3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) http://www.nationalr...ing-henry-payne So naturally, America has sent $7.5 billion overseas in the last three years to help developing countries cope with global warming, according to a federal report to the United Nations. Why? Because on Planet Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry says it’s “a truly life-and-death challenge.” And because President Obama says we have to act “with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods.” Your tax dollars at work. Edited February 6, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Idiots. As if this wasn't political enough, now using this excuse to send money to their interest overseas. God help us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wait'll we get the bill for California's drought this coming summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Idiots. As if this wasn't political enough, now using this excuse to send money to their interest overseas. God help us... Dude, as I've said for quite some time now, this was never about science, this is about $, so yeah, it's about politics. This is about some scientists sitting in first class seats on airplanes, for the first time in their lives, (which I blatantly stole from here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/) because they gave wealthy Democrat donors the vehicle they need to impose something they had no chance of winning at the ballot box. Obama's 2009 inaguration speech struck me as odd: "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost" Forget the health care part, that's not this thread. Look at he first part: what does that imply? I hadn't realized, that in 2008, we'd suddenly turned our back on science, such that it needed to be "restored". I don't recall the Bush years as being anti-science. Do you? So WTF is this then? I'm fairly convinced this is code for "we will pay off every scientist of every stripe, who feeds/supports our agenda". The health care thing is just there to throw us off. The link I posted is largely a reiteration of what many have been saying here for years...the only real difference is, we don't get published/paid to do this. However, the fact that some scientists are now playing Internal Affairs cops...that's new, and telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation. You know you can't get away with that kind of a statement here. Back it up with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation. The Bush administration spent more on the sciences than any other administration in history, including the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wait'll we get the bill for California's drought this coming summer. We're good now. We're in the middle of: STORM WATCH 2014!! It drizzled today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Wait'll we get the bill for California's drought this coming summer. We're already in a drought. Last year's rainfall was below normal and with the rain we got and expect this weekend, we'll be at about 25% of normal instead of about 15%. The town I previous lived in gets groundwater and water from the state water authority. The state has told them they are getting ZERO this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 We're already in a drought. Last year's rainfall was below normal and with the rain we got and expect this weekend, we'll be at about 25% of normal instead of about 15%. The town I previous lived in gets groundwater and water from the state water authority. The state has told them they are getting ZERO this year. That's a big problem in CA. It's really nothing but an irrigated desert. Instead of high speed rail that goes nowhere maybe they should look at desalination plants. There are so many positives about CA that have over time been muted by crackpots and politicians that your state is becoming a joke. Seriously--Jerry Brown for a second time? I hope you guys find a way to turn the tables but I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation. The Bush administration spent more on the sciences than any other administration in history, including the Obama administration. Well, one of you is right. First to prove it gets a cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Well, one of you is right. First to prove it gets a cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) It is true, and I have seen that Tyson interview before. Where I disagree with his point is (1) his dismissive take on politics and (2) his ignoring the fact that scientists within the administration have said they felt constrained. The politics of science are (imo) extremely important. The messaging from high-profile Americans about science is (once again imo) extremely important. The "anti-science base" (so to speak) needs to yanked along...not publicly placated too. Frankly, as a public champion and promoter of science, I was surprised when seeing that for the first time to see Tyson so willing to accept the fact that one part will always pander to an anti-science crowd. Also, while Tyson analyzed the money (which is obviously extremely important) he would probably feel differently if he were actually in the administration as an adviser (although he was on a few different committees for specific issues like awards and NASA): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opAXiYr1ubo The messaging is important. High level advisers did feel constrained. And the politics of certain science issues did retard the nations progress in certain areas for no reason (especially on the stem cell issue which is as retarded as it gets in my book, but that is besides the point). Either way just my opinion. But if you want hold up Bush a champion of science, then feel free to do so Edited February 8, 2014 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 That's not the argument you were making in your last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Christ. Am I going to have to go Google the Federal budget, and figure out who has spent more $ on science(when, without even looking, I am near certain it is: the same, +/- a billion)? SameOldBills: If you want to be an advocate of science funding, advancement, whatever, etc.? Then you better be an immediate advocate of entitlement reform. And not this or that, full on entitlement reform. You have: no choice. You can't call yourself a scientist, and then reject fact. Fact: The "mandatory spending" of entitlements is precisely what is crowding out science spending. It's crowding out everything. If we don't get a handle on entitlements(and get rid of idiocy like Obamacare) out debt is going to be 100% of GDP in 2038. 100%, which means: no sciene at all. Fact: Between 2038 and now, if nothing is done, we are simply going to spend less on science every year, until we spend nothing at all on it. If there is no margin, then there can be no mission. Simple as that. We can talk about science/anti-science all day, if we don't spend anything, what does that matter? Fact: The other problem is defense, and no, this is not a Republican problem. Try closing a base/defense contractor factory in a Democrat's district/state sometime and see what happens. We've already seen what happens, over and over. This is an everybody problem, no different than entitlements is an everbody problem. (Btw, "mandatory" spending is ridiculous in a Federal Budget. Nothing should be mandatory except basic defense = readiness, law enforcement, and infrastructure, everybody else should have to line up and submit their budgets for approval, and be prepared to not get, like everybody else in the country does) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 SOB--you still need to back up your statements. No getting off the hoof here. So far you are all hat amd no cattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts