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.
I'm guessing it's meaningless retoric playing to his base.
California is only capable of launching polar launches.
I don't think a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, a highly respected assembly of earth scientists, is a part of the "base."
No problem with polar launches -- many of the NASA climate satellites are in north-south low orbits.
For eight years the Red States struck a confrontational tone with Obama and fought him every step of the way. Now the shoe is on the other foot. California is going to resist, obstruct and sue the Trump administration on many key issues. Trump says he supports state's rights. He's going to get an earful of them.
I don't think a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, a highly respected assembly of earth scientists, is a part of the "base."
No problem with polar launches -- many of the NASA climate satellites are in north-south low orbits.
For eight years the Red States struck a confrontational tone with Obama and fought him every step of the way. Now the shoe is on the other foot. California is going to resist, obstruct and sue the Trump administration on many key issues. Trump says he supports state's rights. He's going to get an earful of them.
I'm looking forward to this. Republicans hate science and turning off climate satellites sounds exactly like what they would do. Once again, the coast leads the way and California steps up. How many of those tech companies Trump met with yesterday came from California/the coast?
12-15-2016, 09:39 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Unfortunately science in the US is likely to be pretty much dead for the next several years. The right doesn't like reality, so they'll just refuse to fund the study of it.
I seriously doubt CA is going to launch its own satellites, but this does mean other countries whose leadership doesn't openly reject reality will pull ahead of the US in a variety of scientific areas.
If things get really bad (and based on his appointments, it looks like they will), the US is going to see a level of brain drain that we've never experienced. In the long term that will have serious economic consequences.
But hey at least we'll have filthy air and cheap gas, right?
I'm not taking a stance in this post (my position is complicated and not a matter of one extreme or the other), but I just wanted to ask a basic question: if it's 'settled science' as we're always told, if we know we're going to hell unless we drastically reduce worldwide consumption of meat and petrochemical fuels, why would we need the satellites?
Also, there are plenty of non-NASA satellites dedicated to surveying all the aspects of climate and ice. Maybe the NASA satellites should be taken over by NOAA...
I 100% support any (legal) means necessary to continue climate research. Anyone who really chooses to deny science should ask themselves how they're able to go to the doctor, use the internet, or drive.
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.