Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 14, @04:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-data-equals-no-evidence dept.

In recent years [...] satellite and aircraft instruments have begun monitoring carbon dioxide and methane remotely, and NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon. Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly killed the CMS, Science has learned.

Source: sciencemag.org)


Original Submission

Related Stories

Funding for NASA Climate Research Program Likely to be Restored by Congress 4 comments

That NASA climate science program Trump axed? House lawmakers just moved to restore it

A U.S. House of Representatives spending panel voted today to restore a small NASA climate research program that President Donald Trump's administration had quietly axed. (Click here to read our earlier coverage.)

The House appropriations panel that oversees NASA unanimously approved an amendment to a 2019 spending bill that orders the space agency to set aside $10 million within its Earth science budget for a "climate monitoring system" that studies "biogeochemical processes to better understand the major factors driving short and long term climate change."

That sounds almost identical to the work that NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) was doing before the Trump administration targeted the program, which was getting about $10 million annually, for elimination this year. Critics of the move said it jeopardized numerous research projects and plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords.

"Likely" because it is part of a larger spending bill that needs to be voted on by the full House, and reconciled with the Senate's version.

Previously: Trump White House Quietly Cancels NASA Research Verifying Greenhouse Gas Cuts


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday May 14, @04:37PM (8 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @04:37PM (#679627) Journal

    high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon. Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly killed the CMS, Science has learned.

    President Trump is not only our CEO, remember, but also our CFO (hampered by his board over on Capitol hill).

    Now, anyone who is 100% right about carbon is not afraid of what the data will show, so that isn't why this was cancelled. Pres. Trump is 100% right, and anyone who doubts this can simply ask him--he'll go on at length (well, length for him) about how smart and right* he is, and reassure the doubter.

    Here is the problem right here:

    a $10-million-a-year research line

    See, as CFO if he cancels things and stops paying for things, that's just as good as collecting additional taxes as far as the bottom line goes.

    Except for the jobs provided by the program, which are a totally separate issue. Search twitter for "#jobs" for things pertaining to that specifically.

    -----
    * not how "intelligent, besides additionally correct" he is, because all those words cost more syllables than "smart and right" and so are poor verbal values, and take more tweeter space as well.

    • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday May 14, @07:35PM (7 children)

      by The Shire (5824) on Monday May 14, @07:35PM (#679732)

      From the article:

      This type of research is likely to continue, Duffy adds, but leadership will pass to Europe, which already operates one carbon-monitoring satellite, with more on the way.

      So the American tax payer saves money and there is no loss of data. How is this not a good business decision? Do you really care who the "CO2 monitoring leader of the world" is?

      • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Gaaark on Monday May 14, @08:25PM

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @08:25PM (#679757) Homepage Journal

        This just shows that Europe is able to think loooong term, and THINK.

        Trump is just showing thinking short term and not thinking.

        --
        --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by requerdanos on Monday May 14, @08:51PM (5 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @08:51PM (#679775) Journal

        So the American tax payer saves money and there is no loss of data. How is this not a good business decision?

        Although there are many effects of such a decision, I can't say that any of them would make this a "bad" decision. Just pointing out that the President, despite being somewhat known for being a "climate change denier", is nonetheless also in the position of a CFO and is making a decision to save some money.

        There is something to be said for doing the research yourself, the better to be certain of the conditions and faithfulness of the results. But is that worth the $10M budget? Doubtful, but in the end I can't say. The president doesn't think so, and making that kind of decision is part of his job.

        Do you really care who the "CO2 monitoring leader of the world" is?

        Again, there's something to be said for faithfulness of the results as science and not as a political tool. The climate alarmism nutjobs (The oceans are boiling away!)(No, they aren't) and the climate change denier nutjobs (Animals and Volcanoes emit more carbon that people!)(No, people lead here) both have a strong tendency to use any given study as a prooftext supporting their fixed positions instead of context from which to make informed decisions.

        So yes, it matters who that leader is, but it doesn't matter that that leader is "The USA", especially given that the US has both types of inflexible extremist mentioned above.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday May 15, @12:19AM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Tuesday May 15, @12:19AM (#679838)

          is nonetheless also in the position of a CFO and is making a decision to save some money.

