Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’
111 replies, posted
I thought Trump was all against political correctness
[QUOTE=OvB;51417177]Why does the National Aeronautics and Space Administration do more climate science than the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration? I wouldn't be opposed to giving NOAA the roles and funding for climate research that NASA has been doing. But I'm skeptical that it's going to happen that easily.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't the ISS do some kind of earth monitoring?
Could you even do that kind of research with another organization
[QUOTE=Cyberdan;51417214]I thought Trump was all against political correctness[/QUOTE]
Until it suits his purposes, he's for or against whatever happens to be the flavor of the week or whatever his advisers made him parrot.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51417184]It's probably a matter of funding mismanagement. Probably a result of both having a climate change research division, but because NASA likes to go to space, the organization overall gets more funding, thus helping all its divisions.
I am very skeptical that the funding "taken away" from NASA will be "put to another", any other, organization.[/QUOTE]
If it were up to me to reorganize, I would shift all climate research to NOAA, cancel the NASA SLS, make NASA's main focus on space exploration mission payloads that use commercial launch providers. NOAA would get all the departments dealing with climate change that NASA had, so they would control all the satellites and all that. When you want to put a new one up, NOAA would build it using the same resources that NASA previously did, and would launch it commercially. Oh and I'd also increase both of their funding by a percentage, and I'd give NOAA a large expeditionary ocean science fleet.
NASA would explore the stars, NOAA would explore the seas.
[QUOTE=Cyberdan;51417214]I thought Trump was all against political correctness[/QUOTE]
read that part again
[quote]Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417165]It's difficult to put into the words the revulsion that I feel for this man. Donald Trump is a repugnant human being, and this shit only continues to affirm that. He's not only trying to prevent research into ways to manage climate change, but to fundamentally prevent us from even [I]understanding[/I] it. He's fighting [I]to prevent a scientific understanding of the world we live in[/I] for the sake of political power and corporate interest.[/QUOTE]
Are you just bound and determined to take literally everything he says in the absolutely most negative way possible?
I mean shit, he has yet to enact a single policy or even actually show what his position actually is. The past couple of weeks the fruit has spent learning what a President [I]actually has to deal with.[/I] We've already seen possible flexibility on his climate change opinion, we've already seen flexibility on healthcare, etc.
How about waiting for him to [I][B]actually do[/B] something destructive[/I] instead of spending literally every thread screaming about how he's literally human filth who hates all flesh but his own.
[QUOTE=rilez;51417217]Doesn't the ISS do some kind of earth monitoring?
Could you even do that kind of research with another organization[/QUOTE]
I don't see why not. In this day and age we have private companies doing space things very well. I don't see why NASA has to be in charge of everything that touches space. Just swap the departments to NOAA rule and let them manage all the research under one office.
[QUOTE=OvB;51417221]If it were up to me to reorganize, I would shift all climate research to NOAA, cancel the NASA SLS, make NASA's main focus on space exploration mission payloads that use commercial launch providers. NOAA would get all the departments dealing with climate change that NASA had, so they would control all the satellites and all that. When you want to put a new one up, NOAA would build it using the same resources that NASA previously did, and would launch it commercially. Oh and I'd also increase both of their funding by a percentage, and I'd give NOAA a large expeditionary ocean science fleet.
NASA would explore the stars, NOAA would explore the seas.[/QUOTE]
Would probably be best to simply merge NASA's climate research stuff into the NOAA instead of breaking it down while building the other up. I'm assuming climate change scientists working at NASA wouldn't have anything to do with rockets once this gets broken down anyway, better to keep their jobs and research secure by transfer.
[QUOTE=rilez;51417217]Doesn't the ISS do some kind of earth monitoring?
Could you even do that kind of research with another organization[/QUOTE]
Other countries are still conducting this research, and there's a distinct possibility that our leading climate experts will join foreign research teams.
Congratulations, President Trump, on driving away the best and brightest in our country. Make America Dumb Again.
[QUOTE=Perrine;51417222]read that part again[/QUOTE]
Just because Trump himself didn't say it doesn't mean he is not responsible for his administration.
