>>8631075
>politicize an issue
>"you have politicized this issue"
>LOL POLITICIZING ISSUES MUCH??

>>8630916

You're making a large, presumed assumption in agents shouldn't badmouth the head of state. The head of state serves the people, not the other way around.

File: 65401850.jpg (110KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 400x400px

In most basic terms, when lines of communication break down between 2 groups with different views, then those 2 groups move on to the next lower method of solving their dispute. Continuing this pattern till they reach the absolute lowest possible form of solving disputes, violence and war.

The fact that Trump is the one breaking the lines of communication, both by putting a gag order on all scientists and pretty much calling them lairs on everything he disagrees with on principal, puts him squarely to blame for what scientists are doing. The fact that scientists aren't resorting to violence and war just shows that they're more intelligent/clever than those who would do so. However, the more Trump forces the issue, the more he tries to subjugate and suppress, the more he'll force people to resort to the final form of arbitration, violence & war.

File: civil war.jpg (39KB, 300x173px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x173px

>>8631103
fuck
not again

>>8630935
Ya i am sure that the Scientists in nasa are stocked on trump

>>8631103
additionally....

by forcing the lines of communication to stay open, like with OP's pic >>8630438 they are delaying the process of arbitration devolving into it's lowest common denominator. In short, Rogue NASA may very well be preventing violence and saving peoples lives.

>>8630935
I'd like to see him try to shut down NASA actually. It's probably the fastest way for him to get shut down.

The coolest thing about all this is that we're not going down without a fight.

>>8631103
Drop some sick Harry Potter references on me next

Isn't Trump totally Voldemort and NASA is literally Gryffindor?

>>8631118
>we're not going down without a fight.
NASA gonna do the Asteroid Redirect Mission to redirect an asteroid into the white house?

>>8630997
>SpaceX doesn't replace NASA
It replaces MSFC. And JPL doesn't need NASA, they just need funding.

NASA can be cut down to almost nothing without affecting its performance in space exploration.

File: Sio-Bibble.jpg (116KB, 1060x655px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1060x655px

>>8631103
A communication disruption can mean only one thing!

>>8631118
>I'd like to see him try to shut down NASA actually.
Not a bad idea: >>8631122

JPL is not NASA. SpaceX is not NASA. NASA can go, and won't be missed.

>It's probably the fastest way for him to get shut down.
>- Increasingly Nervous Man

File: Solo.jpg (72KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 323x323px

>>8631122
>>8631155
>brainlets who think that NASA only does space exploration

>>8631157
Yes, we know. NASA doesn't do space exploration, which is the only thing we want it for. They pass through a small fraction of their budget to JPL, which does enough space exploration so NASA can take credit and pretend to still do space exploration to keep a good public reputation.

NASA does boondoggles and climate propaganda. They can go and won't be missed.

>>8630465
>commy socialists cucks question their leaders

I thought the problem with communism was that you weren't allowed to question leaders. Gulags, etc.

>>8630935
Well let's ask the thousands of people at NASA what they think.

Oh right, Trump forced an executive order preventing them from speaking.

I'm sure they love that.

>>8631180
Alt facts and alt history

>>8631119
NASA is Ravenclaw. Trump is Cornelius Fudge.

>>8631167
You think the people at JPL have any more respect for Trump than NASA?

>>8630465

>Because only commy socialist cucks question the actions of their leaders.

But not Obama right, /pol/tard?

>>8631201
i believe the man was being sarcastic. why you hate science though /pol/? is it because facts don't line up with world view.

>>8631204
Trump has a low IQ. To lower the IQ of his opposition he goads them and turns them into angry emotional n irrational people. Its why he loves to be hated n loves to troll. His power to troll is why /pol/ loves him. Its no accident that he trolls so much.

Scientists however are immune to his tactics, as maintaining rational objective thought is what they're trained to do. This makes scientists Trumps most dangerous enemy, and is why he's working so hard to destroy them.

>>8631237
>>>/pol/

Relevant:
https://securedrop.org/directory

File: file.png (90KB, 287x427px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 287x427px

>>8630925
Looks like they just changed it.

>>8631297
Also note they have clarified they are not government employees.

>>8631297
>>8631304
https://twitter.com/RogueNASA/status/824600365651857409
https://twitter.com/RogueNASA/status/824601637155180544
https://twitter.com/RogueNASA/status/824602138303234049

>>8630438
Because the US head of state is weak and his followers and base of political power are also weak and won't be in power long because their bullshit is shallow af?

>>8631196
I neither know nor care about the political opinions of the people at JPL.

What I do know is that JPL does competent (if not particularly cost-effective) work, and has been responsible (along with a couple other academic research programs, which have been considerably less active) for basically all space exploration credited to "NASA" since the end of the Apollo Program.

What Trump's currently fighting against is an entrenched force of leftist infiltrators, who don't do good work and abuse their positions to bring in and promote more of their kind, and to further the left's politics. They say insane things, like that NASA's highest priority should be "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations".

They're not there to do their job, they're there to collect paycheques and push agendas that are hostile to the American mainstream.

Every one of them needs to lose that position, to lose their opportunities to abuse it and to lose the income and prestige that rewards their bad-faith actions. It's not about removing people for having certain political positions, it's about removing political actors from non-political positions.

It's not that they're being targeted because their politics are on the left, it's that infiltration and abuse of position are leftist tactics.

>>8630438
>unofficial
who cares
sage

>>8631342
Not knowing scientific communities are the best to dispel religious falsehoods.
>back to /pol

File: hmm.png (23KB, 582x165px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 582x165px

What did they mean by this?

>>8631526

That only PhD have real correct opinions and everyone else is just stupid.

>>8630438
>uncovering science political bias and lobbying bias

I'm all for it. Science needs transparency. All experiments need to be performed many times by many people around the world before it becomes empirical; instead of just reviewing their methods and agreeing.

>>8631534
Opinions are great and all, but your opinion on the future of earth's atmosphere doesn't matter for dogshit compared to that of someone who spent decades of their life studying it

File: numale scientists-landing-page-img.jpg (161KB, 950x499px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 950x499px

>>8631559
I'll study & research and tell you anything you want me to say if you pay me enough for my research.

t. human

>>8631559
>out-of-touch academics should be the premier policy makers for society

>>8631574
Did I say anything about policy? I don't think scientists should make policy. They should be free to do their research without a politician telling them it's wrong because his stupid ass doesn't understand it and thinks it will cost him money.
What is happening here is censorship of the truth based on politics. The scientists were never making policies in the first place, and nobody itt asserted that they should.

>>8631587
>government decides they want to take a look and have a say in how/whether to publish the research they fund
>wtf censorship
do research with your own money then, or get funded by some private institution if you think your research is important, motherfucker
"climate science" is a fucking meme and government should not be funding it

File: 1482867424112.gif (428KB, 226x200px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 226x200px

>>8631419
I'll go to pol if you can come up with a competent argument, faggot.

>>8631591
>climate science is a meme
Is the climate itself also a chinese conspiracy
Nigger do you think this is unicornology or some shit

>>8631605
if it's important then find someone else to fund it

>>8630909
You think airport announcements restricting speech in an airport is a limit on free speech?
Are you being intentionally retarded?

>>8630971
How is dignity at all related to the discussion? I find it hard to believe you worked in *any* lab but are still this dumb.

>>8631587
>They should be free to do their research without a politician telling them it's wrong

Scientists give that up the second they take taxpayer funds. The hubris of these technocrats is really what chaps my ass. They forget who they work for, and after being funded for so long, they feel entitled.

>censorship of the truth

This kind of hyperbole is a good example of that entitlement.

>>8631614
It doesn't turn a profit, nobody else is going to spend money on it
>the firr department is important enough that people will just keep it running on their own, stop wasting muh taxpayer dollars

>>8631647
>the firr department is important enough that people will just keep it running on their ow

uhh, that actually happens quite a bit

>>8630438
I agree, the Ministry of Truth is the only reliable source of information. What the Trump Administration approves for release is what is absolutely true. The media needs to keep its mouth shut/

>>8631668
*ministry of alternative facts

>>8631676
MiniAF vs. MiniTrue, which sounds better?

>muh truth

That's a good one coming from "liberal"s.

>>8631695
Facts are wholly non-partisan. When you get to a point, a fork in road, where your choices are follow the facts or follow the ideology (which, surprisingly, is a powerful sealant for cracks in narratives), if you don't choose the former you surrender your agency to the whims of those authoring the message.

>>8631697

Your feels don't conjure facts.

>>8631701
You're absolutely correct. We're not talking about feelings. If I came to you and told you that the Earth is stationary, and the Sun and all the other planets revolve around it, would how passionately I argued this point to you have any bearing on the truth of my claim? No.

>>8631697
>Facts are wholly non-partisan.
So you figure government research agencies, welfare agencies, immigration-related agencies, law enforcement, national parks, etc. should be constantly shouting from the rooftops the facts about genetic differences in intelligence and aggression between the races?

Or are only some facts wholly non-partisan?

Anyway, there are plenty of ways to state facts in a partisan way. For instance, you can report constantly about every time a Democrat does something rude, stupid, or illegal, and never report when Republicans do the same thing. Or you can report every bad weather event next to a comment about heat pollution from nuclear reactors or the albedo-darkening effect of installing solar panels or agriculture and the trends of these things increasing over time.

On top of that are "facts" that are actually judgements or products of a model. For instance, "historical global temperatures" are educated guesses, not facts, and the annointed guessers often went to their task with strong convictions about what climate policy should be and what findings would generate pressure toward it. Even the current global surface temperature is a complicated abstraction which can only be estimated according to a model. It's not simply a hard fact like a temperature reading at a certain time and place taken by a certain instrument.

When do we shut down chemistry and physics funding? I'm tired of paying money to hear about bullshit like water is 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen or how an atom has an electron, proton, and neutron. Literally how is this ever going to make me money, if they want funding they can go elsewhere. Besides we all know the only real elements are fire, water, earth and air. I'm fucking fed up with this libcuck propaganda the media is always lying about.

>>8631735
I'll take it you agree with me that facts are wholly non-partisan? Right? The fact itself, not how it's presented, is unbiased.

You're correct, and I'm in agreement with you, that factual information can be woven into an utterly nonsensical argument to form an appealing conclusion. And, because there are only 24 hours in a day, and we couldn't possibly stop to dissect all the claims we're bombarded with, it's disturbingly easy to convince many people of something that isn't true at all. It's easy, if one is so inclined, to misrepresent factual information, but factual information itself isn't the problem, now is it?

But, back to the topic at hand, are you in favor of political review of peer-reviewed scientific studies before they're released by their parent agency?

>>8631770
>political review of peer-reviewed scientific studies
You repeat yourself.

Always amazed how the people who want to terraform Mars want to shut down all knowledge about the climate. How do you propose to make a survivable climate on Mars if we don't even know the inner workings?

>>8631764
kek

>>8631773
Only in your mind have I repeated myself. If you believe that the scientific community is, at some level, a large cabal organized solely to spread disinformation and publish studies that produce contrary results to those quoted by establishment (industry, political, or religious) figures, then I really need to see why you believe this scientific-political cabal is so powerful. Without that, you're pulling a Spicer. Claiming something all the while saying that the evidence needed to verify that claim doesn't exist.

>>8630438
Why the hell does everybody have a persecution complex

If an employee of a Trump administration starts tweeting anti-trump shit, of course he will get fired. Similar to how an Obama employee would get fired if he did likewise

This is pretty textbook policy for every government in the world.

>>8631801
It's not about that at all, this isn't about NASA, DEA, FBI, etc. fighting for their right to post ''FUCK TRUMP'' it's about the idea that scientific studies and data undergo political review before they're released to the public. It's one that reeks of censorship and insecurity on the administration's part.

>>8630937
So you are saying it is okay that I use copyrighted material without permission so long as I attatch a rogue label? Lol Americans are retarded...

>>8631786
>the scientific community is, at some level, a large cabal organized solely to spread disinformation
Not all of it, just certain fields.

See, there's two parts to a scientific consensus:
(1) Practically all of the researchers in a field agree on something.
(2) Practically all the rest of the scientific community agrees that this particular field knows what its talking about well enough to make claims of this sort reliably.

Climate science doesn't have (2). The community of climate scientists, and especially global climate change predictors, is viewed dubiously by the larger scientific community, especially by scientists in closely-related fields, like meteorology, or foundational ones like physics. It's easy to get together a petition with lots of signatures from other kinds of well-regarded, mainstream-credible scientists saying global climate change predictors shouldn't be listened to.

(1) and (2) isn't a problem, it's probably best for most people to just assume the consensus position is correct. Neither (1) nor (2) isn't a problem. That's an immature field. Not ready to make strong statements on a matter, and everyone knows it. (2) and not (1) isn't a problem. The trust of the general community is justified by the humility of the specialty.

(1) and not (2), however, means there's an integrity problem. In this case, it's a flood of government money, contingent on continuing to predict disaster if CO2 emissions aren't cut. Everyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that if the in-field consensus shifted to no expectation of problems, or a cheap and easy fix, the funding would dry up. Every dissenter is threatening everyone's jobs, and they are punished harshly.

In a field with an integrity problem, peer review stops being a good thing, and becomes a way to keep people on-message.

>>8631837
I'd love to see how the other scientific fields explain how Venus is hot if they see climate science as bullshit.

>>8631526
They're just using appeal to authority as an excuse to not give a rational counter-argument.

>>8631837
>The community of climate scientists, and especially global climate change predictors, is viewed dubiously by the larger scientific community, especially by scientists in closely-related fields, like meteorology, or foundational ones like physics
Huh really? First time I heard about that. Do you have any source for this?

File: Bazooper.jpg (344KB, 1000x1481px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1000x1481px

>>8631644
>if I'm paying you to do research, you better come to the conclusions I want you too
this is the opposite of science. this is Lysenkoism.

>>8631812
this.

>>8631837
>Climate science doesn't have (2).
[citation needed]
this may be news to you, but climatology is pretty well accepted as a legitimate field by the other sciences.

>>8631847
>lolol u don't believe in teh greenhouse effect? were u think tomatoes come from?
The actual case for AGW involves models with hundreds of negative and positive feedbacks, including biological and human ones (new ones are added every year) simulated on supercomputers.

...which the researchers tweak and fiddle with, looking at the results as they do so, to their heart's content before they decide to publish a paper on their model.

They don't even commit to a model and publish its predictions regardless of how it comes out. They look at the predictions and decide whether to publish or tweak the model some more.

It's absolute garbage science.

>>8631865
>>8631858
Every time someone posts some big list of non-climate scientists who agree that climate scientists are talking out of their ass, you guys always reply, "They don't count! They're not experts in the field!" You can dig one up as easily as I can.

File: 0EBJ6mU.jpg (35KB, 381x380px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 381x380px

There are brainlets in this thread that don't know that these accounts are run by a UK agitprop group and have no connection to any of these agencies

>>8631875
You are making the claim nigger, the burden of proof falls on you.

If you don't have any then it is assumed (which is most likely the case) that you are full of shit.

File: 1483147909641.gif (914KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 245x230px

>>8631855
>These qualified scientists worked on research for thirty years to develop a model for stellar evolution
>This news anchor says stars always stay the same because have YOU ever seen one evolve into a red giant? The sun is YELLOW retards
>Well, let's trust the scientists on this one
>APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, LOGICAL FALLACY, THEY'RE JUST CORRUPT ELITISTS WHO LIE FOR FUNDING
No matter how much you kick and scream, your grandchildren will see the effects and know you were wrong.

