What incredible right wing drivel.
1958 mission statement:
In the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which established the agency in 1958, the first objective of the agency was listed as “the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”
Prior to 2006 Nasa mission statement:
“To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.”
For any actually interested more can be read about Bush and his “science” policy here.
It’s Desslock, so par for the course.
‘Climate change risk to one in six species’:
One in six species on the planet could face extinction if nothing is done to tackle climate change, analysis suggests.
If carbon emissions continue on their current path - and temperatures rise by 4 degrees - 16% of animals and plants will be lost, according to a review of evidence.
The study, published in Science, shows risks are highest in South America, Australia and New Zealand. Previous estimates range from 0 to 54%.
Dr Mark Urban of the University of Connecticut, US, analysed data from 131 scientific studies on the risk of extinction from climate change. He found that the rate of biodiversity loss is likely to speed up with each degree Celsius rise in temperature.
If future temperatures rise by 2 degrees compared with pre-industrial times, global extinction risk will rise from 2.8% today to 5.2%.
But under the scenario where global warming continues on its current path, 16% of species (one in six) face extinction.
“If the world does not come together and control greenhouse gas emissions and we allow the Earth to warm considerably we will face a potential loss of one in six species,” said Dr Urban.
“Many species will be able to shift their ranges and keep up with climate change whereas others will not either because their habitat has disappeared or because they can’t reach their habitat anymore.”
Timex
1843
I find claims of extinction like that to be kind of weak. I mean, if the environment changes, certain creatures will go extinct, to be sure… But at the same time, new specieation events will take place and new species will emerge into the new environment.
The opinion of the site’s resident “Chicken Little” laughing stock.
You realize that your chart just tracks % of federal budget, not expenditures, right? Their budget has done nothing but increase, of course. At best, that chart shows that “going to the moon” was a higher priority than other expenditures, like healthcare and social programs, than current space exploration objectives. The military budget “percentage of federal budget” trend is very similar.
The 1958 Act that created NASA indicated it was created to “provide research into problems of flight within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and for other purposes” and their mission statement is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”
God forbid government programs and expenditures were rationalized to avoid superfluous and redundant mandates and expense. What “right-wing drivel” to want to avoid this:
Thirteen agencies fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program…The Government Accountability Office says the government might save tens of billions of dollars simply by eliminating duplicate and overlapping federal programs
ShivaX
1847
Sure, if you ignore the actual value of money I’m rich in 1950’s dollars. Hell, those guys working at McyDee’s are fucking loaded.
Look at adjusted for inflation numbers:
Now tell me how 17 is larger than 20 (or 43).
Mass extinctions prior to the current one all occurred due to catastrophic natural events. Things like asteroid strikes or the Siberian shield volcanos, the latter of which acidified the oceans resulting in 95% of all life getting wiped out. The current one however is being done by choice. Now I suppose some solace can be found knowing that no matter how bad shit gets Earth will find a way to rebound (at least until the sun gets too hot in a few hundred million years.) But such callous disregard for life is despicable.
Timex
1849
But we aren’t taking about a mass extinction event.
ShivaX
1850
It’s a “kinda big one” but yeah, mass extinction, as I understand it, requires at least 50% of all species to die.
In other words - we have to try harder. Let’s nuke the Amazon. Hopefully the unending fire will speed up things along with the massive loss of trees.
Everything humans are doing in toto is:
Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it’s not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that’s at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change.
Timex
1852
Oh, certainly, past actions of humanity have pretty much intentionally farmed species into extinction, or destroyed their habitats such that they couldn’t exist any more. Luckily, in a few cases some of those species turned out not to really be extinct.
But hey, that’s why i support the WWF.
But at the same time, i still find the suggestions of mass extinction due to climate change, presented previously, to be pretty poorly supported. I think it’s actually the media misunderstanding actual scientific studies.
Clearly you must be even more concerned about how the military budget chart, which shows an even worse “decline” over the same period.
That said, I sure wish NASA was more of a priority for the US government, and that other western countries spent more on space initiatives. And spent a lot more. Which is why they shouldn’t be wasting their money on climate change and other initiatives that are well covered by other government programs.
OK, let’s rephrase - why is the GOP cutting NASA and NSF funding for Earth and Space Sciences?
Republicans in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology approved a budget authorization for NASA that would see continued spending on Orion and the Space Launch System but slash the agency’s budget for Earth sciences. This vote follows the committee’s decision to cut the NSF’s geoscience budget
Here, I’ll answer for you:
Wait, you’re telling me it’s not a principled stand to keep NASA to its core mission of beating Russkies into space, which we totally did (USA! USA! USA!)?
Quelle surprise.
Timex
1856
It really would be cool if we actually built a moonbase though.
I’m quite happy being Chicken Little on pretty much most of what this thread covers, that was the purpose for starting it, to spread awareness etc. It is nice to see science often backs up that message as well as in this article:
‘Climate drives ‘new era’ in Arctic Ocean’:
Changes in the Arctic Ocean are so profound that the region is entering what amounts to “a new era”, according to Norwegian scientists.
A switch from a permanent cover of thick ice to a new state where thinner ice vanishes in the summer will have far-reaching implications, they say. The Norwegian Polar Institute has been mounting an expedition to the Arctic Ocean during the year’s coldest months.
Scientists have to brave extreme temperatures and total darkness. Their aim is to gather data on the condition of the ice as it freezes during the polar winter. A research vessel, the Lance, has been deployed to an area about 500 miles from the North Pole and allowed to drift with the pack-ice. The director of the institute, Jan-Gunnar Winther, said that measuring what happens in the winter was vital to improving scenarios for future climate change.
“We have almost no data from the Arctic Ocean in winter - with few exceptions - so this information is very important to be able understand the processes when the ice is freezing in early winter and we’ll also stay here when it melts in the summer,” he explained.
"A new era has entered, we are going from old ice to young ice, thinner ice and the climate models used today have not captured this new regime or ice situation. “So knowing how it is today can improve climate models which again improve the projection for global climate change.”
‘Forests are ‘key feature’ of food security landscape’
Forests can play a vital role in supplementing global food and nutrition security but this role is currently being overlooked, a report suggests.
The study says that tree-based farming provides resilience against extreme weather events, which can wipe out traditional food crops.
It warns that policies focusing on traditional agriculture often overlook the role forest farming could play.
The findings were presented at the UN Forum on Forests in New York, US.
The report is the result of a collaboration of more than 60 leading scientists, co-ordinated by the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) on behalf of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF).
“The report is not trying to suggest that people should start relying on forests more than conventional agriculture,” explained Bhaskar Vira, the chair of the panel which compiled the report.
"It is very much about the complementary roles that forests can play alongside conventional agriculture.
“The evidence shows that a large number of people still rely on the food from forests and trees to supplement their diet,” Dr Vira, director of the University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute.
Oh boy…
It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.
Mr Newman said global warming was being used by the UN to hide its real agenda of concentrated political authority
Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.
They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)
Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council.
How in the hell can a guy with views like this, so unwilling to concede to such overwhelming scientific consensus, be in a position of advisory power. The mind boggles.
Well…we are talking a Tony Abbot Australia. I’m surprised all people with environmental concerns are not being shipped to those PNG detention centres for refugees, but maybe in time?
