The wait may be a while longer for CO2 answers

Or from barley pop

 

I really hope another $280,000,000 (and its associated 100's of millions of future support costs necessary to operate such a satellite) of taxpayer money will not be squandered on such nonsense.

If AGW is such a threat to the entire world, I suggest the EU, China, India, or Russia launch their own satellites. Our economic situation is very dim at best for the moment because of a conservative capitalist stance for over the last eight years as attributed by most on this board. Therefore, since the other above mentioned countries have been operated by socialists, communists, and liberal governments for decades and even centuries for some, they should now be flush with cash and prosperity as our current liberal administration has promised our position will be in the near future.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Since we only spend about $700 billion a year on defense and blow 100's of billions a year on fossil fuels, I'm sure there is no money left to pay for a satellite to monitor something that poses a major long term threat.

 

Precisely the response I expected. Reading through the sarcasm of the above statement one can see this is one of the primary reasons the federal government of the past 20 years has gotten us in this mess.

You should be a politician. While we are at it let's build a 400 million dollar bridge to a small Alaskan island with a population of 50 or so folks (tsk, tsk for the ferry operation that runs every 15 minutes; that's just too long of a time to wait...). It will create lots of jobs, right?? Maybe we could get lots more jobs if everyone working on the bridge was not allowed to use machines or shovels. It's done in China currently and it seems to keep unemployment low... The satellite will keep NASA busy and full of jobs while the shuttle retires. Remember, jobs, no matter the type or usefulness, garner votes.

I mean, we're talking about a current US budget of trillions of dollars, geez what's a few more hundred million.

'Pretty soon we'll be talkin' about real money...'

Rick
#4 2006

 

No, Rick, your party has the clowns that wanted to do the bridge. You've got no feel for risk assessment or budgeting, hence the tens of trillions of this nation's wealth you've blown through in the past 8 years with nothing positive to show for it. I'm talking about conservatives private/corporate and public policies. What a disaster your rule has been for this nation. Good riddance!

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Ted Stevens changed his political affiliation to Libertarian. I thought he was a Republican...

Yes, good days are here again. The gold standard for measuring our current and future economic status, the DJIA, has dropped nearly 25% since President Obama has taken office and clearly announced (well known before the election) the policies he wishes to use to rescue the nation. As time marches on and we face ever dim economic news of layoffs and actual (not projected) skyrocketing national debt on a daily basis, he is quickly running out of people and policies to blame for our ever constant decline.

Time for President Barack to dust off the 'ole "The BUCK STOPS here" presidential desk sign, man up, and accept responsibility for the direction of our nation.

Back to the original thread, let's start by canning projects such as the "CO2 satellite to nowhere". Pray tell why we need such a satellite to measure CO2 if AGW scientists claim to have such reliable and current methods to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere accurately at present??

Rick
#4 2006

 

Same thing. The Libertarian party sold its soul to the GOP in the 90's, it was an irrevocable contract. Their vestigial social libertarian appendage was amputated as a result.

What, you mean his policies didn't turn around 8 years of laissez-faire failure overnight and before anything could actually go into effect? The DJIA is doing what I anticipated back in early 2006. Your time horizon is too short. Until the zombie banks and companies are sorted from the living, this is no market to invest in. And without improvements in regulation, reporting, accounting, and real oversight, CD's are a wiser bet...at least they are insured.

Since when has the DJIA been the gold standard for short time periods? (I'm still waiting for that "Bush rally" that I was promised back in Nov./Dec. 2000.) It tends to lag a few years from what I've seen in my lifetime. It's not like this recession wasn't obvious to some of us way before the credit markets started their early hiccups in late 2006 or early 2007...yet the market peaked 6 months after that and remained in denial for another FULL year. The denial continued until the big banks began falling like dominos in Fall of 2008.

Leave it to a libertarian to propose something that will actually cost him money if it proves his beliefs. If there is no global warming or man is not responsible for CO2, then you should be mourning the loss of the satellite! Afterall, it would have helped prove your case and therefore there would be no need for reducing CO2 emissions. But hey, if spending a few hundred million could potentially save you a few hundred billion you are all against it, right? :crazy:

But, hey, if we hadn't squandered several trillion on ill-advised tax cuts we would have a lot less obligation in interest payments on the debt each year too. We could put up a whole armada of satellites just to broadcast Ron Paul's message around the planet. :horn: What did we get for these tax cuts? Well, it wasn't GDP growth because real GDP has been weak (probably negative if historical inflation measures were applied), less than Dubya's predecessors. Supply-siding didn't work...so much for Libertarian economic theory.

Worse yet, the regressive nature of the GOP/Libertarian approach to energy, health care, green house gases, infrastructure has resulted in a less competitive economy that has wasted about $10 trillion going in the wrong direction. That's an awfully big hole to fill.

 

They SAY it's C02 . . . but we all KNOW it's S.E.T.I. transmitting to aliens. Now, where'd I put my foil hat.

 

Satellite data has no political party. The hard data provided would support or undercut various models. The satellite is not for measuring CO2 concentrations, this is already easily done. What it was for was to determine where and how much CO2 is being absorbed, a vastly harder question.

Now the Space Shuttle and Space Station providing something for the money spent on them is vastly harder to defend.