Home | About | Donate

Anti-Science GOP 'Eviscerates' NASA Spending on Climate Change Research


Excellent analysis but it only shines a light on one side of equation. This article by Erik Lindberg titled
‘Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question’ looks a liberal denial.


I think that’s a bad allegory. The Holocaust had to (and has to be) talked about otherwise people would conveniently shove it under a rug, true. Climate change is right in people faces right now. In California right now we are bracing for the worst.


Congress is also eviscerating any funding for practical renewables development and renewables innovation. That deserves a headline in itself.

If you want renewables innovation, be prepared to work out of your own garage. (Mine’s a mess of salvaged insulation, wood and other items, thank you!) Congress is on the other side. Most universities, including the ones that signed the Greenhouse Compact promising in writing to work with renewables inventors to attack humanity’s scourge, are only caring about their own funding these days, so expect no help there. Then there are foundations.




Ee’ll see…


Seconded …


Please, spare the Neanderthals. They may have looked funny, but they were probably very smart. In fact, many of us are likely part Neanderthal.


these flat worlders will not be happy till the science books read that the earth was made by the big guy in the sky in 7 days 4000 years ago.


If there are going to be no more publicly funded scientists modelling and investigating climate change, that leaves scientists funded by Shell, Chevron and BP. I wonder what answers the scientists owned by Shell, Chevron and BP might come up with?


Terrible and disheartening. I have the idea noone is going to stop them. With a war on multiple fronts, social issues, even outside of racial issues, it is easy for the Catastrophy Makers step in and do their magic with the education of its cititizenry. There’s a reason why we have had someone from secret services have been the head of the education department since at least Nixon.


The difficulty - Climate science includes just about everything on earth. Global warming threatens all life on earth. All earth science and life science is now a branch of climate science. No more prospecting for fossil fuels as that requires earth science too. Solution - Re-label all science as fossil fuel prospecting. Same Japanese whalers becoming whale scientists. After all, the whole earth was made for our exploitation. So if I want to study release of methane from melting permafrost, that is a study of the economic wealth possibilities of capture of gas from melted permafrost.


Cutting the NASA budget is idiotic.
Perhaps those in favor of this behavior
believe in unilateral disarmament
against the threat from asteroids as well.
If we can’t study the earth from above, we
may be buried by un-forewarned natural disasters
without the spatial ability to foresee them. This
kind of imprudent political behavior threatens to
institutionalize contempt of Congress as a natural
byproduct of education.
If they aren’t sure about climate change, there
are two major kinds of errors they can make. 1)
They can protect against it, and all that will happen
is that the money spent will help clean the air and
improve the health of those who have to breathe it,
or they can be wrong and refuse to invest in protection
against the climate change, and we will reach the
tipping point where there is nothing more we can do
to prevent the environment from becoming uninhabitable
in which case civilization will suffer massive disruption
and at least partial extinction from the consequences.
Which consequences of a mistake do the climate
change deniers prefer? If they are not responsible for
the consequences of their actions, I don’t want them to
become responsible for the fate of the rest of us.