NASA funding cuts - US Govt is anti science - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

daisym · #1 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

It seems that not only does the US Govt put political appointees in positions where they censor what scientists say to the public - but they are also cutting expenditure on science - effectively limiting the opportunities for US scientists to monitor global climate change.

Is this an appropriate position for the world's largest economy?

Quote:

Eyes in the sky grow dim

At a time when climate change impacts are accelerating, our ability to observe those impacts from space is deteriorating.

Cuts in US government funding for Nasa programmes will dramatically weaken scientists' capacity to monitor and understand the planet's climate; at least, so says a major study from the National Research Council (NRC), published earlier this year.

If present trends continue, they conclude, by 2015 the number of US Earth-observing satellite missions will be reduced by half, putting the scientific systems they support "at risk of collapse."

They warn that such a loss would severely hamper the ability of scientists to collect basic information about the Earth's climate system, to monitor changes - including those that directly affect human health, such as disease outbreaks and water contamination - and provide accurate weather forecasts.

Programmes involving measurements of temperature, ozone, ocean winds, water vapour, and solar radiation are among those expected to be curtailed.

The substitution of more economical but less capable instruments on some missions will worsen forecasts of El Nino, hurricanes and coastal weather, the study says.

The warnings of reduced observing capability come with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the middle of a sequence of major reports which are painting a picture of likely climate change impacts around the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6590333.stm

emptypepsi · #2 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

So long as society cares about getting rich and making money more than scientific/space exploration and discovery, NASA will remain on the backburner. Government may be the tool here, but in the presence of outrage from the public, this would all change. There simply exists no incentive for the government to do so right now, as most people sincerely couldn't care less.

Not that I agree, by any means -- It is a shame. In fact, societys dwindling interest in such things is very related to our intellectual devolution in this country (IMHO). The more the people involved (this include citizens) care about making money and improving life for them now, bickering among each other for useless political points, and not thinking about the future - stagnation shall be our only claim from here on in.

Kijana · #3 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

So long as society cares about getting rich and making money more than scientific/space exploration and discovery, NASA will remain on the backburner. Government may be the tool here, but in the presence of outrage from the public, this would all change. There simply exists no incentive for the government to do so right now, as most people sincerely couldn't care less.

Not that I agree, by any means -- It is a shame. In fact, societys dwindling interest in such things is very related to our intellectual devolution in this country (IMHO). The more the people involved (this include citizens) care about making money and improving life for them now, bickering among each other for useless political points, and not thinking about the future - stagnation shall be our only claim from here on in.

Very well said. I wish our government was more long-term thinking. But, a democratic government is somewhat a reflection of its people.

noahath · #4 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007

Funding cuts to NASA are an interesting point to consider. For example the missile defense system would arguably fall somewhere under NASA's jurisdiction given their involvement in implementing it. I would suggest (and I could be/probably am completely wrong) that NASA's budget would have dramatically increased over recent years, but the pure scientific component of that is what has decreased.

daisym · #5 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

Funding cuts to NASA are an interesting point to consider. For example the missile defense system would arguably fall somewhere under NASA's jurisdiction given their involvement in implementing it. I would suggest (and I could be/probably am completely wrong) that NASA's budget would have dramatically increased over recent years, but the pure scientific component of that is what has decreased.

the funding cuts are specifically aimed at satellites that provide information on climate change it appears. I can intepret this several ways.

Ostriches come to mind

- but so too does the image of a rather cynical set of people who are happy to let their population fiddle while rome burns ... offering distractors - circuses for amusement/entertainment/to inspire fear/awe/ patriotism/admiration - to ensure that everything can go on, business as usual, while huge profits/payouts are reaped ... and let the future take care of itself.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode