The statement doesn't say "the remaining honest", it says "any remaining honest". Second, it says "honest debate", one can be honestly debating but not have a strong or compelling case (or at least one that defies that the science is or may be settled). The idea communicated here is that it would be another nail on a coffin, at which point it is only desperate interest trying to push any more air through. You can already find senior scientists making this claim.
|
Mitchell Anderson |
Whitehouse Withholds DSCOVR Documents12 May 08
The Bush Whitehouse continues to stonewall around the critically important Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). I recently received a long-overdue response to a freedom of information request about the mission. After waiting six months, thirteen documents were located – and all were withheld from release. So why did the Whitehouse even have "predecisional draft documents that include...deliberative comments" about the DSCOVR mission? Does this indicate the Bush administration had a direct hand in killing this project? “As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, ‘The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.’ So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.” DSCOVR climate satellite goresat global warming |
Rob, you have to remember
Rob, you have to remember that this is the crowd that will tell you that if the weather is warmer it is global warming. If colder, global warming. If we have rain, global warming. Drought, global warming. Two quite hurrincane years, global warming. A bad ass cyclone in Bhurma, global warming.
So it follows, no debate so we need a money wasting project to quell the debate we are not having.
Straw man
manapp99,
Nice ideological straw man argument.
Why don't you read some science instead of the junk science sites that you seem to rely upon. You are making yourself look really foolish.
"Climate Change" Explained
"Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"
http://tinyurl.com/5vhzna
Science never has it both
Science never has it both ways. It is never settled. Returning to first principles IS the first principle of science.
Restart?
Is it possible,with a new president, to get this project restarted? I'm not familiar with the procedure or policy surrounding this sort of thing, but it seems like something worth getting people behind.
questions
Isn't GW advocate James Hanson the head of Climate research at NASA? What if it is he who is trying to stop the DSCOVR mission because it will reveal that the "global warming" gambit is false and nothing more than a get rich quick scheme for Al Gore. The credibility of Global Warming scare mongers isn't too good right now.
occam's razor
occam's razor strongly suggests that because Hansen is NOT in charge of all those other organizations who have DSCOVR information but can't seem to release it via FIOAs, Hansen is not likely acting behind the scenes to stop DSCOVR.
I was going to write
"what if you were clueless" but the I realised that you are clueless.
Funding
Al Gore has made enough money with his book, movie and selling carbon credits to fund this project. If it is so vital and can definatively prove his point, why isn't he pushing to fund this with his millions?









Science Not "Settled" After All, Apparently
"Senior scientists believe this spacecraft could almost immediately resolve any remaining honest debate about the seriousness or causes of climate change."
What?! You mean to say there is still debate about climate change? Why is it, then, that you people are endlessly claiming the science is "settled"?
You can't have it both ways.