Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Daily Caller – The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has just approved a bill which directs NASA to spend more resources exploring space, and less money on Earth sciences, such as climate research.
According to the official government committee website;
“Today’s bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that NASA will continue to innovate and inspire,” stated Chairman Lamar Smith. “The Authorization levels for FY16 and FY17 included in this bill provide NASA with the resources necessary to remain a leader in space exploration in a time of tight budget realities. For more than 50 years, the U.S. has led the world in space exploration. We must restore balance to NASA’s budget if we want to ensure the U.S. continues to lead in space for the next 50 years. And we must continue to invest in NASA as the only government agency responsible for space exploration.”
The Congressional Bill contains the following intriguing statement:
The Administrator shall carry out a scientific assess-
21 ment of the Administration’s Earth science global datasets
22 for the purpose of identifying those datasets that are use-
23 ful for understanding regional changes and variability, and
24 for informing applied science research. The Administrator
25 shall complete and transmit the assessment to the Com-
1 mittee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House
2 of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
3 Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than
4 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Read more: NASA Authorization Act for 16 and 17.pdf
My impression is that there is concern NASA is encroaching on NOAA’s turf – that NOAA should do the climate research, and NASA should focus on space research. The alternative, that some of NOAA’s responsibilities and budget could be formally transferred to NASA, is also mentioned.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NASA went into the global warming business for the same reasons all these various academic professors and their grad students piled in: this is where the taxes on thin air brings in tons of money.
Studying anything else, doing anything else means no money. Billions pushed into the fraud to prove that thin air that is excellent for plants, is really killing all living things, needs confirmation from all possible entities such as NASA. Biologists now focus nearly exclusively on proving that plant food (CO2) is evil and should be eliminated.
All of this is a crime and I wish we could have trials to punish the people pushing this but then, the fraudsters are demanding WE be put on trial for pointing out the reality of what is going on here.
Welcome to the 21st century. More to come unfortunately. GK
Probably the real reason that NASA GISS is being Unfunded for 2016 and 2017
The FLATNESS of their century record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
and the likelihood of a continued Hiatus extending their Unadjusted Dataset even further while still remaining flat.
The same is happening with all PC issues, because the truth has been outlawed. I always thought that George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning to all free and civilised people, not as a manual for how to run a government….
The original purpose of GISS, that was funded by Robert Jastrow was this: “Following approval by NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan in December 1960, the institute was established by Dr. Robert Jastrow in May 1961 (originally as the New York City office of GSFC’s Theoretical Division) to do basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC programs. Research areas included the structure of Earth, Moon, and other planetary bodies; the atmospheres of Earth and the other planets; the origin and evolution of the solar system; the properties of interplanetary plasma; Sun-Earth relations; and the structure and evolution of stars.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
No mention of meteorology or temperature studies at all.
What about Muslim outreach and income inequality?
I’ve often wondered: How much should people advocating against income inequality be paid?
I don’t know. Go ask Slick Willy ( Bill Clinton)
Yeah, maybe NASA should make some more videos on that. They could hire Michael Moore for his objectivity.
About time.
Ditto!!
You mean NASA’s no longer gonna’ be able to do climate impact studies on the LGBT community?
I am so grateful that I did not have a mouth full of coffee when I read your post. +1
You’re sounding a bit antediluvian … it’s LGBTQQIAAP now.
And lest you think I’m kidding: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LGBTQQIAAP
Whoa!
“LGBTQQIAAP”
I’m sure I’m probably one of those, just not sure which one!
I see the potential to add a letter in there between ‘Questioning’ and ‘Transgendered’. You know — when you’ve decided to which sex you’re attracted, but haven’t yet begun debating with yourself/consulting mental health professionals whether or not to have surgery to a different sex.
You mean I now have to learn more than just putting the potatoe in the right end of my speedos?
I could tell you my own story of hermaphrodititis but I think I’ll save it for another day.
Can a hermaphrodite be a transvestite?
LGBTQBDSMDOP
notice that only one of these is an actual biological condition? and…wouldn’t it be inconsistent for a transsexual to be want to live in a world that scorns technology?…and… where on that list do pedophiles fit?…and,,, what is the PC term for bestiality these days?…questions …so many questions…
Max, they found a woman with 2 vaginas the other day, another acronym to add on to an-already usless list of achievements by this repressed crowd?
Craig,
Woman with 2 vaginas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnPjmqtx3lg
Needs to meet http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/man-born-two-penises
Picture of 2 pussy’s http://tinyurl.com/q46c8j3
“We are normal, and we want our freedom!”
@Craig – she’s going to have to give up one of those extra parts. White privilege, you know; have to share the wealth.
They would save money if the closed down NASA GISS. It hasn’t done real sciences for decades
Aren’t their headquarters submerged along with much of the rest of Manhattan? Isn’t this a moot point? I’m so confused. I just don’t know what to believe… :/
They only lost two Shuttles. That’s something. They put up several KH11 satellites that are bigger and more powerful than the Hubble. Of course they’re pointed the wrong way.
So they are going to move more money from climate research to their Muslim outreach program…..
snark/
Hmmm, ‘understanding regional changes and variability’. Someone’s a sharp cookie.
=====================
Kim, Bingo. “Regional Changes…” that to sounds like a defunding of the GISSTEMP. Which, if that is what is in play, is a lot bigger than this post appears to be saying.
“The Administrator shall carry out a scientific assessment of the Administration’s Earth science global datasets for the purpose of identifying those datasets that are useful for understanding regional changes and variability, and or informing applied science research…”
Oh the hawling, if it turns out that NASA is saying enough of the GISSTEMP, we dont need to pay for reevaluation of data already saved.
Is someone actually figuring out that a single temperature number for the globe, or even a region, is meaningless? No, no possible.
Meanwhile, NASA continues to use Russians to access the Space Station.
The recent Russian attempt to resupply the space station did not turn out so well:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8508569/space-station-supply-food
SpaceX has a good track record supplying the Space Station. They will be doing manned flights by 2017.
At first I thought this was very witty, but then it changed to depressing. I wonder what Kennedy would say about this.
NASA shouldn’t be russian away from their traditional core competencies, they should be putin space travel first and quit the stalin.
NASA’s traditional core capabilities were aeronautics (NACA). They should actually up the aeronautics budget.
Mazel tov cocktail to you, PiperPaul.
============
+10
If they transfer some of GISS’s work to the NCDC, I sure hope they do something about making it (and algorithms) easy to access. Whenever I have to look for something at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ I spend 15 minutes in some loop trying to find something I know I saw there before but can’t find.
Maybe I need to come up with a Guide to the NCDC.
My experience too ;-(
Better to Google or Bing it.
Willis should gin up the Guide. He never seems to have any trouble finding the odd bit of data.
Me too. NOAA is a rabbit warren.
Not sure why anyone would want to access NCDC, home of Data Adjustment, Inc.
http://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NASA_Earth_Space_Science-Funding-757×335.png
Wow!
Tell me the incentives and I’ll predict behavior.
Of course. In 2009, James Hansen advised Barack Obama that he only had four years to save the earth. It appears that giving big bucks to NASA’s Earth Science program did the trick.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
Quite a few of the warmists are screaming to the high hills about how those darned Republicans are “destroying science” with this move.
What, a Federal agency being told to mind it’s own business? How rude of the proletariat to elect representatives who might believe that NASA doesn’t know what’s in our best interests.
Granit – is that a friggin hockey stick I see?
Cutting Gavin Shmidt’s salary would be a good start.
How about a RIF? Also consider the electrical energy that would be saved if their Kw munching super computer(s) were turned off.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, if we’ve already destroyed planet Earth’s environment, like wot we’re always being told by the Alarmists, NASA is our only escape route. It makes sense to put the money into an escape strategy rather than a lost cause.
Pointman
They are already saying that one reason to go to Mars is if there is a “mass extinction” type event. Sci-fi silliness.
I think detection and interception of PHA and comet collisions, etc. is where I see their focus presently, along with development of new propulsion technology.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html
Manned interplanetary exploration currently is stalled by insufficient shielding for long voyages in the present heliospheric density, as GCR is too high.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/17feb_radiation/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
Really our only escape route? So when is NASA going to the even the space station? Space X and the Russians are going there, the Chinese are likely going to the moon, the only thing we need NASA for is muslim outreach.
