SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Accused of Obstructing Satellite Research into Climate Change
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
You will have domestic happiness and faithful friends.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:24PM (15 children)
Honestly, love or hate Trump, the entire government is not under his direct control. If the U.S. Congress does something within their own jurisdiction, without any involvement from the executive branch, then only they are to blame. The Trump Administration consists only of the executive branch. This also relates to the constant blame of Trump for Ajit Pai, who was selected by Mitch McConnell, and picked out of the list of other commissioners who were just as shitty. That is unless he wanted to cross the isle and make huge enemies upon first entering office, on an issue he probably doesn't know much about.
All that said it is fair to dislike Trump's position on global warming as being a hoax, and even expect that he approves of the satellite's destruction. It is not however fair to blame him as the direct actor in doing it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:35PM (11 children)
Exactly. This happened in Sept. 2016, before Trump was even elected.
FTA: The heading, standfirst and first paragraph of this article were amended on 8 November 2017 after an editing intervention erroneously accused President Donald Trump of obstructing satellite research into climate change. The Trump administration had nothing do with this as the decision was made by Congress in September, 2016.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:15PM (5 children)
Saying it had nothing to do with him is a slight overstatement. That was during the election season and the GOP legislators were being particularly ignorant trying to hitch their wagons to him.
But, the larger thing is that the GOP has been pulling this kind of crap for years where they don't want something studied because they know they're wrong. They don't want gun violence studied either because they know that fewer guns would be sold if we had regulations out there preventing people that shouldn't have them from having them and preventing everybody from having the kind of weapons that were used in Los Vegas.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:17PM (4 children)
OK, enough revisionism.
The GOP legislators were not trying to hitch their wagon to Trump. Many of them were rather loudly anti-Trump. The GOP establishment hated (and still hates) Trump's greasy orange guts. The only thing that united them at all was a distaste for Hillary, and even then some republicans loudly crossed the aisle to say that they preferred her rather than some moronic orange carnival barker with a stupid hat.
The voting base didn't get the message, but that's a different question.
As for the gun violence study thing, they have no problem with it being studied, and in actual fact they cheerfully use FBI and ATF statistics on things such as suicide vs murder, type of firearm used, accidental vs deliberate and location all the freaking time. The problem is that they don't want the CDC or other medical establishments trying to make an epidemiological case out of it while ignoring the fact that guns aren't a disease.
I get where you're coming from; politicians make a hobby of cherry-picking activities that make them happy. But if you want to take them to task, it helps to start with complaints that are founded in reality.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 20 2017, @01:41AM (3 children)
I think I see your problem, AC. You seem to have forgotten which way the datagrams flow, and who's duty it is to send ACKs.
The Voting Base was so sick of both parties that they elected a total outsider. It wasn't an accident. It was intentional.
Those republicans still resisting the message are slitting their own throat.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:58AM (2 children)
Naah, actually kind of agree with you. It was definitely not an insider's election to win. The main question was who would be the fatcat and who'd be at the head of the baying mob.
The dems lost, and deserved to lose, because they tried to impose their candidate. The republicans, despite their distaste, played a (halfway) honest game with the nomination, and reaped a reward (of sorts).
For myself, I thought both candidates were ludicrously bad, but had to give a grudging edge to Trump for being somewhat more in conflict with the entrenched powers.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday November 20 2017, @02:47PM (1 child)
If this were a sport, or an entertainment show, I'd agree. Since these matters have serious real-world consequences, I'd rather have taken the lesser of the weevils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:24PM
You're kidding me, right?
The US presidential election is a vast, multinational reality show with incredible ratings. It's entertainment, writ large. Even the olympic games can't match it for sheer spectacle, partly because it has such immense opportunities for ego and scandal.
And as for real world consequences? More of those, please. Presidents have very limited powers, and even most of those powers are constrained by what the US congress will let them do. Remember Obama's weak sauce remark that he had a phone and a pen? Whoop-de-doo.
And given all that, for most americans - in fact, even most american voters - the presidential election is an event for which, given their real power to change things, they might as well wipe their asses with their ballots. This is reflected in the huge swathes of the US in which the candidates hardly even bother campaigning.
Yeah, you might as well treat it as a game show.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:28PM (4 children)
Thank you! It even says in the Original Submission that Congress gave the order. But I guess the administrators here don't read those. Fake News, phony stuff that tries to make me look bad, just goes right through!
I’m very open-minded. I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows. Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something that’s so hard and fast. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.
Paris, I’m studying. I do say this: I don’t want that agreement to put us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries. And as you know, there are different times and different time limits on that agreement. I don’t want that to give China, or other countries signing agreements an advantage over us. So we might have to cancel that. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:15PM (2 children)
I'm half convinced you are one of Donald's actual ghost writer's for twitter or other media and use this little corner of the web as your word smithing gym.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)
nah, he makes sense therefore he is a bot. Some trump inspired grammar.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 21 2017, @03:23AM
Nah, I figured it out. He uses an iterative process whereby he thinks up a blurb for a tweet or story, speech, etc, and writes the high level form here as a testing ground. Then it gets distilled down further one it passes litmus and makes its way to actual Donald accounts.
Or a schizophrenic who thinks he is in fact Donald Trump in some weird doppelganger fantasy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mrpg on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:44PM
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH | Trump version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWZwCWDD2k [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)
I really believe there's an active but secret anti-Trump movement... not from the Hellary side, but from the rest of D.C. for Trump rocking the (fucking crooked, feed my piggy bank no matter who suffers) political world. It's no longer "We the people", hasn't been for generations.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:55PM
You're right, its a whole different wing of corruption.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:17PM
As someone pointed out they amended the article. However, Trump has not been very stealthy about his anti-climate science campaign. So while he should not be directly blamed it is still very relevant to include him in a story like this. At least the bad reporting was limited to the headline.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by leftover on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:16PM (9 children)
If "storage costs were too high" was actually the justification for destroying a known-good satellite, several asses needed to be kicked but the bird was not one of them. My totally unfounded speculation is this 'storage' was a juicy plum awarded to a Democrap contributor. A further guess is that any number of NASA engineers would have jumped to keep it ready for launch, given an opportunity.
Fucking politicians. Direct menace to society.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:32PM
FTFY
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:09PM
The voters are the menace! We shouldn't let stupid people run the government. Whoops! Too late for that one!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Kilo110 on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:19PM (2 children)
"a Democrap contributor."
Nope, it was being stored by the USAF.
Gotta keep those biases in check.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by leftover on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:39PM
By the USAF physically or contractually? Also, the mention of one party reflected only the change since last year's administration. Repugnicans are not better; both parties just maintain a delusion of choice in the matter.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:26PM
Some fly-boys come from the cities you know... just because a man is administrator level in the armed services does not automatically mean that he is a registered card carrying Red voting Repubelickin crusader against climate change.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)
The satellite shares much in common with spy satellites. You can't just hand it over to Greenpeace or drop it off at a recycling center.
First of all, there is the generic stuff. Nearly all satellites contain export-controlled stuff at minimum. That could be guidance systems, navigation systems, thrusters, encrypted communication systems...
Second of all, this particular satellite measured the height of ice on Earth. That would have to be radar or lidar. The good stuff is obviously military/NRO.
You'll need armed security for this. All those people need repeated background checks, including their managers. Security clearances can be expensive; you could be looking at $80,000 or similar.
You'll need a cleanroom. This requires constant maintenance. It isn't just sealed; air filters continuously get dirty. The only people who can maintain it are ones with those expensive security clearances.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:36PM
Let's address your points: no, no, no, no, no . . . and . . . no.
First, some background on this satellite series [spacenews.com], and where they were debating the merits of launching the 1990s-built satellite back in 2015!
These satellites, and many others like them, do not "nearly" always have ITAR stuff on them. There is a robust and active unclassified space community, even back in the day.
Where the hell do you get your costs for armed security? They don't build a special facility to house a weather satellite and hire their own guards for it. You sit it in a cleanroom in the same building that you do your other satellite builds. And yes, it does require a cleanroom, but you're using the same ones you normally use. And in the event that they needed the floor space that it was sitting on, than it has probably been moved to an environmentally controlled storage container for long-term storage. And, no, you don't need only cleared people to maintain it. People at NOAA don't have clearances.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilsa on Monday November 20 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)
People always complain about politicians being terrible. But the fact of the matter is that Politicians are just people, who come from the same quagmire as everybody else. The fact is, those politicians are there because the people put them there.
If you want to have a higher calibre of politician, then you need a higher calibre of people to vote for them, and that's clearly not going to happen any time soon, if ever.
Hell, look at Alabama right now. There are people who will proudly vote for a child rapist because they'd rather have an evil morally bankrupt lawyer than "one of those damn democrats". It's all fucked up so so badly, and I don't see it getting any better unless something truly extreme happens.
(Score: 2) by leftover on Monday November 20 2017, @07:59PM
We the people do not get to pick or even nominate the candidates. The people who do are not elected officials. The people who dictate the 'news' agenda aren't either. People as a whole have some quirks, certainly. But these troubling issues are due to a tiny fraction of 'us' that need to be removed from their systemic leverage points.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:43PM
Yea, he doesn't want to send any more satellites up because they might accidentally bump in to his imaginary sky fairy. Nooo, big business men have no influence on global warming, everybody knows the weather is controlled by magic sky fairies magic ding-dong... duhhhherrr. :P
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:58PM (19 children)
Why does it always have to be us footing the bill?
Science might be nice, but paying for data that will mainly be used to attack our economy is dumb. Somebody who hates us ought to pay.
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:18PM
I hope this is sarcasm, but I'm afraid I'm wrong.
....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:34PM (7 children)
Here's what will happen if another country starts collecting data:
1. Other country designs and launches satellites.
2. Satellites start returning data.
3. Data doesn't precisely line up with current known data as the sensors are both more precise and need to be calibrated. This is expected. The anti-science conservatards will all start screaming that the new satellites are nothing but tools to further the "liberal agenda" and all the new data should be disregarded.
4. Calibration is applied to the data such that it more properly aligns with current data. This is all done according to pre-planned procedures that were written during the design stages of the satellites. The anti-science conservatards start screaming that the scientists are "cooking the books" to make things look worse in order to feed the "liberal agenda."
5. Newer sensors, being more precise, "see" things the old sensors "missed" and show that things actually ARE worse than we thought. The anti-science conservatards scream that we can't even launch a calibrated satellite so everyone should disregard everything the scientists say as the scientists are all part of the "liberal agenda."
The problem isn't us footing the bill. The problem isn't another country footing the bill. The problem is anti-science conservatards. The problem is the talking heads on Faux News and all the idiots watching them. The problem is what those people will do once another country tries to pick up where we left off.
Oh, you're one of those people... *sigh* No, idiots like you who think that data can be used to attack an economy are dumb. Turn off the Faux News. It's rotting your brain.
Why? So dipshits like you can scream about bias? Again, turn off Faux News before it rots your entire brain. At this point you need everything you've got left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:21PM
ICBW
YHBT
HTH
HAND
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:23PM
Need a +1 Depressing mod.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:04PM
Fox has been caught cooperating with CNN to stage protesters all around Londonistan. Probably CNN instigated it, but Fox cooperated and thus shares guilt. Fox is almost liberal anyway; they have always hated our president. Fox tried to ruin Trump in the primary, and now very grudgingly accepts him as president.
Breitbart and Infowars are way better than Fox. For the fastest breaking news amid a sea of nonsense, r/The_Donald is best.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 20 2017, @04:47AM (2 children)
Ooops. Too late.
You should have offered this advice some, like, 10-15 years ago (and he should have taken it).
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @08:31AM (1 child)
I have never owned a TV. When I moved away from my parents, I lost Fox. I have seen the web site, so I'm not completely pure, but I'm pretty close. Fox is liberal nonsense, so I don't miss it.
Breitbart is way better than Fox. Infowars and RedState are OK too. For the fastest breaking news amid a sea of nonsense, r/The_Donald is best.