          A CFO that favours literally blowing that money - bet you the latest salvo of rockets in Syria cost more than the 'saved' $10mil. That must be a sign of 'sound economic thinking' - for the values of 'sound' usually associated with explosions.

          • (Score: 1, Redundant) by requerdanos on Tuesday May 15, @12:46AM (1 child)

            by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 15, @12:46AM (#679853) Journal

            A CFO that favours literally blowing that money... [Expensive rockets... Syria...]

            Yes, that one!

            That must be a sign of 'sound economic thinking' - for the values of 'sound' usually associated with explosions.

            You've got to admit, "sound" is a flexible and useful word, only one syllable, doesn't take up too much mental space, only five letters so very twittable.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 15, @12:58AM

              by c0lo (156) on Tuesday May 15, @12:58AM (#679864)

              You've got to admit, "sound" is a flexible and useful word, only one syllable, doesn't take up too much mental space, only five letters so very twittable.

              Not a chance in hell I'm gonna tweet my comment:)

        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday May 15, @02:27PM (1 child)

          by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday May 15, @02:27PM (#680048)

          >Again, there's something to be said for faithfulness of the results as science and not as a political tool.

          We're talking about $10 million here which can easily be funded by interested private entities or universities. The allocation of taxpayer money for these sorts of things should be outside the purview of the government - monitoring CO2 is a purely scientific venture, it's not something required to run the nation. This move by Trump is in keeping with the philosophy of smaller government. If a non governmental issue is really important to a group of people, they're welcome to organize themselves and fund it.

          In this way you can completely avoid using it as a political tool.

          • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday May 15, @03:34PM

            by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 15, @03:34PM (#680068) Journal

            The allocation of taxpayer money...should be outside the purview of the government

            I am not sure who should be allocating tax money, if not the government. Even if it's tax money "for science". Isn't the government the organization that allocates all the tax money, by definition? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.

            monitoring CO2 is a purely scientific venture, it's not something required to run the nation...in keeping with the philosophy of smaller government.

            While important government policy decisions may hinge on what the CO2 data show, I agree that it doesn't need to be cooked in-house... In fact, smaller government + independent data is a win all around.

            If a non governmental issue is really important to a group of people, they're welcome to organize themselves and fund it.

            I couldn't agree more.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:43PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:43PM (#679632)

    Better for NOAA to run such projects and contract any spacecraft from nasa. Not every agency needs to be studying every single thing and most people want nasa to be sending stuff to the moon etc. The original mission statement does include atmospheric phenomena but only as one small part: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act [wikipedia.org]

    So have there been similar cuts to NOAA projects? Looks like no, NOAA funding has increased:

    https://research.noaa.gov/External-Affairs/budget [noaa.gov]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 14, @06:21PM (4 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @06:21PM (#679699) Journal

      Agreed, it belongs in NOAA.

      But 10 million doesn't even attract Trump's attention.

      So I suspect there is some horse trading between NASA and NOAA going on.

      Maybe someone wants to move this pork barrel project, or kill it off as it is likely redundant with other projects already in operation.

      10 million barely covers two guys and office support staff in expensive office digs, buying expensive computer time for data processing, while nagging every actual source of data for better access. I suspect these guys were not accomplishing much, but managed to have a couple congressmen as friends to get their initial funding.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:29PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:29PM (#679704)

        Eh I think you're way off. $10 mil is more than enough to cover a team that is simply compiling and analyzing data from multiple sources. I suspect the science was uncomfortable for Trump's buddies as indicated by the massive campaign to defund and hide all climate science data.

        Obviously he has you fooled with the "drain the swamp!" montage, but the rest of us cringe.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:53AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:53AM (#679858)

          I suspect the science was uncomfortable for Trump's buddies as indicated by the massive campaign to defund and hide all climate science data.

          Do you have an example of the "uncomfortable science" produced by this project?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @06:14AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @06:14AM (#679962)

            Yes, co2 concentrations constantly increasing. we had a story recently...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:33PM (#680021)

              That was about the CO2 measurements taken on top of the largest active volcano in the world (which somehow doesn't matter since they filter out any sudden CO2 spikes...). If that is being shut down, good because it only makes them look really, really bad.