>>8631900
you're just straw manning now m8. stay btfo

Because retards with highschool diplomas think that somehow every scientist is some biased individual who is a mouthpiece for jewish overlords, like /pol/

>>8631894
>the burden of proof falls on you.
This is an informal, unstructured discussion. There is no "burden of proof".

If I think there's a minimum amount of effort and intellectual honesty other people should put out before I respond to their requests or objections, I'm going to right ahead and just laugh at people who act like they're qualified to take a strong position on a subject but have no memory of things that come up over and over in every discussion about it.

>>8631908
Because retards with highschool diplomas think that somehow every scientist is some godlike individual who is a mouthpiece for truth, like /sci/

>>8631911
> This is an informal, unstructured discussion. There is no "burden of proof".
Okay, if you want to make baseless claims without proof, then we'll just treat you like someone who is simply making things up to suit his feelings. Because as far as we can tell, that's all you are.

>>8631900
Why do Americans always use children as an example when arguing? Are all Americans pedophiles? lol

File: [HorribleSubs] Kobayashi-san Chi no Maid Dragon - 03 [720p].mkv_snapshot_20.31.jpg (375KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1280x720px

>>8631911
Uninvolved third party here. That's NOT how intellectual discussion occurs on this board friendo. feel free to read the rules and come back when you are ready to apologize ok sweetie.

File: 1484236691269.jpg (118KB, 640x880px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x880px

This thread is a perfect example of what the fossil fuel industry wanted to achieve, a discussion that is confusing and casts doubt, without having any basis in the scientific evidence. Just look at the comments and the "discussions" if you can even call them that from the deniers in this thread for example.

Their strategy works, it worked with Tobacco in the 1980s and 1990s, and it's continuing to work with climate change to this day. Useful idiots eat misinformation up, and spread it around like viruses. The discussion remains chaotic and confusing, as well as vague so that there's no clear information presented.

I mean honestly, the industry's strategy has clearly worked, it's amazing how much falsehood there is in regards to climate science among your average person, especially in the US. Their arguments don't need to be correct, they don't need to be supported by evidence, they only need to cast doubt and create an environment in which normal, uninformed people continue to parrot the falsehoods.

>>8631937
>this is all a grand conspiracy
heh

>>8631944
Unlike your conspiracy that scientists are all liars this one is actually backed up by evidence.

But of course, the "real" conspiracy is vague and non-specific accusations on climate scientists, or renewable energy, or globalism, or any other buzzword that deniers latch onto. There is an entire network of climate change denial, and it is incredibly well funded. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been pumped into these campaigns to spread misinformation:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

>>8631944
No, it's not a conspiracy, it's fact based. There is evidence of everything that I claimed:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/01/12/trump-kingmaker-billionaires-robert-rebekah-mercer-pouring-millions-climate-science-denial
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
https://www.desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

There are recorded money trails, this is not a "conspiracy," there is physical evidence.

File: [HorribleSubs] Kobayashi-san Chi no Maid Dragon - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_06.42_[2017.01.25_11.04.42].jpg (240KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1920x1080px

>>8631949
>>8631950
I never stated anything regarding climate
and have no idea what you are talking about tbqh.

You on the other hand have done nothing but out yourself as a conspiritard brainlet and completely melted the credibility of us scientists by spamming conspiracy blogs :^)

>>8631953
>1080p
upscaling is bad

>>8630438
What these people don't understand is that it's a simple added peer review to sift out the shit. Yes, it can be biased, but that's why you assign the right people. Either way, they should still be able to release any ((info)) they find as "unverified" so the public can see.

>>8631953
Read some of the links I provided, in particular the Desmogblog links.

As I said, this is not a conspiracy, there is physical evidence on the fossil fuel industry, in particular Exxonmobil, spending millions of dollars to spread climate change misinformation and denial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
http://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

>ScientificAmerican is a conspiracy blog
>Desmogblog is a conspiracy blog
>Wikipedia is a conspiracy blog
>Theguardian is a conspiracy blog
>Reuters is a conspiracy blog
>Sourcewatch is a conspiracy blog

>>8631944
It's not even really a conspiracy. It's just a bunch of self-serving people each doing what makes them more money. Because the fossil fuel industry stands to lose from people recognizing climate change as an actual issue, the people involved in the industry seek to muddy the issue and confuse the populace in order to protect their source of wealth. They also can use that wealth to pay other people to do this as well, and thus far they have been fairly successful. Not a conspiracy, just a fierce media and lobbying campaign.

>>8631953
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/08/exxonmobil-new-disclosures-show-oil-giant-still-funding-climate-science-denial-groups

All you need to do is follow the money trail, donations have been made public in the past from the fossil fuel industry, you can see where they have donated to and how the money was spent.

You can trace it back to its source. Many companies once discovered who they were donating to, Exxon in particular, ceased disclosing their financial donations, and instead go through third parties like Donor's Capital Fund and Donor's Trust these days, which in turn still donate to the climate science denial organizations like Heartland for example, one of the biggest of them all, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, etc.

>>8631961
>>8631962
>>8631966

you seem to be under the false assumption that your "feelings" constitute evidence with regards to how you interpret information. You haven't even come close to meeting your burden of proof. Until then you are a conspiritard friendo and are frankly no better than the deniers

>>8631960
> Yes, it can be biased, but that's why you assign the right people
Like putting a Goldman Sachs lawyer in charge of the SEC. Or making a CEO who has a 500 billion dollar deal with Russia ridding on sanctions being lifted your Secretary of State. Or giving the Department of Energy to someone who literally did not know what it was and called for its elimination.

>>8631969
or putting a stock gambler who has a $1 billion in keeping oil pipelines closed and his trains moving. or another billionaire who is heavily sunk into environmental tech subsidies

File: Capture.jpg (141KB, 825x875px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 825x875px

>>8631968
Here, have a quote directly from Exxon. Totally not a conspiracy:
http://www.socialfunds.com/shared/reports/1211896380_ExxonMobil_2007_Corporate_Citizenship_Report.pdf
Page 39:

>In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.

Yet despite this admission, they still continue to donate through third parties, or directly to organizations that have stances that oppose the scientific evidence, something that benefits them directly as an energy corporation.

Exxonmobil alone has donated over $33,000,000 to organizations that oppose the scientific evidence of climate change since 1998.

>you seem to be under the false assumption that your "feelings" constitute evidence with regards to how you interpret information.
It's not feelings, in fact the hilarious thing is that it's the denier's feelings that get in the way of understanding the scientific evidence, due to delusions of a conspiracy among scientists themselves.

You also seem to be under the assumption that physical evidence are "feelings," despite everything to the contrary that I have provided.

>>8631972
> or putting a stock gambler who has a $1 billion in keeping oil pipelines closed and his trains moving

Your sentence is missing something. Where are you putting the gambler?

File: 1448069005998.gif (257KB, 308x294px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 308x294px

>>8631975
The problem with your argument is that according to your own source they gave more to pro environmental and multiple other causes than that by a significant margin. Big businesses tend to grease every pocket possible. Yet again you are thinking with your emotions your "follow the money trail" is just you free associating with what you FEEL is a conspiracy yet in reality is just a large business acting as usual. You would likely be able to find such spending in nearly every large corporation in america IBM McDonalds ect. Now please come back to us. You have deluded yourself just as hard as the deniers into being a conspiracy theorist. it's laughable

>>8631993
Once again, it's not a conspiracy when there is physical evidence. Why do you think Exxonmobil stopped funding these organizations? Was it out of the kindness of their hearts, or is it because they were caught, the media got wind of it, and they had to back-peddle in order to regain credibility? Of course corporations donate money to a wide variety of organizations, but you have to look at the organizations specifically, what they stand for, and what their beliefs are in order to understand WHY fossil fuel interests donated (and still donate) their money to them.

Your argument is that it doesn't matter because they donate to a variety of groups. Are you really so naive that you believe that they didn't expect to gain anything from their financial donations to organizations like Heartland, CEI, etc?

Let's look at another specific example, the Global Climate Coalition. Why choose a name like this? Is it an attempt to gain some sort of legitimacy by making a fancy sounding name that appeals to ignorant people? This is not just your run of the mill non-profit, it was a literal lobbying front for fossil fuel interests. It's main condition was to help speed up the process of pulling the US out of Kyoto, which is succeeded in doing under the Bush administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
Is it a coincidence this organization first formed after IPCC formed? It's entire purpose was to represent petroleum special interests and spread misinformation about climate change with a legitimate sounding name, despite just being a lobby front for the industry.

I suggest you at least read the Union of Concerned Scientists page on climate denial funding, gain some insight, or are they too biased for your tastes too? Why are you afraid to even read any of these links, afraid that your argument is invalid and that there is physical evidence for my argument?
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial

>>8631993
To further my argument, what do you have to say about the case of Willie Soon?

He was given grants (over $1.2 million) by organizations such as the Exxonmobil, API, Donor's Trust, Southern Company ($405,000), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($230,000) to write scientific papers on solar variation in relation to climate change, donations which he choose not to disclose when he published his papers.

This is just one example of the fossil fuel industry directly funding an individual.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/02/smithsonian-asks-legal-watchdog-investigate-climate-skeptic-s-disclosure-practices
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
Soon's arguments have been refuted multiple times, such as by Gavin Schmidt of GISS who researches climate models compared to the observations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

>“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

So why would these oil interests donate Soon money if they didn't intend to get anything out of it?

Let me ask you this, do you believe that there was no push from companies like Philip Morris in the 1980s to spread doubt over the concerns of cigarette smoking related illnesses? Do you believe that they weren't trying to "cast doubt" on the scientific literature of the time in medical journals concerning cigarette smoke? These are the exact same tactics that the fossil fuel industry is currently engaging in.

File: 5916e3edc56a36e5fa017877ec458a9873dd1846be301d27fcbd244ae903f1d0.png (406KB, 609x804px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 609x804px

>Buckle up, folks. This is only the start.

That's not a complaint, its a threat!

>>8631814
Copyright is illegitimate in a digital world.

I'm not disputing climate change. I just hope we don't end up under totalitarian rule as a means to combat it. I'm skeptical of the agenda.

>>8632382
I can understand that, but what Trump is trying to do is silence and defund research on the topic. To intentionally plug our ears and ignore it because voters don't like taxes. This is deplorable no matter what actual policy changes you want to enact.

>>8630438
>REAL FACTS, REAL FACTS
lol what
What bullshit trite, just kids wanting to be a part of something, conjuring up tribes and struggle.

>>8630438

O no, a government agency can't reveal to the world the things they're working on.

Shock!

Perhaps these assholes will now realize they aren't a private business.

>>8632758
>I don't know what NASA does: the post.

>>>/pol/ is that way.

>>8631875
>Every time someone posts some big list of non-climate scientists
If you're too lazy to post a list, then allow me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming . Most of these doubt or contest the human influence claimed by IPCC.

Climate scientist have mostly focused on human influence on climate change, probably because it is easier. But the influence of other factors, such as solar activity and earths position relative to the sun, which were major factors in past climate changes, remain relatively unexplored. So, I believe that the anthropogenic claim is a bit premature, considering the anthropogenic bias in the research.

File: Total Solar Irradiance December 2016.jpg (112KB, 731x705px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 731x705px

>>8632851
You should actually read through your supposed list of scientists who oppose the consensus. Do a little research on these people, and more often than not, they are quacks, and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the Earth sciences, or atmospheric sciences in general.

The only actual climatologists who still publish in climatology, such as Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen are widely discredited by their own colleagues.

>But the influence of other factors, such as solar activity and earths position relative to the sun, which were major factors in past climate changes, remain relatively unexplored
What a completely false statement, and right off the bat you reveal just how little you know about climate change. Did you know that climatologists even take cosmic ray fluxes into account when attempting to understand climate forcings and sensitivity?
>Cosmic radiation causes fluctuations in global temperatures, but doesn't cause climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

Oh, then there's your precious solar forcings, which account for <10% of the warming we have seen, and the sun is very stable. Changes in earth's position relative to the sun is a Milankovitch effect, and is far too long term to be causing the warming trends we are witnessing, it is not correlated with them.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

File: Capture.jpg (177KB, 1306x1000px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1306x1000px

>>8632851
To continue talking about the sun, let's present a few more important papers that show there is not a correlation between the current warming and solar activity:

https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
(This is a direct link to the PDF of the fourth link posted above).
>Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 ◦C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1 ◦C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 ◦C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it.

Here's a bunch of other resources on solar activity's influence on temperatures, both in paleoclimate and the present:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf

I "believe" you should educate yourself on the topic before spouting off how certain you are of things you don't even understand. It's really embarrassing to be so proud-fully ignorant.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf

Imbers. et al. 2013
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1
>. The authors find that, independently of the representation chosen, the greenhouse gas signal remains statistically significant under the detection model employed in this paper. The results support the robustness of the IPCC detection and attribution statement for global mean temperature change under different characterizations of internal variability

Continued in next post, not enough space here. Wish /sci/ allowed more room.

File: Capture.jpg (106KB, 657x1168px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 657x1168px

Here's a few more papers:

A.D Erlykin et al, 2009 - Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

Benestad et al. 2008 - Solar Trends and global warming
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_be02100q.pdf

The fact that you're ignorant to spout off that climate scientists have never once critically examined alternative explanations to the current trend shows how ignorant you are once again. You believe that these scientists don't want to actually understand every variable? These are just a few examples by the way, go ahead and do a google scholar search of solar activity and temperature and see how much research has been done on the sun's role alone not to mention other factors.

>So, I believe that the anthropogenic claim is a bit premature, considering the anthropogenic bias in the research.
What you believe matters jack shit son. You ain't a climate scientist, and you clearly have a deep misunderstanding of what evidence there is for anthropogenic climate change. I suggest you EDUCATE YOURSELF before making such absurd absolutist statements.

>>8631080
Failure rates or gtfo

>>8630465
Well so do people on democracies, it's the same thing

>>8631024
Sums it up nicely

File: m6XQJm7.jpg (14KB, 250x246px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x246px

>>8630465
>>8630489
>>>8631764
>>>8630893
>>>8631342

>science if the foundation of our society

I'm pretty sure Morality is.

>>8633496
I don't think Trump understands morality either...

>>8633496
How cute, you still don't know about the concept of greed.

>>8630438

Why are you a faggot?

>>8633520

What does that have to do with what I said?

>>8633638
Libs man

>>8630438
>On the internet, no one knows you're NASA

I don't get why people are freaking out about these "rogue" accounts. Like sure they are basing themselves off real agencies but they could be run by literally anyone in the world.

Shit we should all start agency based twitter accounts.

>>8633674
Because it descredits their snowflake view of the world where daddy drump is above flaw or ill intent. The reality these are attempts to prevent censorship and permit public access to publically funded work. The idea of "politically reviewing" scientific work is without merit and precedent--all those who tried, including people like Stalin, came to pay their absolute disregard of facts.

YEA PEER REVIEW WHO IS THAT RUN BY? JEWS

>>8635049
>Because it descredits their snowflake view of the world where daddy drump is above flaw or ill intent.
As opposed to the totally-not-snowflake-view-of-the-world where Trump is literally the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.


Should Trump be less confrontational with these agencies? Yeah.
Should federal agencies maybe not act like passive aggressive twats on official twitter channels? Yeah.
Are people going full Chicken Little over Trump's presidency? Fuck yeah.