Studies show that liberals are more often depressed than conservatives. Maybe your news sources are making you miserable. Try my choices for 90 days to see if your mood improves.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Monday November 20 2017, @02:30PM
I'd rather be depressed from real(er) news than deluded with right-wing rage fueled by fake news. At least depression is rooted in reality, and the resulting apathy doesn't harm innocent people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:02PM
Neither dems nor republicans are anti science. They both are selective.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:07PM (9 children)
Our economy must be based on our long term plan for civilization and on the best data and facts we can obtain. What you call attacking the economy I think I would call bringing the economy in line with long term goals and reality as we can best perceive it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:56PM (6 children)
Long term, so that's like next quarter - right?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:09AM
Yes, the next 250 years is a quarter of a millenia. Hope we make it!
yes I know what you meant
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:28AM (4 children)
"Long term, so that's like next quarter - right?"
Unfortunately, that's exactly how they're thinking when they make actual decisions like scrapping a perfectly good satelite that they knew they were going to need.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lester on Monday November 20 2017, @08:53AM (3 children)
Unfortunately, that's exactly how WE're thinking. FTFY
In fact, there are a lot of CEOs that think in the long term, but we fire them immediately. In fact, there are a lot of politicians that think in the long term, but we don't vote them.
With the rules of basket you have tall players, with the rules of horse racing you have short and light jockeys. With the current rules imposed by voters and shareholders with have the CEOs we have, and we have the politicians we have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)
Who you calling "we" kemosabe?
At best in the past several decades, the executive administrations who appoint the administrators are elected by about 53% of the people. I don't feel like the companies I invest in or the appointees who "serve" me have any inkling of what I really want.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Lester on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:39AM (1 child)
47% is less than 53% so...
And you still invest in them
Nobody knows how, they are still elected.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:52PM
53% has been a "landslide" in recent decades. It seems like almost 1/3 of the time the election is going to the candidate with the minority of the popular vote.
I invest out of self interest based on the system I live in, not a system I designed, not a system I can influence in meaningful ways, just a system I live in. The "theory of democracy" operating in the corporate world is "one vote per share." I have many shares, theoretically many votes, but no meaningful way to influence the behavior of these companies that, should I choose not to invest in I will be financially hurting myself and my family.
Sure, as a shareholder you are entitled to show up at stockholder meetings and make a limited amount of noise, just like as a citizen you are entitled to send messages to your representatives' staff which, if you are lucky, get tabulated into a general mood of the electorate summary that might catch a few seconds of their attention one day.
So, I see millions of Americans "making noise" about how they want the country to deal with climate change, science and research, I also see hundreds of corporations using their influence (monetary power) to influence how the country deals with climate change, science and research. Then I see policy formulated and carried out, and the connection from the individuals voices to what actually happens is tenuous, at best.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
Let's assume that global warming is a real and serious problem that we can actually fix.
Being able to fix it in theory doesn't mean we will fix it. Nations do not cooperate well. If the USA stopped using oil immediately, the price of oil would drop. All sorts of countries would happily buy the cheap oil. They would even burn it for power. With the cheap energy, they would have an economic advantage. The economies would boom. If the US economy doesn't completely collapse, the trade deficit would increase. All sorts of goods would be manufactured in the places with cheap energy, then shipped across the ocean to the USA.
Then, once the seas rise and the land turns to desert, these newly rich countries build dikes to hold back the sea and desalination plants to get water. Of course these run on oil. Meanwhile, the USA has a collapsed economy and can not afford such things.
In other words, the countries best prepared to survive in a bad climate are the ones that have the strong economies that fossil fuels enable. For long-term civilization, we need to focus on the economy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:43PM
Or,
you get together with all nations and discuss the problem and see what steps you can all take to address the problem. Maybe it's not enough, but the point here is to move forward in the right direction with steps all countries agree to. In that international treaty, no single nation would be left out as you described. Perhaps one nation benefits a bit more and another nation falls a bit behind, but nothing in the terms you are describing.
Then some backwards country elects a foolish president and steps out of that treaty. The diplomatic and economic conditions that are imposed because of that will be higher than having stayed in the treaty.