Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
once again NASA stands for narional aeronautics and space administration. so them looking at the weather/climate on other planets is in their purview, where as the climate/weather on earth is the purview of the NOAA.
Studying earth from space is very much a part of their mission. It is the only planet where they can make observations, and validate / confirm them and them apply it to their mission to study other planets. As a matter of fact, better understanding earth through space observation is, and has been, a part of their main focus from the start.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-25-2016 at 07:46 AM..
once again NASA stands for narional aeronautics and space administration. so them looking at the weather/climate on other planets is in their purview, where as the climate/weather on earth is the purview of the NOAA.
Why has no one taken issue with their research on earths atmosphere until recently, they have quite a long history in this area going back decades. I wouldn't get to hung up on name as they are the best organization, Department of Defense comes to mind.
So who would you have do the research on our planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Settled science is an oxymoron.
The atom may or may not exist and the three dimensional Universe may be a two dimensional illusion, but CAGW is settled science!
Just pointing out the fact that if it is unsettled research should continue, more scientific research is a good thing, no?
Why has no one taken issue with their research on earths atmosphere until recently, they have quite a long history in this area going back decades. I wouldn't get to hung up on name as they are the best organization, Department of Defense comes to mind.
So who would you have do the research on our planet.
Just pointing out the fact that if it is unsettled research should continue, more scientific research is a good thing, no?
Of course research should continue. The point of the article is NASA should focus on space exploration. Since they already cross pollinate with NOAA, hand off the atmospheric to them. Simple: that's all the article is saying. Scientific America ran the exact same interview and they have trump derangement as well but it was way more muted without the hyperbole.
And yet the sun has entered a quiet period of reduced sunspot activity.
Exactly, so we know that it's not the sun that is causing recent warming....What could be the cause then? Could it be what science is telling us? Oh my, what a mystery!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