              Seriously though, I don't think those measurements had anything to do with the project under discussion here.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by speederaser on Tuesday May 15, @11:06PM

      by speederaser (4049) on Tuesday May 15, @11:06PM (#680219)

      From the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958:

      (c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

      (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

      (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

      (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

      (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

      (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

      (6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

      (7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and

      (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

      (emphasis mine)

      Expanding knowledge of the atmosphere is the very first objective in NASA's charter. Congress has directed NASA to do this. Their expertise in space activities make NASA best suited to conducting investigations like this, not NOAA. Trump is undermining the intent of Congress here, with the obvious goal of eliminating all research into climate change.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:51PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:51PM (#679635)

    China could do this research. The EU could do this research. Russia could do this research. India could do this research.

    If nobody else wants to bother, it can't be all that important. We'll spend our money elsewhere.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @05:00PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @05:00PM (#679642)

      What makes you think other countries are not doing similar studies? The US happens to have a lot more air/space craft than most other countries so don't be surprised that the US leads in most such science.

      Also, "a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon". So it relies on data from multiple sources, likely including private entities who would be much more likely to share their data with a US gov institution. I met some guys who did aerial surveys for methane emissions, the tech is really expensive and pretty cutting edge supposedly.

      All that aside, the US's responsibility is like the charity donations of the filthy rich. Getting the lion's share of the world's resources / economy comes with a certain obligation to use them for the common good. Not surprising to see your statement on this forum filled with "fucka yous I gotsa miiiine!"

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @05:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @05:46PM (#679664)

        fucka yous I gotsa miiiine!

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 14, @06:34PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @06:34PM (#679706) Journal

        likely including private entities who would be much more likely to share their data with a US gov institution.

        Or NOT.
        People are pretty suspicious of the US Government these days.

        Its equally likely these guys were having difficulty getting data out of other projects, especially foreign ones. Especially if they wanted it for free, or used their position to threaten other projects grants.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @12:11AM (#679830)

          PEOPLE may be suspicious of the US gov, but businesses by and large are not. Besides, some scientists using data for research is hardly the big scary gov people worry about. With a US gov group the companies can feel pretty safe they won't get in trouble, but handing it over to another country is probably a lot more worrisome.

          You're just making up a bunch of straw men arguments as if we should not apply Occam's razor here and should instead assume all the worst and craziest possibilities. It is NOT equally likely, but nice method of setting up a narrative.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:01PM (#679675)

      Why yes, you're absolutely right!!

      India might end up doing that. And then you'll have to keep throwing taunts about how India still wouldn't have solved its open defecation problem as a ego boosting measure.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 14, @08:27PM (2 children)

      by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @08:27PM (#679761) Homepage Journal

      That's it: open your mouth and let the world know you're an idiot.

      Good work!

      --
      --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Monday May 14, @08:48PM (1 child)

        by cmdrklarg (5048) on Monday May 14, @08:48PM (#679771)

        Protip: Better to let people think you're an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        --
        THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 14, @10:53PM

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @10:53PM (#679808) Homepage Journal

          That's what I said!

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @04:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @04:10PM (#680081)

      China could do this research. The EU could do this research. Russia could do this research. India could do this research.

      If nobody else wants to bother, it can't be all that important. We'll spend our money elsewhere.

      <troll>
      Oh! You mean, we should trust the results of [{(((FOREIGN)))}] scientists?!
      </troll>

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:52PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @04:52PM (#679638)

    Obviously this is about the science and not the money. $10 mil? That is chump change in the gov spreadsheet. At the very least I get some Schadenfreude type pleasure watching the US destroy itself.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 14, @05:58PM (1 child)

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 14, @05:58PM (#679673) Homepage

      At the very least I get some Schadenfreude type pleasure watching the US destroy itself.

      You seem to be under the delusion that the US won't at least try to take the rest of the world with it as it destroys itself.

      --
      A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:10PM (#679686)

        Nah, just made for a good sound-bite.

    • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Monday May 14, @06:04PM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Monday May 14, @06:04PM (#679678)

      Yes, please destroy yourself. Why can't you hurry up and get destroyed faster. Then all others can finally stop seeing those "we are destroying ourselves" messages. Just do it faster, please.
      So, any other news I can bitch about? Or is the EU^H^HChina already top of the hill?

      I really would like us all to get along. Lets introduce slow-mail and slow-messaging. Any and all reply cannot be performed for at least one (work-)day. That may save the postal system too as a byproduct (did they vote for the Right Guy? I guess not).

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by waximius on Monday May 14, @05:23PM (4 children)

    by waximius (1136) on Monday May 14, @05:23PM (#679653) Homepage

    Neither the Trump administration nor the republican platform recognize climate change as an immediate problem for humanity. It says as much in the republican platform itself (link below, page 22 among others). There is nothing "quiet" about them cutting a measly $10 mil from the budget, they are simply taking actions that align with their very clearly espoused beliefs, no matter how wrong or ignorant they are of the science behind climate change.

    Before we label this as some sort of secret, clandestine plan, how about we provide evidence of sneaky behavior in the contents of the article? Until we have proof of a secret agenda, it's a very overt, not-secret agenda backed up by many months of similar actions taken by this administration to down size government-supported scientific programs. The republicans are simply doing their jobs in accordance with their beliefs without calling fanfare to every tiny little decision they make like this. That doesn't mean they're doing it "quietly" anymore than I ate cereal (gasp!) for breakfast this morning without sending a press release.

    This article should have been labelled "everybody witnesses Trump administration making poor decisions in light of established science... again... news at 11". Or am I supposed to be outraged and surprised that they're doing this?

    I guess if anybody admitted this was public knowledge then it wouldn't drive clicks. "Drive libs crazy with this one SECRET budgeting trick!" I'm tired of clickbait...err, every freaking website trying to get me to click their links in 2018.

    /rant

    https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf [gop.com]

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 14, @05:33PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 14, @05:33PM (#679657) Journal

      You'd think the people who are so concerned that the "science isn't settled" would want to settle it. Guess not...

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by waximius on Monday May 14, @05:46PM

        by waximius (1136) on Monday May 14, @05:46PM (#679665) Homepage

        Yeah, guess not... despite the fact that 97% of scientists agree with each other that anthropogenic global warming is a real thing. But I wouldn't expect them to read a scientific paper proving this, either, since that's literally the problem in the first place.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf;jsessionid=72A06405788C7BA546917DB3DDCEF611.c1/ [iop.org]

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by digitalaudiorock on Monday May 14, @08:25PM (1 child)

        by digitalaudiorock (688) on Monday May 14, @08:25PM (#679758)

        Yup...no "conspiracy" here. They're not even trying to hide their war on science. No reason to be surprised by any of this, from the same administration who's DOE decided that converting unnecessary weapons grade material to safe nuclear fuel creating jobs in the process...pretty much a win win win...was somehow a bad idea, and that making more weapons grade material was somehow a good idea:

        https://www.aikenstandard.com/news/s-c-politicians-angry-about-doe-plans-to-abandon-mox/article_ed18038c-5558-11e8-bd3c-1b1da952e811.html [aikenstandard.com]

        This is what happens when you go from a DOE headed by Nobel laureates to one headed by an anti-science idiot from a fossil fuel state. Make no mistake...this is a war on science.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @01:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @01:48AM (#679891)

          I'll grant you that the current DoE head may be, at least publicly, anti-science. (could be pretending to get votes) His announcement of his presidential run made him sound like he was running for preacher.

          Still, at that level in our government, what we need most is management skill. He may have that. He was a governor. Nobel laureates often have terrible management skills.

          It also looks like he is doing the right thing for our country, likely under orders from Trump. We don't have any unnecessary weapons grade material. Long ago, in the nuclear arms race, we fell behind Russia. This is an absurd state of affairs when you consider needs and affordability. We need more because Russia has more land area. We can afford more because our economy truly dwarfs Russia's economy. It's long past time to fix the situation.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 14, @05:26PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 14, @05:26PM (#679655) Journal

    Apparently we're using the Bugblatter approach to Climate Change:

    The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a vicious wild animal from the planet of Traal, known for its never-ending hunger and its mind-boggling stupidity. The Guide calls the bugblatter the stupidest creature in the entire universe - so profoundly unintelligent that, if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you.

    • (Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Monday May 14, @05:42PM

      by e_armadillo (3695) on Monday May 14, @05:42PM (#679663)

      This falls into the "If I don't like it, it is fake XXX" bucket where XXX can be news, science, etc

      I am not sure that Trump (or anybody in his circle) knows where his towel is.

      --
      "How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 14, @06:01PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 14, @06:01PM (#679674) Homepage

      That's a great name for the phenomenon. I usually referred it as the "La-La-La-I'm-Not-Listening" Approach, which most of us outgrow by age 5 or so.

