After the Challenger disaster, Congress showed the wisdom to assemble a panel of experts from other professions. It was obvious that NASA was corrupt and that Congress wasn’t going to get a straight answer from them.
NASA is similarly corrupt about climate science, and the only way to solve the climate science fraud crisis resolved is to assemble a team of outside experts from other professions, who have no financial or political stake in maintaining this scam.
…except their (outside experts) own financial and/or political stake in maintaining the scam.
Gonna apply for the job, Steve?
So far unfortunately all the ‘outside experts investigating’ climate science have been as corrupt as the scientists. Think of the ‘investigations’ held after the Climategate e-mails were released.
I would not exactly classify them as “outside” or experts. More like your momma investigating you.
I wouldn’t even classify any of them as an “investigation” unless that word’s definition has changed to a process of slothful indifference reaching no conclusion.
Slothful indifference is giving them too much credit…
India would like developed countries to pay them many billions in compensation for damaging India’s climate and drowning their coastline. I think Ye Olde England should be first cab off the rank to pay bajillions as previous owner of India, then Germany as worst global climate damager, followed by Nicaragua.
India said it is “not equitable to talk about what a country is emitting now” because that country could be currently reducing their emissions.
“This fact does not absolve them (rich nations) of all (past) sins,” Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Susheel Kumar, who is the interim head of the Indian delegation, said.
He said India believes that developed countries should be held responsible for their high levels of emissions which have caused harm to developing countries, like itself. That responsibility should come in the form of compensation and a fair 2015 Paris agreement.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-contests-united-nations-report-on-climate-financing-2041165
In short most expert panels former to “investigate” a travesty are nothing more than band aids that serve the function of covering the wound to protect it from the outside until a scab forms.
There is no-one of the stature of Richard Feynman. However, a panel of Steve Mc, Lindzen, Christy and Spencer would do for me. OK Congress up to you now. Are you reading this ?
Add Dr. Happer. CAGW and CO2 is right up his alley.
NASA is similarly corrupt about climate science
Somewhere on the web I once found a history of NASA and its funding of environmental schemes and it was highly revealing. As far as I cold see, the civilian arm of the space industry actively pushed the environmental movement from a very early stage (as it also pushed Holyrood so e.g. “Startrek”, 2001 and every other space film since) as a way of increasing public support.
The problem was too much technology and too little demand. So, NASA needed to create a demand for rocket launches. And the key to this was creating a public demand to “know more” about the planet. The global environmental movement was an ideal way of doing this because as soon as detailed imaging techniques were available, this would create public outcry – the public outcry about this or that forest disappearing or this or that thing changing in the atmosphere would turn directly into demands to have more eyes in space checking up on what humans were doing.
So, in the name of “science” NASA encouraged a massive eco-“science” user group to develop which as we know was filled by third-rate “scientists”/environmental activists. This user group would then put pressure of politicians and which fed through into more funding for space. A nice cosy relationship for NASA!
And of course, NASA cared not one jot if this new “science” had any credibility, so long as it increased public pressure for “space” so it was heavily subsidised and encouraged so as to create this demand for remote imagery.
[BUT NOTE … not one of these eco-scientists ever complains about the huge carbon usage getting into space]
So, e.g. the Ozone scare was heavily pushed by NASA, because the solution was … another space launch to “Monitor Ozone”
So global warming was heavily pushed by NASA, because the solution was …. another space launch to “Monitor Ozone”.
I’ve concluded now that more than likely behind every global environmental scheme these days is some space agency official calculating how to make NASA benefit by feeding the environmental monster.
I said Ozone twice – but perhaps I meant it – because NASA doesn’t care at all about what the public pay to monitor so long as they get their funding.
And before I forget – who do you really think is behind this “fake moon landing accusations?” If any group should ever start challenging NASA – out comes the “and you believe the moon landings were faked”.
The real answer is that the moon landings were fake – not that they didn’t get there – but that they had any significant benefit except creating a massive monster to promote its own interests.
There were and are still quite a few significant benefits in many different ways from both the venture and engineering process that made the venture possible. The images of the Big Blue Marble to this day gets across the idea of how we are all connected on this rather tiny globe in the Universe better than any other image and any amount of words ever could. It was probably the single most descriptive image that got across an idea since Joe Rosenthal snapped his pictures of the flag raising at Iwo Jima.
But the real diversity of benefits came from the engineering development effort that the space race started and which continues today. The vast majority of the spinoffs are obscure and those spinoff technologies that were and are still being born because of the what was started in the space race and adapted to industry and further developed. They almost uncountable and have improved all of our lives in so many ways from the Operating room in the hospital to the very fracking that is fueling the current oil boom. Like your memory foam mattress? Like the fact that your automobile is expected to last 300,000 mi? Like your infrared thermometer? I know I damned well appreciated the light freeze dried LRRP rations I was issued when we were going to be moving long distanced over a couple of weeks without resupply. Like your non stick skillets and cookware? Like your ceramic logs in your gas fireplace? Like the idea that everyone from fire fighters to pilots to race car drivers use Nomex for protection? The bottom line is every one of us in our modern world uses something(s) that spun off research and developments at or for NASA about every day.
So while I will agree that NASA has become corrupt and needs reform in some areas I am not blinded to the incredible number of benefits we humans have gained by what has originated there or somewhere else because of their requirement.
Not to pick nits (much) but you are assuming that w/o NASA’s dollars those things would not have happened. I’d postulate that if they were useful and important they would have been developed more efficiently in the private sector. NASA was originally formed during the Cold War with the unwritten objective of getting and keeping the “high ground” of space. At least then it fell into the mandate our Constitution gives the federal government to provide for the common defense. I’m not sure how much of its work today still maintains that illusion, but I do know that government money driving science is extremely wasteful, problematic and has become one very large Petri dish of corruption and waste.
Nielzoo
Perhaps eventually most of it would have been discovered and developed. But how long? The fields or radar, sonar, rocketry, aviation, cartography, and so many other things in so many other fields all developed at a pace of 100 of times that seen previously during WW II. As horrible as war is there is no doubt that technology advances more quickly in many ways while in pursuit of winning. Technologies that would have otherwise been developed in fits and starts. Do you really think that the GPS, weather, and communications satellites could have been developed and fielded so quickly if not for the “cold war” and the resulting space race?
rah,
Note that everything you are bringing up is basic, solid military applications, communications in this day and age is the exact same thing as a Post road in the 1700’s and everything they do that supports the defense of country I support 100%. Those are the things that NASA and our military are supposed to be doing. My wife works there so I’m well aware of the importance of what they do, I just want it pared back to its proper mission.
Making Muslims feel better, snail darter habitat studies, and the rest of the garbage needs to be gone. If researchers at universities and private industry wishes to HIRE their space expertise, launch capabilities and aerospace acumen that’s great. I just don’t want to pay for it ’cause I’m not supposed to have to, assuming we ever get back to our Constitution.
NASA lies like the rest of government. But that does not mean that the moon landing did not happen. Government lies about Sandy Hook, but it does not mean the event did not happen. People see the lies then jump to the conclusion everything is a lie. People see the production value of television and the media and how government uses it, but that does not mean the event was a fiction. It means we are lied to. We need more to prove why.
Government itself creates the most absurd speculations to discredit anyone who catches government lies. Either the person falls for the speculations and believes them or they can be hung on him in debate even if he does not believe them. We must always be careful to stop at what we can prove and not go into speculation.
I have my speculation regarding the lies of the moon landings, but the moon landings most certainly occurred. There is no ‘soundstage’ argument that stands up. Men made it to the moon. The question is, what did they find there that NASA does not want us to know. I have my speculation.
Personally I am thankful that I grew up in the age to watch it. I followed the space race as a kid and watched every televised launch faithfully. Seeing the culmination of it all, from Mercury, to Gemini to the Apollo disaster on the launch pad, and then the recovery that led to seeing Neil Armstrong make that step was a something I will never forget. And to me Apollo 13 was a triumph and not a failure.
The system of degrees, licenses, certifications, peer review, and so on and so forth provides an easy put down against interlopers from other fields. That’s one of the reasons it exists.
Didn’t get the root cause on the Columbia, either.
Whoa Nellie.
Per:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/webcasts/shuttle/sts111/ssme-qa.html
“The three space shuttle main engines generate the maximum equivalent of about 37 million horsepower. The fuel pump alone delivers as much as 71,000 horsepower, the oxygen pump delivers about 23,000. Just as a basis of comparison, the fuel pump alone is probably the equivalent horsepower of 28 locomotives. And with the horsepower of the oxygen pump, that’s probably the equivalent of 11 more locomotives.”
==============
So who wants come out and play, with toys like that ?
Stephen,
This is one of the best ideas you have forwarded, and that is the concept of a climate science “red” team that critiques the science. If the science of climate-catastrophe was correct, it would survive a red team review. Clearly, so-called climate science as currently practiced has little in common with anything like science. It’s a combination of a government mafia cross-bred with a lunatic-crackpot religion.
Assembling a team of ‘outside experts’ to investigate NASA — wouldn’t that be perceived as anti-Muslim?