Comments on: NASA cancels/delays global warming projects http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/09/nasa-cancelsdelays-global-warming-projects/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:09:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/09/nasa-cancelsdelays-global-warming-projects/#comment-679 Erich Vieth Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:20:26 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=227#comment-679 <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=AkczrgxawOtcc7iR_gyGzaOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM">Today's news</a> is that numerous scientists say that Al Gore got the science right in his movie: "An Inconvenient Truth." Today’s news is that numerous scientists say that Al Gore got the science right in his movie: “An Inconvenient Truth.”

]]> By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/09/nasa-cancelsdelays-global-warming-projects/#comment-418 grumpypilgrim Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:02:52 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=227#comment-418 I really like Erika's comment, because it so nicely captures the strategy of the Bush Administration. Indeed, what better way for the Bushies to protect their argument that "There is no proof that human activities contribute to global warming." than by undermining efforts to find the proof? This reminds me of one of Erich's previous posts ( <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=79">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=79</a> ) about how Bush's science "advisors" have been doctoring government-prepared scientific reports (not just about global warming) to blunt conclusions that the Bushies don't like. Apparently, the Bushies have now decided that the best way to avoid being caught doctoring unfavorable scientific reports is by not having any unfavorable scientific reports in the first place. It seems George Bush and George Orwell have more in common than just their first names. I really like Erika’s comment, because it so nicely captures the strategy of the Bush Administration. Indeed, what better way for the Bushies to protect their argument that “There is no proof that human activities contribute to global warming.” than by undermining efforts to find the proof?

This reminds me of one of Erich’s previous posts ( http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=79 ) about how Bush’s science “advisors” have been doctoring government-prepared scientific reports (not just about global warming) to blunt conclusions that the Bushies don’t like. Apparently, the Bushies have now decided that the best way to avoid being caught doctoring unfavorable scientific reports is by not having any unfavorable scientific reports in the first place.

It seems George Bush and George Orwell have more in common than just their first names.

]]> By: Erika Price http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/09/nasa-cancelsdelays-global-warming-projects/#comment-407 Erika Price Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:39:31 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=227#comment-407 Yeesh. First that silly Mars aspiration, now this. Some people call me overly cynical and small-minded for generally spitting upon outreaching space programs, but I think we have a logical obligation to structure NASA's rather enourmous budget around pragmatic needs rather than the often childlike wishes nestled in the "S" of the acronym. The politicing behind this move looks so obvious. Those firmly opposed to emissions controls lean on the assertion that we "just don't know enough" about global warming yet. And if Bush has his way, we'll have some lovely moon rocks and Mars ice, but we'll <i>never</i> know "enough" about our own planet's environment. But somehow I suspect many Americans just won't pick up on the correlation between these two issues. Yeesh. First that silly Mars aspiration, now this. Some people call me overly cynical and small-minded for generally spitting upon outreaching space programs, but I think we have a logical obligation to structure NASA’s rather enourmous budget around pragmatic needs rather than the often childlike wishes nestled in the “S” of the acronym. The politicing behind this move looks so obvious. Those firmly opposed to emissions controls lean on the assertion that we “just don’t know enough” about global warming yet. And if Bush has his way, we’ll have some lovely moon rocks and Mars ice, but we’ll never know “enough” about our own planet’s environment. But somehow I suspect many Americans just won’t pick up on the correlation between these two issues.

]]>