Obama kills the NASA Constellation program...so much for space

CrackerJax said:

Actually NASA has just been caught cherry picking weather stations to artificially support MAN made global warming. (big black eye).

Click to expand...

got any evidence for that?? i tried googling it but couldnt find anything apart from from a statement from moscow thinktank
Institute of Economic Analysis
now i cant find any scientific expertise of basis behind their claims
now seeing as how the hadley center is implicated in this too lets see what t hey say about what data they're given...
a spokesman for the Hadley Centre said its scientists did not choose which weather stations to collect its data from. “The World Meteorological Organisation chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don’t pick them so we can’t be accused of fixing the data. We are confident in the accuracy of our report.”

Ohh, you naive little nooby.... I'll dig it up for you....but you need to widen ur reading selections and get off the political spin pages.

PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1 said:

I guess some people are trying to ignore you lol,,,They continue to bitch about the moon and Obama

Click to expand...

Not true. He did not provide anything to substantiate his statement.

"I saw it a few months ago" is not compelling and persuades nobody.

But we know that the Moon program is in jeopardy thanks to Obama. And that is not from a few months ago.

http://www.space.com/news/obama-nasa-space-plan-reactions-100128.html

And as long as Obama continues to happily preside over the decline of the U.S., you better believe I will have something to say about it.

The more pressing question is why don't you have anything to say on the matter?

The Messiah is making his supporters look like fools.

CrackerJax said:

Ohh, you naive little nooby.... I'll dig it up for you....but you need to widen ur reading selections and get off the political spin pages.

Click to expand...

i just went for what i could find on google its not a story i had read yet...

maybe he has no choice,to much money being spent to get this country back on it's feet. space can wait we need jobs now. not trying to be a .ick but what has space done for you lately?

Please read the entire article, but I have highlighted NOAA & NASA involvement as well.
==============================================================


Environment: The United Nations makes a claim that can't be supported by science, and U.S. researchers ignore temperature data from frigid regions. The crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed.
With so much of the science behind climate change coming under attack, especially among scientists, it's been a harsh winter for the global warming crowd:
• In late November, thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked to the public. The evidence strongly suggests that researchers colluded to prove the global warming scientific "consensus" by rigging, burying and destroying data that ran counter to their political agenda.
• Last week, the public learned that claims made by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change were not based on science, but on speculation. Specifically, the IPCC's 2007 report said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming.
The claim, used at the U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference in cold and snowy December to rush through a restrictive greenhouse-gas-emissions treaty, was not based on a scientific study. It was based on a telephone call that a reporter had with a scientist who was speculating.
The IPCC has withdrawn the claim. Murari Lal, the scientist who included the contention in the U.N. report, admitted that he knew it wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific research.
• Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.
Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
"Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."
Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has "reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database" and has "cherry-picked" the stations.
The NASA agency uses data from "sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather."
In a paper published on the Science and Public Policy Institute Web site, D'Aleo and Smith say the "NOAA ... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
"The thermometers, in a sense, marched toward the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."
• Then, just last weekend, we find that same 2007 IPCC report included another phony claim: that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
British newspapers reported Sunday that that assertion was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific paper when the IPCC report was issued. When the paper that the claim was based on was published in 2008, its authors said:
"We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Now the IPCC says it is "reassessing the evidence."
All threads of fiction unravel eventually, and the deterioration flies out of control as the end nears.
Is this what we are seeing with the contention that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the planet to overheat?
We can't see into the future, but this myth has taken so many hits from the truth that its survival is in doubt.

tricombingthesehairs said:

maybe he has no choice,to much money being spent to get this country back on it's feet. space can wait we need jobs now. not trying to be a .ick but what has space done for you lately?

Click to expand...

Advanced computer technology, solar energy, velcro, Tang, etc.

The Moon is an abundant source of Helium-3, which is a necessary component for the holy grail of sustainable energy - fission. But we pissed that opportunity away when we dropped Apollo.

A return to the Moon with the intention of collecting Helium-3 towards the development of fission could conceivably be considered a green jobs program; and if successful, might cement Obama as a great visionary American President.