File: reddit.jpg (66KB, 623x652px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 623x652px

>>8630438
Fuck you fascist

fuck their fake shit im so glad screw them doing a fucking drone he will not divide us. shit

>>8631855
the funny thing about /pol/ is they're so anti-scientist yet they unequivocally believe the "social scientists" who determined that white people have the highest IQ's in the world

it's almost as if their personal druthers is the only thing that really matters

>>8630438
Fuck you

>>8630566
More like >>pol three d

>>8633430
>>8633443
>>8633452
>you reveal just how little you know about climate change.
Indeed, I barely know anything of the subject, I would be aware of the skeptics if I did.
>I suggest you EDUCATE YOURSELF before making such absurd absolutist statements.
The fastest way to get a question anwsered on the internet is to present an incorrect anwser, although it is usually at the cost of being called an idiot.

Nevertheless, this explanation is quite useful and thorough, so I thank you for your anwser and apoligize for my rude method of obtaining it.

>>8635133
Well then I'm sorry for coming off like such an asshole, it's just in these threads dealing with climate change deniers takes its toll on me, at least you can admit that you didn't know, I can respect that.

>>8630438
Implying ideology isn't encroaching on science all the time to prop up its own delusions and distortions.

>>8630935
>Nasa
>public owned and funded government organization

>>8630935
With that being said, unofficial fan pages of sports teams such as the Falcons who use their logo could be sued somehow or issued a cease and desist.

Also free speech, so not even a cease and desist. They are not representing or misrepresenting the organization.

did all you stupid polcunts miss the fact that NASA uploaded literally all of their research for free the minute your illiterate nazi favorite boi sent out the first round of gag orders? fucking incredible

When I see this thread, I think of a 4 letter word...

>>8630916
>>8630920
>Environemental protection agency is supposed to stand still while being destroyed
This is not a fascist state. If governement agencies have something to communicate, they should be able to.

>>8631701
You mean apart from yours.

>>8630920
Talk shit, get hit

>>8631103
#NOTMYPRESIDENT #RESIST #CALEXIT

>>8630916
>Also if you don't want science to be a partisan issue, don't make it one.

Trump started that.

Acting like the science community shot first is just another Trump administration alternative fact.

>government requiring scientific studies to undergo political review before publication

why is anyone even considering supporting this?

>>8637543
*before media publishing

Just to be clear, they aren't the same thing.
It's still first amendment censorship, but trump doesn't seem to care about silly things like the constitution

File: SCI BTFO.png (529KB, 593x700px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 593x700px

>>8637543
>>8637553
This has been confirmed fake News

Just like with the so called Muslim ban, liberals seem obsessed with perpetuating conspirancy theories

>>8630465
>only authoritarian fascist bootlickers fail
>to question the actions of their leaders.
FTFY

USA need some purging, Khmer Rouge style.

>>8637566
> liberals seem obsessed with perpetuating conspirancy theories
do you even yellow journalism?
this isn't new, nor is it limited to just libruls

>>8630916
So basically trump himself should have a monopoly on shitposting via twitter

File: 1464907640231.gif (2MB, 265x257px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 265x257px

>>8631237
No one can seriously be this far up their own arse? Right?

>>8637596
Here's your guaranteed reply.

File: tr-reality.png (1MB, 2172x716px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2172x716px

>>8630920

>>8631237
>I'm a virgin neckbeard because of /pol/ and Trump
Spotted the buttmad SJWtard. You don't even believe in IQ you dumbfuck. Make sure you read your SJWtard protocol next time.

>>8630438
science fiction belongs to >>>/x/

>>8637853
>replying to a post from 3 days old
Who's buttmad? That guy probably isn't even around.
And /pol/ Trump supporters are the biggest SJWs on 4chan. Please stay in the containment board.

>>8631083
Kek

>>8631167
You think NASA wouldn't be missed? I bet that asteroid won't miss.

>>8637874
>Defends SJWtards
>I'm not a SJWtard guise
You are and we don't want you on /sci/. You don't have a home board here since we don't even want you retards anywhere in 4chan.

>>8630991
You had presidents that said many stupider things.

>>8631342
Are you serious?, do you have any proof of what you are claiming.

>>8631837
You are seriously understimating the number of people, countries and different ideologies that do science.

>>8631875
Even when that could be true, the discussion should still be open, for both sides, it's ok to not have a consensus, what's not ok it's for one side to be silenced.

>>8631937
While the discussion continues there always be someone profiting from it, the problem it's how do we stop climate change for getting worst, while at the same time we hold the discussion.

>>8631950
It's a big chunk of a scientific community, that has opinions the you don't like, funded by people that you don't trust, I can say the same for any scientific organization, I deny the moon landing for fun.

>>8637566
That's ridiculous.

>>8637880
Whats the deal with Exxon Mobil ?

File: 135798069574.jpg (144KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 960x960px

>>8630465
Communists worship their leaders unquestionably.

That's kind of the whole idea of the "new socialist man".

>>8630916
Why are leftists so unbelievably retarded?

>>8635259
The EPA needs to have a lot of it's power taken away.

>>8630928
>leftypol """"""""""""memes""""""""""

Please get thrown out a helicopter you waste of life.

Why the fuck are you even on the science board when you marxists openly deny science?

Gas yourself.

File: 1485448222_e73018e75b1f16b634353988fb3d1121[1].jpg (71KB, 740x493px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 740x493px

>>8637911
richard spencer pls go

File: 1523749.jpg (506KB, 1188x1515px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1188x1515px

>>8637919
>anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi
Spencer is a cuck, he's just as bad as you people.

Literal fascist please get thrown out a helicopter

>>8637921
not him, but
>call him a fascist
>while spouting pseudo-fascist memes

>>8637931
>wanting to thrown communist shitstains out of a helicopter is "pseudo-fascist"
Wow this is news to me.

>>8637938
>news to me.
What flavor is that Trump koolaid ya'll been drinking?

File: 1484934358242.png (239KB, 447x447px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 447x447px

>>8637942
The Red, White and Blue kind.

>>8637943
https://youtu.be/GupaiWimL5c
Sometimes life imitates art.

>>8637947
ahhhh old ytmnd memes

>>8630465
Like the founding fathers when they questioned their leaders?

>>8637880
>the discussion should still be open, for both sides, it's ok to not have a consensus, what's not ok it's for one side to be silenced.
Absolutely, the discussion should be open, for both sides.

It's not ok for one side to use tax dollars and control of institutions in bad faith to push a propaganda position claiming a consensus for their side, underhandedly marginalizing the other side.

Telling government offices not to announce a position is not silencing one side, it's opening up the discussion.

>>8630438
>not an official NASA account
Look I'm a climate change skeptic because I've never been an atmos-sci kind of dude and it's not my place to assert one way or the other and there are plenty of atmos-sci dudes that say they're not willing to assert climate change as man-made phenomena but it's an unofficial account dude, no reason to mandate what can or can't be posted. If you were mad about Milo being banned off twitter then it's hypocritical and partisan to demand this account be silenced. Also, it really sounds to me like just some fedorabros running an account with the name nasa on it, I really doubt that any actual nasa employees are running it or tweeting through it. Trust me I've met tons of people who work at nasa, they don't hire partisan nutjobs in that place.

>>8638034
>Telling government offices not to announce a position is not silencing one side, it's opening up the discussion.
It is, if those agencies believe they best serve the American people by taking this side. It's called democracy, not everyone in the public sector should blindly follow Dear Leader plans and policy.

>>8630438
>>8630448
the core problem is that the people handling those handles believe they won't be dismissed.

what political climate has been created where it is not only ok to publicly oppose your boss, but also where these people think they'll be protected from a dismissal?

many low-level positions don't get replaced when a new party comes in, as long as you don't do anything stupid.

it really makes me question how smart you autists really are...

>>8631080
>sharing years of tax-payer funded research

>.5 billion in contracts

>Science is not a partisan issue
Except many, many aspects of it are. Raw data is not partisan but the interpretations and what to utilize it for absolutely is.

>>8631167
>NASA doesn't do space exploration, which is the only thing we want it for.
>NASA does boondoggles and climate propaganda.

What is the Hubble Space telescope?

File: e7615b078e54394d49b0bf6ddf3a1685.jpg (52KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 580x282px

>>8630465

>>8630465
>commy socialist cucks question the actions of their leaders
Its literally the opposite what the fuck is wrong with you stupid fuck.
t.ex commie block citizen

Science is the servant of society and God.

You want to be curious and understand the world? Sure I'll help you if you tell me how I can monetize it. Your friend, government and investors.

>>8638241
>What is the Hubble Space telescope?
A shitshow of incompetence from 3 decades ago? A device of trivially-simple-to-describe functionality thats design could be wholly delegated to a contractor?

The HST was a product of sending tax money to experienced contractors to build a spy sat that looked up, not down. NASA didn't contribute anything to the HST but drastically increased costs.

baka desu senpai

>>8638053
>>Telling government offices not to announce a position is not silencing one side, it's opening up the discussion.
>It is, if those agencies believe they best serve the American people by taking this side. It's called democracy
No. Democracy is electing leaders who control the official activities of government employees. Government employees doing whatever they believe best serves the American people is being ruled undemocratically by an aristocracy.

>>8637911
Is this what /pol/tards actually believe

>>8638601
If those agencies were private enterprises, there would be a massive outcry. Just like a teacher has the right to strike, a guy from NASA has the right to open an account and denounce the policy he feels are threatening his organisation.

File: fight science with wood.jpg (20KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x300px

>>8638601
darn those NASA aristocrats
who do they think they are with their beakers of tyranny!
president bannon will show those nerds that the people are in charge now!

>>8630954
lmao the only guy who gets it.

>>8638431
All ex commie block citizens are virulent randroids. You're just going from one extreme to the next. It's like you people have never even heard of nuance.

>>8630438
>thinks the global warming discussion isn't a shitshow for being completely unregulated
If people that pretend to know science weren't allowed to be published, we wouldn't be where we are now.

>>8631993
>The problem with your argument is that according to your own source they gave more to pro environmental and multiple other causes

>complains about arguments
>his argument is complete strawman

Looks like someone is being emotional

>>8638614
>If those agencies were private enterprises, there would be a massive outcry.
Of course. Then it would be interference in freedom of speech. But they're not, they're government agencies, which are sustained by money taken by force from the people and speak with the authority of government.

On the other hand, if those agencies were employees of a private enterprise and the CEO put similar restrictions on their worktime activities or using company resources, nobody would care. Of course the person in charge of the McDonald's twitter account can be told not to post his opinions about global warming or African IQs on it.

When you go to work for the government or anyone, you are not free to do as you please with the resources and authority granted to you in that role.

>>8638625
>darn those NASA aristocrats
Yes. Fuck them if they thought they could do as they see fit with taxpayer money and stamp it with the seal of official approval. They had entirely the wrong idea of what they were getting into, if they thought that's how it works.

If they don't like it, they can resign and say whatever they like as private individuals.

>>8638674
So you're basically advocating a strong government which can contains what its employees have the right to say or not.

If freedom if speech means you can't be arrested for you say, it should also means individual from government societies shouldn't be arrested or punished for speaking.
If Trump didn't wanted this civil disobedience, he should have a better policy or negotiate with the people.

>>8638702
Alright, so let's say public employees started using their positions to spread race-realism propaganda. Like the official NASA twitter account starts tweeting every day about black Africans have low IQ, and this is genetic, and can't be corrected by education.

You think it would be inappropriate to have "a strong government which can contains what its employees have the right to say or not" stop them? You think once they're hired, they should just be able to do whatever they like in their official capacity because it's a free country?

You fucking leftists are all the same. You want something, and you try to phrase why you should be allowed to have it in terms of principles, without even thinking seriously about what other consequences those principles have. You don't have any principles or even respect adherence to principles, but you know your opponents do, so you try to take advantage of this.

>>8638726
It IS different, because nobody at nasa would spout bullshit about racialism, because they know it's false.

At any rate, if it happened, there would be no need for pressure since it wouldn't generate a positive echo.
This "rogue_nasa" account generate a positive echo. Trump has a serious civil disobedience problem, one he can only solve by learning to compromise.

>>8638661
Who are you quoting in the bottom half of your post? Be objective please.

>>8638644
>All ex commie block citizens are virulent randroids.
No, no they were not.

>>8638608
You mean reality?
Marxists deny genetics and neuroscience when applied to humans.
Are you a marxist?
It's basically equivalent to being a scientologist or a mormon in terms of making logical sense.

>>8630438
http://motls.blogspot.com/2017/01/trumps-blitzkrieg-against-rogue-and.html?m=1

>>8638674
>if you're funded by the government, your research better show what the government wants it to show
Lysenko pls go

>>8638736
>It IS different, because nobody at nasa would spout bullshit about racialism, because they know it's false.
Anyone who looks seriously at the evidence knows it's true, you leftist garbage. Nobody at NASA would say it because they know they'd be fired and ostracized because this particular truth is unpopular with the progressive establishment.

>if it happened, there would be no need for pressure
There has been pressure to prevent this sort of thing for decades. Crushing professional and social pressure. You can't be caught speaking certain truths, which everyone knows are true, even in a purely private capacity without being destroyed, while you can use government positions to promote certain lies, which everyone knows are false, and be rewarded for it, and this is the arrangement the progressives have had in place for the entire lives of most of us here.

>it wouldn't generate a positive echo.
Yeah man. And Trump will never get elected.

We're tearing all of your bullshit down. All of it.

>>8638846
Now, you know damn well this isn't what was ordered nor what I was arguing for.

Most of the government employees who have been pushing climate alarmism are not researchers reporting their results. They're just pushing their politics.

File: Ass golem.png (2MB, 1177x886px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1177x886px

>>8638860
>complains that leftists don't think through the logical conclusions of their seemingly-innocuous principles
>complains when someone points out the logical conclusions of his seemingly-innocuous principles
WEW

>>8638860
>Most of the government employees who have been pushing climate alarmism are not researchers reporting their results. They're just pushing their politics.
[citation needed]

You can't just spew vague accusations with no merit and expect people to take them seriously, this isn't /pol/ and you have to actually back up what you say with evidence.

File: makes you think.jpg (39KB, 1024x564px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1024x564px

>>8630438
>Obama destroys much of NASA's space exploration research and instead tasks them with relief for muslims and climate change research
>silence
>Trump halts NASA's muslim relief and climate change research and instead directs them towards space exploration
>RRREEEEEEE FUCK YOU DRUMPF

>>8639053
Exactly, except that's completely wrong.

>>8639053
Stop literally making shit up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Authorization_Act_of_2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration

Obama increase NASA's budget by $6 billion. He did more positive to NASA under his terms than Bush did. It was also under Obama that the private industry started to flourish, with ULA and SpaceX among others starting to launch their own missions under contracts.

The shuttle program finally ended under Obama, which is a good thing.
The Orion program is going strong and plans to fly by the early 2020s.
NASA launced hundreds of unmanned missions under the Obama administration, including the Curiosity rover, Juno, MAVEN,


You can't just keep making up your own narrative. There wasn't any extreme cuts to space exploration, NASA launched many missions during Obama's presidency, what was cut back was shitty programs that were going no where, like Constellation, and replacing it with the SLS. Consstellation was a money sink and dead end that needed to go, Obama was only criticized by all the old geezers who think wasteful manned missions are the future, rather than unmanned research. It's just too damn expensive to pump so much money into transporting humans when you can send hundreds of missions with instrumentation to do research instead. Besides, we have private entities like Musk taking up the mantle of human spaceflight.

File: this is not wikipedia.png (34KB, 788x240px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 788x240px

>>8639010
I know, I know, lefties have no understanding of or interest in principles.

Your strawman greentext (government employees should conduct their work in bad faith) was, of course, not a consequence of the principle I stated (government employees should not act outside of their assigned role) at all.

A government employee directed by relevant elected representatives to conduct their work in bad faith (according to their own standards, or to the conventional standard of their profession) should have the integrity to resign rather than do so, and should bring the matter to the attention of the public. However, under no circumstances should a government employee expect to be able to define their own job description as whatever they think best.

It's a job. You do the job. If the job requires you do things you don't think are right, you quit. You don't get to decide the job is something else. You don't get to use the resources allocated to you for the purpose of the job for other purposes.

Anyway, "you better give the politically-correct results or you're out!" is not just the motto of Lysenkoism, but of global climate research as well. Lefties project, always.

>>8639030
>[citation needed]
pic related

>>8639103
>Obama increase NASA's budget by $6 billion.
The president doesn't control NASA's budget.

He does control things like this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
>Bolden said President Barack Obama had charged him with three things upon becoming NASA administrator.
>"perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations"

>It was also under Obama that the private industry started to flourish, with ULA and SpaceX among others starting to launch their own missions under Bush-era contracts.
It was all set in motion before Obama showed up. In fact, he's the one who let ULA/Boeing/LM in, when an important part of the original goals of the program was to exclude them so NASA could develop some new contractors.

>The shuttle program finally ended under Obama, which is a good thing.
Agreed, but this was also in motion before he arrived.

>The Orion program is going strong and plans to fly by the early 2020s.
...this is not a good thing. Orion was intended for two purposes: to rotate ISS crews, and to return crew from moon missions. When Ares I was cancelled, Orion should have been cancelled with it, because the ISS visits needed to prove its spaceworthiness in LEO before sending it on a more unforgiving deep-space mission could no longer be done.

>Consstellation was a money sink and dead end that needed to go
It didn't go, only the last scraps of sense went. SLS/Orion is Constellation with all the purpose cut out. It's a rocket to nowhere. All it can do is moon flybys. Too big for LEO, not big enough for moon landings.

Orion had been under development for years when Obama came in. He had two full terms, and it still isn't close to being done. That's ridiculous. Nothing to be proud of.

File: smug anime face.png (67KB, 215x295px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 215x295px

>>8639109
>Your strawman greentext (government employees should conduct their work in bad faith) was, of course, not a consequence of the principle I stated (government employees should not act outside of their assigned role) at all.
you said that because scientists at government agencies speak with the authority of the government, they're not allowed to say or publish anything that goes against the policy line. stop trying to pretend you said something different, we can all scroll up and read it for ourselves.

>It's a job. You do the job. If the job requires you do things you don't think are right, you quit.
scientists' role is to conduct research. if the results of that research are politically inconvenient, too bad; fact is not determined by who's in charge. when political forces determine what theories are or aren't true, we call it Lysenkoism.

>"you better give the politically-correct results or you're out!" is not just the motto of Lysenkoism, but of global climate research as well
Yeah, that's why people like Roy Spencer were drummed out of academia and publicly funded science. Oh wait, they weren't.
You deniers are so desperate to make yourselves out to be the victims that you're conjure out of whole cloth stories of the brave noble climate skeptic horribly oppressed by the climate illuminati...despite the fact that it just doesn't happen.

>pic related
>I don't need to provide evidence for anything I say because this is /sci/ goddammit!
did you mean to click on >>>/x/ perchance? I'm sorry, on this board we require evidence to support our claims.

>>8639148
>The president doesn't control NASA's budget.
>blames president for a launch vehicle not being completed during his term
yeah, because he's personally down there in the R&D lab designing it himself, right?

>>8639165
>you said that because scientists at government agencies speak with the authority of the government, they're not allowed to say or publish anything that goes against the policy line.
No I didn't, you chimp. Stop paraphrasing me. If you want to criticize what I've said, quote me.

This wasn't to stop the publishing of results, this was to stop "public awareness" advocacy campaigns largely being conducted by non-scientists and often from government organizations that aren't primarily scientific in function.

>Yeah, that's why people like Roy Spencer were drummed out of academia and publicly funded science. Oh wait, they weren't.
People have tried. There are only a few people like Roy Spencer who were connected and wiley enough hang on to their careers when they went against the party line. He was too established when he started speaking out against global warming alarmism for anyone to do much to him.

>>blames president for a launch vehicle not being completed during his term
>yeah, because he's personally down there in the R&D lab designing it himself, right?
I wasn't particularly blaming him for it, I was objecting to crediting him for it.

>>8639109
The bit you're missing is that public outreach IS part of the job of many of these departments. They're not slacking off by talking about climate change on Twitter, they're doing their job. Trump's requirement that they stop discussing reality whenever its inconvenient isn't going to make them more effective, it's forcing them to be propaganda mills.

Also, I thought the whole point of the USGov was that they were supposed to be servents of the public. I can see how this would help Trump and his friends, but you're going to have to explain to me how hiding things from the public is in the public's interest.

>Anyway, "you better give the politically-correct results or you're out!" is not just the motto of Lysenkoism, but of global climate research as well. Lefties project, always.
Did you just advocate censorship, then immediately accuse the group being censored of censorship?
Do you have actual principles here, or is this just a tribal thing to you?

>>8639165
You've got a lot of nerve bringing up Roy Spencer to claim there's no political interference in climate science.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070328202615/http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf
>During my fifteen years as a NASA employee, I was well aware that any interaction between scientists and the press was to be coordinated through NASA management and public affairs. Understandably, NASA managers do not appreciate first reading of their scientists opinions in the morning newspaper. I understood that my position as a NASA employee was a privilege, not a right, and that there were rules I was expected to abide by. Partly because of those limits on what I could and couldn’t say to the press on the subject of global warming, I voluntarily resigned from the government in the fall of 2001.

>Some level of political influence on government-funded climate science has always existed, and likely always will exist. The influence began many years ago when the government climate research programs were first established. For instance, I once heard a high-level government official say that his success at helping to formulate the Montreal Protocol restricting the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals was an example of the kind of success that global warming research could achieve to help restrict fossil fuel use. This is clearly a case of political and policy biases driving a scientific research agenda.

>Political influences on climate research have long pervaded the whole system. Both government funding managers and scientists realize that science programs, research funding, and careers depend upon global warming remaining a serious threat. There seems to be an unspoken pressure on climate scientists to find new ways in which mankind might be causing a climate catastrophe -- yet no emphasis at all on finding possible climate stabilizing mechanisms.

>>8639193
>immediately accuse the group being censored of censorship?

Something real handy on this topic got posted just now: >>8639197

>>8639197
That's the best you can find? Vauge complaints from Roy Spencer?
None of that comes close to being any kind of evidence.

>For instance, I once heard a high-level government official say that his success at helping to formulate the Montreal Protocol restricting the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals was an example of the kind of success that global warming research could achieve to help restrict fossil fuel use.
That's not policy steering research though. That's research steering policy, which is entirely reasonable.

>>8639211
>That's the best you can find? Vauge complaints from [reviled opponent]?
>None of that comes close to being any kind of evidence.
Yeah, NASA scientist points out that NASA scientists were never free to speak freely about their results to the press, says he had to quit his job there to do so. Not even close to evidence, I'm sure. He must have just made it up.

I'm sure you have pages and pages of citations of NASA scientists saying they were totally free to tell the press whatever they liked about their research while they worked there, without talking to management or public affairs for approval first.

>That's not policy steering research though. That's research steering policy, which is entirely reasonable.
It's policy steering research to steer policy, you unbelievable twat. He was pushing funding global warming research as a way to justify restricting fossil fuel use.

File: IHYDBYGD.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>8639187
>paraphrases someone else
>complains about being paraphrased

>This wasn't to stop the publishing of results
then why does it literally stop the publishing of results?
>advocacy campaigns largely being conducted by non-scientists and often from government organizations that aren't primarily scientific in function
yes, all those non-scientists at the EPA which is totally not scientific in function

>only a few people like Roy Spencer who were connected and wiley enough hang on to their careers when they went against the party line
yeah, so who are the people who weren't so fortunate?
(the best thing about this argument is that even if their careers went nowhere because they had no publicable research, you can still claim it was totally retaliation for saying something batshit.)