If true this is where NASA should be spending the money
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3063082/Has-Nasa-built-WARP-DRIVE-Engineers-claim-tested-impossible-engine-travel-faster-speed-light.html
“Nasa has successfully tested their EmDrive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organisation has reported such a successful test,’ the researchers wrote.
The EM drive has been kicking around for a few years. I’m not convinced, I wrote a few critical online comments a few years ago, when New Scientist did a write up. The EM drive seems really preposterous, conservation of momentum is part of conservation of mass and energy – right up there with things not being able to travel faster than light.
lubos motl agrees with, BTW
“agrees with you”
It is a sad commentary on NASA that the satellite temperature series come from UAH and RSS, while NASA GISS ‘duplicates’ NOAA NCDC, which is also responsible for the primary data. And Rignot of NASA JPL is doing terrestrial Antarctic ice studies, instead of USGS or NSIDC. Lamar Smith is directionally correct. Wasteful duplicative mission creep.
…or, more likely, mission leap. 😉
Catastrophism is one small step for some men, but a great leap backwards for the grandchildren.
================
🙂
I don’t care which agency does what. The stupid politicization has to go.
Well, but do both agencies (NASA and NOAA) need to do the same stuff?
I would say “NO”.
I think it is time that everyone understand that since Apollo, NASA is nothing more than another corrupt wasteful government bureaucracy populated with personell that were unable to get a job in the private sector. The record of two shuttle disasters are bad, but no one remembers the shuttle program failed to provide any substantial benefits as promised that disposable launches could have achieved. The Hubble was sent into space without checking the optics and required a massive repair effort. How about sending a probe to Jupiter and having the antenna fail? The final proof is Hansen and others manipulation of temperature date as well as his testimony before congress alone should prove that NASA is no longer a home for the best and brightest.
This is a great political signal to the Federal bureaucrats at GISS. Personally, I’d prefer a much stronger signal that completely defunds and eliminates GISS, forcing them to turn over their data and code to NOAA, and terminating the employment of it’s globe-trotting Climate Lords. But it’s a step in the right direction. I can’t imagine it will soon be law. Senate Democrats can filibuster it, or if don’t and the bill does somehow manage to pass both houses, Emperor Obama would probably veto it.
This type of budget cut for global warming related money is going to scare a lot people who profit from that gravy train. Expect an increase in fear mongering, no-data stories through media with the typical “Scientists say…” phrase that they use, as if a few guys trying to justify their research funds speak for the entire scientific community. I expect the IPCC in particular to be put into panic mode by this move by NASA, and I would bet they are preparing a statement right now to justify their empire and budgets.
You can count on it. Finding for this sort of “research” has been cut on Australia and we still see, day after day, alarmist climate change articles in the MSM. It’s only going tyo get worse as we get closer to the Paris gabfest!
The IPCC relying on NASA’s imprimatur? Who would have thought?
The best move would be to defund the US/CDN portions of the UNFCCC, WMO and IPCC. There are enough national meteorological and climatological agencies – they can communicate among themselves without these unaccountable organizations.
Mixing space research and climate change
is a bit like putting Christmas lights on a palm tree.
Seasons greetings from NASA GISS.
http://blog-imgs-44-origin.fc2.com/j/a/p/japanyouqu/youqupics043_24.jpg
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wgrd.com/files/2012/12/lights.jpeg
Reminds me of the definition of an expert … an old drip under pressure
what a Phallic Palm
Or a Phallic Phoenix….. (phoenix is Greek for palm)
So, by drawing on space funds, climate change is hampering our efforts to conquer the galaxy. Better add that to the list affected things.
When I become Fuhrer, NASA’s charter will be:
“To take and hold the high ground of space.”
So which section of NASA gave us gems like “arsenic-based life-forms” and “worms in meteorites”?
Those would seem the places to start.
That’s fine. You’ve got to go to the edge to find the new.
Sometimes it doesn’t pan out. But you’ve got to be willing to look for the extraordinary.
Perhaps in the case of the “worms”, since those are still being debated, but did you happen to watch the PR extravaganza announcing the arsenic-based life-forms? That was (or should have been) embarrassing.