The GOP attack on climate change science takes a big step forward

LizardofOz · May 4, 2015

Full article here.

Just some bits I found interesting:

The committee's markup of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2016 and 2017 passed on a party-line vote, Republicans in the majority. The action followed what appears to be a deliberate attempt to keep Democrats out of the loop. According to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking Democrat, her caucus "did not even know [the markup] existed before last Friday. ... After we saw the bill, we understood why."

The Earth Science division, the organization continued, helped monitor the movement of oil into Gulf of Mexico coastal waters after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, track severe storms and tornadoes, and assisted with flood predictions and earthquake response.

I think if you believe in facts and science, or believe that angels are real like a child believes in Santa Claus, we can all agree that research into severe weather is needed. And NASA I believe is overall very important to us as a nation that cutting anything from their already small budget is a bad decision.

clownboy · May 4, 2015

I think we already have a thread going on this.

LizardofOz · May 4, 2015

clownboy said:
I think we already have a thread going on this.

I see. Link please?

clownboy · May 4, 2015

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-house-gop-budget-gut-nasa-earth-science.html

Posted yesterday.

Taylor · May 4, 2015

JohnWOlin said:
I think if you believe in facts and science, or believe that angels are real like a child believes in Santa Claus, we can all agree that research into severe weather is needed. And NASA I believe is overall very important to us as a nation that cutting anything from their already small budget is a bad decision.

They're not cutting anything from the overall NASA budget, they appear to be reallocating how those funds would be spent:

Top-line funding for NASA would be the same as the President’s FY2016 budget request ($18.5 billion) under the aspirational level or the same as its current funding ($18.0 billion) under the constrained scenario. Overall, the bill favors human space exploration, planetary science, and astrophysics.

The GOP position seems to be that National Aeronautics and Space Administration funding should be prioritized toward "space sciences" (my term) rather than earth sciences (which, yes, would probably reduce funding for research related to climate change). Under the "aspirational" scenario, this represents something like an 18% reduction from current funding.

ocean515 · May 4, 2015

JohnWOlin said:
Full article here.

Just some bits I found interesting:

I think if you believe in facts and science, or believe that angels are real like a child believes in Santa Claus, we can all agree that research into severe weather is needed. And NASA I believe is overall very important to us as a nation that cutting anything from their already small budget is a bad decision.

What is the purpose of the NOAA? Why should the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be involved with science involving issues unrelated to it's mission?

The GOP attack on climate change science takes a big step forward

LizardofOz

clownboy

LizardofOz

clownboy

Taylor

ocean515

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency