4 ms·

Nice stuff...except for the about page. "but our federal science budget is controlled by climate denialists who dishonestly impede Earth observation because en

by mucker 11y ago

Nice stuff...except for the about page. "but our federal science budget is controlled by climate denialists who dishonestly impede Earth observation because environmental science embarrasses them." Uh no. The House voted not to spend money on a Vice Presidents dream of a beautiful 38 million dollar picture. Now you can argue that it has merit, but even the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/science/politics-keeps-a-satellite-earthbound.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/science/politics-keeps-a-s...) leaves that question, quite rightfully, hanging. And to say you won't discuss contentious remarks after being pointedly contentious is really, pathetically bad form. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
celoyd 11y ago
Casual readers may not get your reference – the idea for DSCOVR literally came to Al Gore in a dream. I still think this is hilarious. One can indeed argue that DSCOVR has merit, and people including climate scientists do. (Though arguably it’s really too early to judge either way until there’s time for publications to come out of its data.) Earth’s radiation budget is surprisingly underdetermined, considering its importance. But it’s certainly a fair criticism of DSCOVR as launched that it’s not state-of-the-art. That’s because it was delayed for reasons of politics, only loosely disguised as reasons of science. The only places I’d push back on your remarks are: 1. The “Uh no”, which is unsubstantiated (perhaps just facetious, but I’m sensitive because I supported my point relatively laboriously, with the links); and 2. the idea that the NYT should refrain from pointing out political interference in science funding.
- thebooktocome 11y ago
  38 million was loose change, even in 1998. We spent far more teaching abstinence (with little to no effect) to school children that year.
- mucker 11y ago
  Which is why I linked directly to a NY Times peace that gives a fairly balanced discussion of the same. And it is not fair to claim that it was, "only loosely disguised as reasons of science." The reasons given, in both the Inspector General's report and in the article that I linked to are political reasons of _budget_. It is not unsubstantiated as I substantiate it via link. I'm also a person that opposed the launch. As others point out, it wasn't _fabulously_ expensive in comparative scale, but in a very stretched NASA budget I would prefer all the pennies thrown at a mars exploration, a permanent moon base, a better space station, or a new shuttle program over a really cool camcorder inspired by a VP's (very literal) dream. That isn't science so much as something bordering on dictatorial whim. Nor, _anywhere_ do I claim the NYT should somehow not report on science funding. I link directly to it to refute _your_ comments. The NYT article does not support your claim, instead it gives a much more reasonable account of the funding issue. It mentions the dream, the funding, and doesn't resort to slurs.

by mucker 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

celoyd 11y ago

Casual readers may not get your reference – the idea for DSCOVR literally came to Al Gore in a dream. I still think this is hilarious. One can indeed argue that DSCOVR has merit, and people including climate scientists do. (Though arguably it’s really too early to judge either way until there’s time for publications to come out of its data.) Earth’s radiation budget is surprisingly underdetermined, considering its importance. But it’s certainly a fair criticism of DSCOVR as launched that it’s not state-of-the-art. That’s because it was delayed for reasons of politics, only loosely disguised as reasons of science. The only places I’d push back on your remarks are: 1. The “Uh no”, which is unsubstantiated (perhaps just facetious, but I’m sensitive because I supported my point relatively laboriously, with the links); and 2. the idea that the NYT should refrain from pointing out political interference in science funding.

thebooktocome 11y ago
38 million was loose change, even in 1998. We spent far more teaching abstinence (with little to no effect) to school children that year.
mucker 11y ago
Which is why I linked directly to a NY Times peace that gives a fairly balanced discussion of the same. And it is not fair to claim that it was, "only loosely disguised as reasons of science." The reasons given, in both the Inspector General's report and in the article that I linked to are political reasons of _budget_. It is not unsubstantiated as I substantiate it via link. I'm also a person that opposed the launch. As others point out, it wasn't _fabulously_ expensive in comparative scale, but in a very stretched NASA budget I would prefer all the pennies thrown at a mars exploration, a permanent moon base, a better space station, or a new shuttle program over a really cool camcorder inspired by a VP's (very literal) dream. That isn't science so much as something bordering on dictatorial whim. Nor, _anywhere_ do I claim the NYT should somehow not report on science funding. I link directly to it to refute _your_ comments. The NYT article does not support your claim, instead it gives a much more reasonable account of the funding issue. It mentions the dream, the funding, and doesn't resort to slurs.