      --
      A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Hartree on Monday May 14, @05:51PM (7 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Monday May 14, @05:51PM (#679670)

    It's a lead story in Science Magazine, soylent news, the BBC, etc.

    If it was supposed to be "quiet" they sure aren't very successful.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 14, @06:06PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday May 14, @06:06PM (#679679) Journal

      The fact they did it quietly and that we noticed them doing it quietly are not mutually exclusive.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by fritsd on Monday May 14, @06:17PM (5 children)

      by fritsd (4586) on Monday May 14, @06:17PM (#679691) Journal

      Can anyone tell me how this is reported on, say, Fox News or CNN?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:35PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @06:35PM (#679707)

        ahhahahahaah

        oh wait, srs?

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday May 14, @07:40PM (2 children)

          by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday May 14, @07:40PM (#679733)

          Yeah, "srs", because Fox and CNN are where a lot of people get their news. Just because they are both terrible news sources defined primarily by corporate interests doesn't mean their reporting is irrelevant.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday May 15, @12:56AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) on Tuesday May 15, @12:56AM (#679862)

            Yeah, "srs", because Fox and CNN are where a lot of people get their news.

            Get their... what again?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @08:11AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @08:11AM (#679980)

              Internet ate your 1 brain cell?

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by fritsd on Tuesday May 15, @04:06PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday May 15, @04:06PM (#680078) Journal

          grmbl... what happened to "speaking truth to power" in the "Land of the Free"?

          Seriously, this would be a major scandal in any European country. Your government tries to hoodwink [wiktionary.org] you so they can truthfully proclaim later: "there is no reliable data (since we quietly defunded that project that delivered that data, phew!)".

          What would your reaction be, if dioxin [journeyman.tv] sniffer poles were suddenly removed around US Superfund sites [epa.gov], in order to "save taxpayer money"?

          This reminds me of the old Microsoft lightbulb joke:

          Q: "How many Microsoft engineers does it take to replace a broken light bulb?"

          A: "Darkness is the new standard. Deal with it."

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday May 14, @07:42PM (5 children)

    by turgid (4318) on Monday May 14, @07:42PM (#679736) Journal

    Well, he's already started to topple the dominoes in the Middle East in Israel and Iran. If he can ensure a runaway Greenhouse Effect (am I showing my age?) he'll all but guarantee the End Times. Better stock up on baked beans, toilet paper and semi-automatic weapons, ammo and anti-tank munitions for the Tribulation.

    --
    Don't let Righty keep you down. #freearistarchus!!!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 14, @07:47PM (4 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @07:47PM (#679739) Journal

      Why would anyone want to survive that? Look, I've known since childhood how fragile and brittle and interconnected this charade we call "civilization" is. If it all breaks down, I'd rather die (and if I have to reincarnate on another world due to not learning everything I was supposed to before a premature death, so be it) than live through that bullshit.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Monday May 14, @10:29PM

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 14, @10:29PM (#679800) Homepage Journal

        But then you'd miss my insightful trolling!
        :)

        --
        --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday May 14, @10:32PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday May 14, @10:32PM (#679802)

        Why? A most excellent question. I can't answer it except because I am a survivor. Maybe because giving up just doesn't feel right. Maybe I hope that I can preserve some element of civility by choosing to protect what I can. Most probably because I made an oath that I would have and hold my wife and our cats... I owe it to them to try.

        I'm not the only one who will try, either. That's all civilization is, anyway, IMVHO. Sometimes we are more successful than others.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @07:29AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, @07:29AM (#679975)

        I would want to survive it because there are still fun things to do that I haven't done yet.
        I want to live forever because there will always be fun things to do (there are issues with body decaying because of age, but I figured we could leave that out of this particular conversation).

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 15, @06:10PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 15, @06:10PM (#680124) Journal

          Er, you want to live a long time, not actually forever. The reasoning why is heavy going, but includes that eventually a finite mind will run out of things it is *possible* to experience, and I mean this in the broadest possible sense, i.e., 2 separate runs of a billion years being burned alive are different "experiences" if they feel different for just one second that you can perceive. Don't get greedy; no one can open their mouths wide enough to swallow infinity (insert "yo mama" joke here...).

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(1)