Obama is pissing away $$$ everywhere....so please don't tell me he can't do it. He is a welfare President, that much is clear. he wishes to extend the Failed Society program, even though all the data says it's a nightmare.

Obama has no priorities which are in synch with the country....hence his HUGE slides in the polls.

Space exploration is fascinating. How it should be funded is another story. Think of all the resources, time, money, and human life that mankind has squandered here on earth battling to control his fellow man. Add up all the resources spent on essentially nonproductive and harmful things.... It's an incredible amount isn't it? We spend so much time fucking with each other we stifle so many things that could happen.

Most of those resources were forcibly extracted from people by governments. What if there were no forcible extraction, in essence a truly "free market" and people were free to use those resources as they deemed appropriate? Surely some would collaborate and there would already be space colonies. Did the government tame fire? No. Did the government invent the wheel? No. (but they sure like to regulate and stifle the use of it) Did the government invent cars or airplanes? No. Why must the government control space exploration and technology? Freedom and free markets drive technology, governments stifle it. Anyone remember government made Russian cars? They sucked.

Some will disagree with me and say that only through government can space travel be accomplished. Sure that is one way to accomplish it, but as we've seen it's also one way to kill it by politicizing it.

I think if you remove all the obstacles created by government, there would already be "flying cars" for local travel and longer range space travel would be common. Sure Government can sometimes advance innovation, but they often stifle it through politics or regulation or by applying protectionism for their cronies in the "private" sector.

While I would love to see space exploration, I do not believe spending other people's money on this against their will is appropriate. Let those who want to see this happen have the freedom to make it happen.

Nice, but we all know if a conglomerate of private corps got together and took over the space program and started to reap huge benefits...the govt would be all over them.

CrackerJax said:

Nice, but we all know if a conglomerate of private corps got together and took over the space program and started to reap huge benefits...the govt would be all over them.

Click to expand...

So are you advocating that the Government that you (correctly) do not trust to administer healthcare, be in charge of owning outer space?

CrackerJax said:

Please read the entire article, but I have highlighted NOAA & NASA involvement as well.
==============================================================


Environment: The United Nations makes a claim that can't be supported by science, and U.S. researchers ignore temperature data from frigid regions. The crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed.
With so much of the science behind climate change coming under attack, especially among scientists, it's been a harsh winter for the global warming crowd:
• In late November, thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked to the public. The evidence strongly suggests that researchers colluded to prove the global warming scientific "consensus" by rigging, burying and destroying data that ran counter to their political agenda.
• Last week, the public learned that claims made by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change were not based on science, but on speculation. Specifically, the IPCC's 2007 report said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming.
The claim, used at the U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference in cold and snowy December to rush through a restrictive greenhouse-gas-emissions treaty, was not based on a scientific study. It was based on a telephone call that a reporter had with a scientist who was speculating.
The IPCC has withdrawn the claim. Murari Lal, the scientist who included the contention in the U.N. report, admitted that he knew it wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific research.
• Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.
Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
"Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."
Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has "reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database" and has "cherry-picked" the stations.
The NASA agency uses data from "sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather."
In a paper published on the Science and Public Policy Institute Web site, D'Aleo and Smith say the "NOAA ... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
"The thermometers, in a sense, marched toward the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."
• Then, just last weekend, we find that same 2007 IPCC report included another phony claim: that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
British newspapers reported Sunday that that assertion was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific paper when the IPCC report was issued. When the paper that the claim was based on was published in 2008, its authors said:
"We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Now the IPCC says it is "reassessing the evidence."
All threads of fiction unravel eventually, and the deterioration flies out of control as the end nears.
Is this what we are seeing with the contention that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the planet to overheat?
We can't see into the future, but this myth has taken so many hits from the truth that its survival is in doubt.

Click to expand...

thats a blog you just quoted me?
when you talk to me about my sources you should at least come back with the original, not a quote from the original in an investment site blog...

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2465893
Temperature data skewed: researchers



Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.
Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), have not only reduced the number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea-- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
"NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment yesterday from Canwest News Service. However, Mr. Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."

​

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

thats a blog you just quoted me?
when you talk to me about my sources you should at least come back with the original, not a quote from the original in an investment site blog...



thats an article about a claim made by 2 researchers about nasa, it isnt proof of anything.
now if those researchers had collected the canadian data and compared it to the nasa data then i'd be happy to believe them.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Click to expand...

And that's why ur a liberal ... no common sense. The pillars are falling but you remain waiting for the rubble to actually hit you.


Rob.... health care and space exploration cannot be compared. I hope you know why....

^^^ Isn't the common denominator in both government run healthcare and space programs the same?
If you are rightfully indignant about being told you MUST purchase healthcare, why shouldn't anyone else be indignant they MUST be forced to fund space exploration ?

I seem to remember this president saying (as a candidate) that the solution to job losses was to encourage businesses to keep jobs here in the US and to reward those businesses with lower taxes/credits for doing so. To stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. Now what, a year later he wants to OUTSOURCE NASA to the Russians. I guess businesses should do as he says, not as he does. Traitor.

Johnnyorganic said:

Not true. He did not provide anything to substantiate his statement.

"I saw it a few months ago" is not compelling and persuades nobody.

But we know that the Moon program is in jeopardy thanks to Obama. And that is not from a few months ago.

http://www.space.com/news/obama-nasa-space-plan-reactions-100128.html

And as long as Obama continues to happily preside over the decline of the U.S., you better believe I will have something to say about it.

The more pressing question is why don't you have anything to say on the matter?

The Messiah is making his supporters look like fools.

Click to expand...

Article from April 2008
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/30/nasa-may-scrap-plans-for-a-permanent-moon-base/

NASA has been working towards returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there. But some space analysts and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society have urged the agency to cancel plans for a permanent moon base, carry out shorter moon missions instead, and focus on getting astronauts to Mars [New Scientist]. When the agency’s acting administrator, Chris Scolese, testified before a congressional subcommittee yesterday, he said that the agency probably won’t aim to build an outpost on the moon, suggesting that the agency may be following those advocates’ advice.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17052-nasa-may-abandon-plans-for-moon-base.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news


NASA has been working towards returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there. But some space analysts and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society have urged the agency to cancel plans for a permanent moon base, carry out shorter moon missions instead, and focus on getting astronauts to Mars.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13727-nasa-must-look-beyond-the-moon.html


In February 2008, a group of former NASA officials and ex-astronauts urged the agency to downgrade its plans for the Moon and focus more on Mars. Now a National Research Council (NRC) committee, chosen by the US National Academy of Sciences to review NASA's efforts, has reached similar conclusions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13330-nasa-urged-to-focus-on-sending-people-to-mars.html



NASA should focus its efforts on mounting a human mission to Mars, and downgrade its plans for a human presence on the Moon, says a distinguished group of space experts, including former NASA officials and ex-astronauts.

natrone23 said:

Article from April 2008
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/30/nasa-may-scrap-plans-for-a-permanent-moon-base/

NASA has been working towards returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there. But some space analysts and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society have urged the agency to cancel plans for a permanent moon base, carry out shorter moon missions instead, and focus on getting astronauts to Mars [New Scientist]. When the agency’s acting administrator, Chris Scolese, testified before a congressional subcommittee yesterday, he said that the agency probably won’t aim to build an outpost on the moon, suggesting that the agency may be following those advocates’ advice.

Click to expand...

Actually it is from April 30, 2009. Nice try.

In fact, this article appears to be a summary of the next article. Brilliant.

natrone23 said:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17052-nasa-may-abandon-plans-for-moon-base.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news


NASA has been working towards returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there. But some space analysts and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society have urged the agency to cancel plans for a permanent moon base, carry out shorter moon missions instead, and focus on getting astronauts to Mars.

Click to expand...

Interesting, but the focus of this article is Moon bases. The study referenced states Moon missions should continue.

Furthermore, it states that the plan would be dependent upon a couple of factors:

1) The next NASA Administrator nominated by who again?

2) The 2010 budget. Who's budget would that be?

In fact, at the time of this article, April 2009, NASA appears to be rudderless. Unsure of what to expect from PresBo. Now that's leadership!

I'll get to the other articles you eventually provided later.

But these were fun.