>>8639197
>>8639227
>usual denier delusions of persecution
there's a hilarious difference between saying something in an interview and publishing research
is there any evidence that anyone at NASA (or elsewhere in the federal government) attempted to stop Spencer from being able to publish his findings?

>He was pushing funding global warming research as a way to justify restricting fossil fuel use.
>2017
>making shit up
IHYDBYGD

>>8639272
>yeah, so who are the people who weren't so fortunate?
>(the best thing about this argument is that even if their careers went nowhere because they had no publicable research, you can still claim it was totally retaliation for saying something batshit.)
And this is why it's hopeless to try talking with you lefties.

You ask this question, knowing that if I spend time and effort I can certainly find people whose careers were ruined by defying the political bias of the field, but if I produce any examples, without knowing who they are you already know what you're going to say about them.

You scum do *everything* this way. You're never participating in discussions in good faith, always pushing an agenda.

And this is why your kind is being purged from our institutions. Hope you're enjoying 2017. It's never going to be 2015 again.

File: alas.jpg (47KB, 352x599px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 352x599px

>>8639298
>I won't give any examples because I know you'll ignore them
not an argument™

>You're never participating in discussions in good faith, always pushing an agenda.
this from the guy who approaches the issue of climate change with the predetermined mindset that there's a massive conspiracy afoot and that all the evidence has been faked

enjoy the hilarious meltdown while you can, btw. we're barely a week into Orange Man's term and already his administration is falling apart, his executive orders are being struck down by the courts, and his approval rating is in the low 30s.

>>8639272
>Not even close to evidence, I'm sure. He must have just made it up.
>I'm sure you have pages and pages of citations of NASA scientists saying they were totally free to tell the press whatever they liked...
Right, and that's why I asked for EVIDENCE, and not just a quote from someone.

>It's policy steering research to steer policy, you unbelievable twat.
What? How?

>He was pushing funding global warming research as a way to justify restricting fossil fuel use.
That's not apparent at all in that quote.
If you want to (successfully) make policy regulating something, you actually need to understand what the impact of that thing IS. Therefore, anyone who wants to regulate CO2 emissions is probably also going to want to push for more research into the impacts of CO2, so they can create more effective rules. But that doesn't at all imply that they're putting pressure on the researchers to find a particular result though, which is what both you and Spencer are alleging.

>>8639298
>And this is why it's hopeless to try talking with you lefties.
>You ask this question, knowing that if I spend time and effort I can certainly find people whose careers were ruined by defying the political bias of the field, but if I produce any examples, without knowing who they are you already know what you're going to say about them.
>You scum do *everything* this way. You're never participating in discussions in good faith, always pushing an agenda.
Hang on, what the fuck?
Asking you to support your own claims is arguing in bad faith?

>And this is why your kind is being purged from our institutions.
Do you consider "purging" people from their positions arguing in good faith? Or is this another thing that's only okay when people on your side do it?:

>>8630943
>t. I have never been anywhere near an R&D lab but im going to shitpost about it on 4chan anyway

you only get funding if someone thinks your work is useful in some way. If you dont deliver, you lose credibility and will not be able to get funding from anywhere else. that includes "producing results". Most people argue that more meaningful research is done in academic settings. Its actually pathetic how backwards your understanding is.

>>8631764
lol water is not oxygen or hydrogen. use your brain retard.

>>8630465
lmfao, /pol/ has really changed

I miss when they were libertarian.

>>8631875
i want you to explain to me right now what you think the process of publishing a scientific finding is

>NASA
>water managment
>climate science

Such a fucking mess.

NASA should stick to space, our other useless fucking agencies should fire everyone, don't we have agencies for that kind of shit?

>>8638034
When can we start spending tax dollars? Once every single person is convinced that we need to do something? You realize that's impossible, right?

>>8639512
What's wrong with NASA doing science that isn't space related? Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of an organization with a name that doesn't describe 100% of their activities?

>>8639512
You know, NASA's mission has been atmospheric research from the very beginning, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act
>The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space

Literally the first line of the mission statement. NASA has every right to do atmospheric research, especially since they are involved in the design and launch of many satellites with instrumentation to study the atmosphere. More entities studying climate change is better, it's a very important issue and needs to be studied as much as possible in order to understand the impacts better.

Also, keep in mind that NASA started really investing in research in the Earth Sciences during Ronald Reagan's term as president.

Earth Science is of large importance to NASA, as the study of our planet, our only home, is incredibly important since, you know, we fucking live here.

NASA used satellites to study ozone depletion in the past. NASA itself has over a dozen satellites in orbit conducting Earth science research right now. I see no problems with them continuing to study climate science. The only reason retarded Trumpfags want to shut down NASA climate science research is because they are butthurt, they do good work, especially the guys at GISS.

>>8630893
>>8630877
>>8630920

Why is /pol/ come to /sci/ shouldn't you be talking to eachother about how girls don't like you because they only want black men?

>>8639562
But no girl /sci/ knows have ebola fetish :(

>>8639564
what?

>>8631180
>Not real communism :^)

File: 5ee[1].jpg (242KB, 1434x1540px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1434x1540px

>>8639564
get out and stay out, virus yiffer

>>8630952
You as well mate.

>>8630542
>politicians
> non-biased

>>8631080
>2018
>2020

things that have not happened yet and probably wont happen.

>>8630438
Enjoy the end of scien. Sure the government will finally admit blacks are stupid but they'll say it's because they were created by Satan on the sixth day. Evolution will be regarded as a fairytale made up by globalists

>>8641153
Cuck

File: cuckbot.jpg (41KB, 453x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 453x450px

>>8641157

>>8641157
>>8641168
>baby's first false flag

>>8641181
bait and /pol/tards are indistinguishable

>>8639165
>they're not allowed to say or publish anything that goes against the policy line
He's not saying this. He's saying that misappropriation of government funding should not go unchecked. I think that your fundamental misunderstanding of his argument along with your only rebbutal being Lysenkoism, makes me believe that you're either trolling or a leftist that wants to stay in an echo chamber.

>>8641351
>publishing results that the administration doesn't like
>misappropriation of government funding
yeah, same thing.

>>8637911
kek /pol/ is triggered

>>8638284
i know man cause global warming is right right? man-made >>8630465

>>8641500
Nobody here is /pol/

Why do you think /sci/ accepts marxists?

Go back to /x/ with your metaphysics.

>>8641617
>nobody here is /pol/
>all you're talking about is politics

>>8637911
>commas meme
u first

>>8630438
They're not real scientists. Real scientists know the public scientific secret, which is that there are NO good scientists born and raised in the Muslim world apart from Iran. These guys don't know that, because they have no experience reading scientific papers.

>Unfortunately, politics and science aren't inseparable. For example, the #MuslimBan turned away valuable scientists, doctors & researchers.
https://twitter.com/RogueNASA/status/825725137081229312

>>8641635
who are you quoting?

>>8641719
>there are NO good scientists born and raised in the Muslim world apart from Iran
I know some damn good ones from Libya

>>8641617
>Nobody here is /pol/
>You're wrong kiddo.

I thought /pol/ was outlawed from coming here
Trump supporters get out, he singlehandedly ruined our scientific community

File: 1361295166359.jpg (68KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x960px

>>8630465
>>/pol/

>>8630916
>>8630920
They're not even saying reasonable shit like, "tell your congressman not to cut our budget".
They're basically just tweeting out, "lol look how much of a loser Trump is"

>>8642286
But when Trump does shit like that that's a-ok

>>8630438
>taking the Associated Press seriously
>after all the fake news and disinformation it's spread for so many years

Does NASA also take The Onion seriously?

>>8642289
>criticism of Trump's critics means I support everything Trump does
k

>>8639481
Libertarian are fucking idiots you nihilistic autist

>>8631625
>restricting speech in an airport
>is a limit on free speech?
duh

>>8631651
>that actually happens
...and it's not good public policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A