The guy is an adviser. As in, speaks into Trump's ear on things like this. Trump is as much responsible as the ones just next to him.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51417235]Just because Trump himself didn't say it doesn't mean he is not responsible for his administration.
The guy is an adviser. As in, speaks into Trump's ear on things like this. Trump is as much responsible as the ones just next to him.[/QUOTE]
That's not my point though
[QUOTE=Cyberdan;51417214]I thought Trump was all against political correctness[/QUOTE]
[quote][b]no need[/b] for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.[/quote]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51417225]How about waiting for him to [I][B]actually do[/B] something destructive[/I][/QUOTE]
Being elected wasn't destructive enough?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51417229]Would probably be best to simply merge NASA's climate research stuff into the NOAA instead of breaking it down while building the other up. I'm assuming climate change scientists working at NASA wouldn't have anything to do with rockets once this gets broken down anyway, better to keep their jobs and research secure by transfer.[/QUOTE]
Very few people in NASA have anything to do with rockets at all actually. It's sorta like the vast majority of people in the Air Force never touch a plane. NASA employs a ton of earth and environmental scientists, biologists, chemists, etc. I'd simply reorganize everything so that we don't have each organization each having their own departments of the same thing. I'd remove the bureaucracy by combining all the climate research under the Office of Climate Change that's part of NOAA. Everyone would have their neat little place, and if NASA or the EPA or a private company or whoever wanted to collaborate on something, they'd know exactly where to go. You want federal research on climate change? Oh that's NOAA's OCC.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51417225]Are you just bound and determined to take literally everything he says in the absolutely most negative way possible?
I mean shit, he has yet to enact a single policy or even actually show what his position actually is. The past couple of weeks the fruit has spent learning what a President [I]actually has to deal with.[/I] We've already seen possible flexibility on his climate change opinion, we've already seen flexibility on healthcare, etc.
How about waiting for him to [I][B]actually do[/B] something destructive[/I] instead of spending literally every thread screaming about how he's literally human filth who hates all flesh but his own.[/QUOTE]
[B]Why?[/B] He [I]has[/I] already done something. He's appointed most of the seats in his administration, most of which have gone to the scum of the Earth. He's outlined the specific policies he will be enacting, most of which are the product of paranoid delusions.
Why should I continue to wait when Trump himself hasn't? He's made the head of the Environmental Protection Agency one of our nation's most outspoken climate change deniers. He may as well have appointed a creationist Flat-Earther as the secretary of education.
Trump is waging a war against reason, science, education, and information. He's building his entire administration around fear, anger, ignorance, paranoia, corporate interests, and baseless conspiracies. [B]Why[/B] should I remain optimistic about his intentions in the face of that, Syntax?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51417225]Are you just bound and determined to take literally everything he says in the absolutely most negative way possible?
I mean shit, he has yet to enact a single policy or even actually show what his position actually is. The past couple of weeks the fruit has spent learning what a President [I]actually has to deal with.[/I] We've already seen possible flexibility on his climate change opinion, we've already seen flexibility on healthcare, etc.
How about waiting for him to [I][B]actually do[/B] something destructive[/I] instead of spending literally every thread screaming about how he's literally human filth who hates all flesh but his own.[/QUOTE]
Lmao, "flexibility" That's one word for it.
A useless, corrupt piece of shit continues being a useless, corrupt piece of shit.
We're going to have to fight back against this administration as fervently as we can.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417250]He may as well have appointed a creationist Flat-Earther as the secretary of education.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to be sitting for this...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/21/falwell-meets-with-trump-to-talk-education/[/url]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417250][B]Why?[/B] He [I]has[/I] already something. He's appointed most of the seats in his administration, most of which have gone to the scum of the Earth. He's outlined the specific policies he will be enacting, most of which are the product of paranoid delusions.
Why should I continue to wait when Trump himself hasn't? The head of the Environmental Protection Agency is one of our nation's most outspoken climate change deniers. He may as well have appointed a creationist Flat-Earther as the secretary of education.
Trump is waging a war against reason, science, education, and information. He's building his entire administration around fear, anger, paranoia, corporate interests, and baseless conspiracies. [B]Why[/B] should I remain optimistic about his intentions in the face of that, Syntax?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say be optimistic, I said stop screaming bloody murder in every damn thread about it.
Believe me, I'm beyond concerned about what he's going to do, there is a reason I didn't vote for the bastard. But he hasn't even planted his ass in the chair yet dude.
[QUOTE=OvB;51417259]You might want to be sitting for this...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/21/falwell-meets-with-trump-to-talk-education/[/url][/QUOTE]
OH for christs sakes
[QUOTE=OvB;51417246]Very few people in NASA have anything to do with rockets at all actually. It's sorta like the vast majority of people in the Air Force never touch a plane. NASA employs a ton of earth and environmental scientists, biologists, chemists, etc. I'd simply reorganize everything so that we don't have each organization each having their own departments of the same thing. I'd remove the bureaucracy by combining all the climate research under the Office of Climate Change that's part of NOAA. Everyone would have their neat little place, and if NASA or the EPA or a private company or whoever wanted to collaborate on something, they'd know exactly where to go. You want federal research on climate change? Oh that's NOAA's OCC.[/QUOTE]
I just worry about this administration's ability to facilitate that transition.
I don't mind (thoughtful) reorganization, but Trump and his advisors have been way to vague about their plans. What do they think is "politicized" about climate research?
[QUOTE=OvB;51417259]You might want to be sitting for this...[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me anything like this is actually happening, please. I don't know if my heart could stand that. Last I head there was no confirmed appointee yet?
[QUOTE=OvB;51417259]You might want to be sitting for this...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/21/falwell-meets-with-trump-to-talk-education/[/url][/QUOTE]
"Is that the Liberty University guy? Oh, it's the Liberty University guy. Oh..."
- me ten seconds ago
[QUOTE=OvB;51417259]You might want to be sitting for this...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/11/21/falwell-meets-with-trump-to-talk-education/[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]Last year, Falwell drew headlines when he urged his students to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons after the deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. By arming themselves, the university president said, members of the campus community would deter terrorist threats.
“Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,” he told students in December during a fiery speech on campus, with a reference to a pistol in his back pocket.
[B]Falwell said at the time that if “more good people” had concealed-carry permits, “we could end those Muslims before they walked in.”[/b][/quote]
Fuck's sake.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417281]Fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]
going to be a rough four years for education with this delusional in the hot seat, among other departments with their own delusionals.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417281]Fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]
was it really necessary to trim off the last sentence of the same paragraph where he at least [I]tries[/I] to backpedal?
[quote]Falwell said at the time that if “more good people” had concealed-carry permits, “we could end those Muslims before they walked in.”[B] He said afterward that “those Muslims” was a reference to Islamic terrorists.[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51417287]going to be a rough four years for education with this delusional in the hot seat, among other departments with their own delusionals.[/QUOTE]
Don't undersell it; it's going to be a rough four years for [I]everybody.[/I]
[editline]23rd November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51417293]was it really necessary to trim off the last sentence of the same paragraph where he at least [I]tries[/I] to backpedal?[/QUOTE]
Oh, well then, totally fine. :rolleyes:
It's hateful, ignorant, inflammatory B.S. Whether he chose that word deliberately or just let it slip, he demonstrated his extremist leanings quite clearly. His "clarifying" backpedaling does nothing to remove the toxicity in that statement, and is ultimately irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417294]
Oh, well then, totally fine. :rolleyes:
It's hateful, ignorant, inflammatory B.S. Whether he chose that word deliberately or just let it slip, he demonstrated his extremist leanings quite clearly.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I believe him, but cherry picking to make him look worse than he already does is annoying as shit.
Not like we were going to stop the climate change anyway. Let it all burn
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51417319]I'm not saying I believe him, but cherry picking to make him look worse than he already does is annoying as shit.[/QUOTE]
Does "cherry picking" Trump's statement about grabbing women by the pussy without mentioning he played it off as "locker room talk" when he got called out on it strike the same nerve?
His explanation does nothing to defuse how vile a statement that is.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51417328]Does "cherry picking" Trump's statement about grabbing women by the pussy without mentioning he played it off as "locker room talk" when he got called out on it strike the same nerve?
His explanation does nothing to defuse how vile a statement that is.[/QUOTE]
Oh no he said something sexist in a private conversation more than a decade ago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.