Ted Cruz appointed to chair Senate committee on Science and Space programs

[glennrod]

In what sense is he qualified to chair the committee on science and space programs? I mean, the ruling party can put whomever they want there, but outside of that, there's no reason at all to think he's the guy for the job.

Yeah but he's a big name guy, probably got a lot of pull where it counts..this sort of shit happens all the time. I myself don't think that he is the best candidate, because I'm sure that there are more deserving candidates who dedicate their entire lives in that particular field..i just think that maybe some people care more about this because he's ted cruz...a republican who looks like Lucifer

 

[second sight]

Walter Cunningham, Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot:
“I’m pleased to hear that Senator Cruz will be chairing the important Subcommittee on Science and Space. In our discussions he has always a shown a strong interest in furthering the core goals of NASA and Johnson Space Center. He wants NASA to return to the scientific and exploration standards that enabled our country to win the space race."

Bob Mitchell, President, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership:
“Sen. Ted Cruz has shared his vision for NASA with me a number of times over the last 12 months. I am excited about his appointment to the chairmanship of the Senate subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness. With his leadership and endorsement of NASA’s core mission of human space exploration, I believe that NASA will be able to continue unimpeded on its trajectory to take humans beyond low Earth orbit.”

Jean Marie Kranz, President, K6 Strategies and former senior advisor for space to Congressman Pete Olson, TX-22:
“I think it’s terrific to have Sen. Ted Cruz leading as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space. Over the past six years, our nation’s human space flight programs, including commercial space, have taken a hit under the Obama Administration.

“Particularly, this Administration has placed too much focus on issues unrelated to NASA’s core mission and has failed to set achievable goals in the near-term to further our nation’s space capabilities — instead relying on hypothetical, amorphous missions decades or more in the future.

“We need committee leadership that is innovative, fearless and most critically, independent from the Administration’s agenda. Not to mention one that will protect NASA’s Johnson Space Center from partisan politics. NASA must remain true to its bipartisan legacy and outline a realistic space strategy, that is attainable in years, not decades.”

Jeff Bingham, former staff director to the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space and Science and former chief of staff to Sen. Jake Garn, R-Utah:
“As ranking Republican member of the subcommittee last Congress, Sen. Cruz has demonstrated his recognition of the importance of the U.S. Civil Space Program and the direction charted by Congress and embodied in the current law. I am confident he will continue that balanced approach as he assumes the chairmanship of the subcommittee.

“As a vocal and visible supporter of efforts to ensure effective use of limited taxpayer funds, I believe he will be an effective spokesman and leader in trimming wasteful and unnecessary government spending across government, while ensuring the wise investment of taxpayer funds in areas such as NASA, where the government has a leadership responsibility and can provide maximum benefit to the public and opportunities for private investment.”

 

[Ruprecht]

Yeah but he's a big name guy, probably got a lot of pull where it counts..this sort of shit happens all the time. I myself don't think that he is the best candidate, because I'm sure that there are more deserving candidates who dedicate their entire lives in that particular field..i just think that maybe some people care more about this because he's ted cruz...a republican who looks like Lucifer

I think it's more that he's a Tea Party, climate change denier that wants to privatise space operations and has previously attacked the NASA budget.
There are some things that commercial enterprise handles well.
Large scale, long term scientific enquiry for the purpose of expanding knowledge, or with largely theoretical applications and benefits, isn't one of them.
Private industry doesn't do, "Big Science".

 

[Ruprecht]

It shouldn't be a partisan issue but it is, the same agency he's attacking Cruz over called 2012 the warmest on record when in fact 1934 was much hotter. So it doesn't matter if docther was talking about in the US or not. The point of the argument is the same agency he's defending isn't trustworthy. The exact reason people like Cruz would want to cut funding to them.

What were the starting and end points for the EPA data?

The NOAA link you gave made this statement:

The 12 month period beginning May 2011 through April 2012, which includes several warm episodes for the country — second hottest summer, fourth warmest winter, and warmest March — was the warmest consecutive May-April year-long period for the contiguous United States. Twenty-two states were record warm for the 12-month period and an additional 19 states were top ten warm. The 12-month running average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 55.7

 

[second sight]

What were the starting and end points for the EPA data?

The NOAA link you gave made this statement:



That doesn't rule out 1934 having a hotter summer and thereby ranking higher on a "heat wave" index.
Have you checked that you are dealing with the same yearly period and the same definition of "warmest"?

it covered the drought of the 1930's, better known as the dust bowl

they monkey with the data regularly, I'm not going to pretend like I care. if you don't like what they say just wait they'll change it

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest year on record in the U.S., ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming.

According to the figures released last week, four of America's 10 warmest years are now in the 1930s, during the Dust Bowl era. Just three years from the past decade remain among the top 10, with 2001 having fallen out entirely.

A flaw in the data, brought to light by a Canadian researcher, led the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to cut mean ``temperature anomalies,'' or deviations from the 30-year average, by 0.15 degree Celsius (0.27 degree Fahrenheit) from 2000 to 2006.

A better question to ask would be why did the NOAA inflate the 2012 records by including data not used during the 1930's

 

[second sight]

keep in mind while you're googling the dust bowl, hottest years etc. you'll find a bunch of like minded people that want to reframe the argument and pretend like the data is wrong because it doesn't take into account the worlds climate...neither of the articles were about the worlds tempatures, they were US records

 

[Ruprecht]

it covered the drought of the 1930's, better known as the dust bowl

they monkey with the data regularly, I'm not going to pretend like I care. if you don't like what they say just wait they'll change it

A better question to ask would be why did the NOAA inflate the 2012 records by including data not used during the 1930's

keep in mind while you're googling the dust bowl, hottest years etc. you'll find a bunch of like minded people that want to reframe the argument and pretend like the data is wrong because it doesn't take into account the worlds climate...neither of the articles were about the worlds tempatures, they were US records

Well, to my mind it's you that's reframing the argument, in terms of Dochter's comment anyway.
That said, I had a look and couldn't find the discrepancy as you described it. Some of the skeptic's points sounded like conspiracy theories. It's hardly "messing with the data" when they go from averaging daily peak temperatures to averages of a continuous 24hr reading due to upgrading the equipment (and the inclusion of satellite data). The data on overnight lows only commences in 1993!
Whether 2012, 1934, 1998 or 2006 were the hottest years on record for the contiguous United States (and in which order), seems to depend entirely on how they weighted the shift in stations and changes in equipment.
It certainly doesn't invalidate the NOAA's role in assessing global climate.

 

[second sight]

Well, to my mind it's you that's reframing the argument, in terms of Dochter's comment anyway.
That said, I had a look and couldn't find the discrepancy as you described it. Some of the skeptic's points sounded like conspiracy theories. It's hardly "messing with the data" when they go from averaging daily peak temperatures to averages of a continuous 24hr reading due to upgrading the equipment (and the inclusion of satellite data). The data on overnight lows only commences in 1993!
Whether 2012, 1934, 1998 or 2006 were the hottest years on record for the contiguous United States (and in which order), seems to depend entirely on how they weighted the shift in stations and changes in equipment.
It certainly doesn't invalidate the NOAA's role in assessing global climate.

I didn't expect anything less of you, I already told you NOAA were including models not used during the 1930's.

 

[Ruprecht]

I didn't expect anything less of you, I already told you NOAA were including models not used during the 1930's.

...and? What do you think you're proving? You just seem to be spamming climate denial nonsense arguments without relevance. A big "So what?".
What difference does it make whether 1934 or 2012 is the record year in terms of the NOAA's role in monitoring climate? It doesn't change overall trends, not even in the US let alone globally.
You seem to have put forth an entirely spurious argument that had nothing at all to do with what Dochter said and it still completely fails to address the point of why Ted Cruz views on privatisiation and climate denial are a threat to NASA's role in "Big Science".
"Reframing the argument" indeed...

 

[Throttlehead]

I didn't expect anything less of you, I already told you NOAA were including models not used during the 1930's.

Steven Goddard is your source, really?

He is a birther too.

 

[second sight]

...and? What do you think you're proving? You just seem to be spamming climate denial nonsense arguments without relevance. A big "So what?".
What difference does it make whether 1934 or 2012 is the record year in terms of the NOAA's role in monitoring climate? It doesn't change overall trends, not even in the US let alone globally.
You seem to have put forth an entirely spurious argument that had nothing at all to do with what Dochter said and it still completely fails to address the point of why Ted Cruz views on privatisiation and climate denial are a threat to NASA's role in "Big Science".
"Reframing the argument" indeed...

it's basically the same graph as the EPA's

really so it was man made global warming during the 1930's? what too much horse shit?

Cruz seems to take issue with the political nature of noaa and nasa and how they change data to side with certain objectives

docthers a big boy he doesn't need your white knighting

 

[OldGoat]

It's not an attack, it's a compliment.


That being said, from the perspective of someone outside the US, having someone from your government with little or no background or understanding of an issue be put in charge of an agency doesn't seem that uncommon. I wouldn't be shocked if evidence was presented showing that the Senator in charge of public health was vocally 'Vaccines = Autism' or if one on women's issues thought the body had a way to shut down pregnancy if it was a 'legitimate rape'. I don't think anyone would be shocked if a senator in charge of geological surveys asked the head scientist how they could track tectonic plate movements for the last 10,000 years if the earth is only 6000 years old.

That's not an attack on people from the US, but those a fairly in line with the kinds of things we expect to hear about your officials.

Or the president and respecting the constitution. So it's a systemic issue.

 

[5H3RD0G]

He doesn't look too sharp he should study science and space before taking a position in any of its endeavors. :icon_chee

 

[Ruprecht]

it's basically the same graph as the EPA's

really so it was man made global warming during the 1930's? what too much horse shit?

Cruz seems to take issue with the political nature of noaa and nasa and how they change data to side with certain objectives

docthers a big boy he doesn't need your white knighting

No, it isn't the same graph. One is the number of record high temperatures, the other is a heat wave index. Apparently you don't even know what you're copying and pasting.
White knighting? :icon_lol: Uhuh...
I'm arguing the point, which you seem to have completely missed.
ie he said "2014 is the hottest year on record" and you brought up the argument over whether 1934 or 2012 is the hottest year in the US records. Whoosh...
What relevance do you think a US temperature record has to "man made global warming"? Do you think it even effects the observed trend for the US, let alone globally?
Exactly what I'd expect from you.

All of which is besides the main point, which is that Cruz's views and previous attempts to defund NASA make his appointment a complete joke.

 

[second sight]

White knighting? :icon_lol: Uhuh...
I'm arguing the point, which you seem to have completely missed.
ie he said "2014 is the hottest year on record" and you brought up the argument over whether 1934 or 2012 is the hottest year in the US records. Whoosh...
What relevance do you think a US temperature record has to "man made global warming"? Do you think it even effects the observed trend for the US, let alone globally?
Exactly what I'd expect from you.

All of which is besides the main point, which is that Cruz's views and previous attempts to defund NASA make his appointment a complete joke.

I simply pointed out the NOAA was manipulating their data to meet an objective

that even thou, they said 2012 was the hottest year recorded, multibale resources have proven that wrong

 

[Like A Bas]

Cruz gets to claim support for NASA solely for the sake of pushing nationalism, militarism, and staying out front of Russia (and one can assume China). That is his whole thing. Fuck environmental science, beat the Red Menace. Fuck technology unless it has promise for military application. He's saran wrap covering a bowl full of spiders. It's not an unmitigated disaster for NASA, as they are the possibly the world leaders in squeezing blood from a stone, and they will hopefully manipulate their budget to find a better balance in research, but this is so incredibly not the man for this job.

Rubio is no better in his new job either.

 

[UpaLoompa]

1. Isotopes have nothing to do with anthropomorphic global warming. What the hell are you talking about. Isotopes of elements all have the identical electronic structure (except for some very hyperfine shifts), so they are irrelevant to global warming. Carbon-12 Dioxide has the same absorbance spectrum as Carbon-13 Dioxide.

You know we're actually able to track contributions from different sources, right?

 

[PEB]

According to NASA top 10 hottest temperatures have happened in the last 10 years. Well Ted Cruz better start cutting funding of these projects!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZgybF-UZ4&feature=youtu.be

 

[klnOmega]

According to NASA top 10 hottest temperatures have happened in the last 10 years. Well Ted Cruz better start cutting funding of these projects!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZgybF-UZ4&feature=youtu.be

If the world is warming, that should be a given.

Now the questions Ted Cruz would ask are:
How much did it cost NASA to take these measurements?
Could someone else have done it for cheaper?
Could this money be better spent elsewhere?
Is this money dispropornant to the benefits of this knowledge

 

[PEB]

If the world is warming, that should be a given.

Now the questions Ted Cruz would ask are:
How much did it cost NASA to take these measurements?
Could someone else have done it for cheaper?
Could this money be better spent elsewhere?
Is this money dispropornant to the benefits of this knowledge

You don't really believe that Ted would ask these questions do you? I think he would be more interested in figuring out how to end climate change research.
Congress I believe has already removed some wording iin the budget over climate change. They even pulled out modifications that democrats did around congressional offices that saved electricity and heat. It turns out that the modifications saved the government 100's of thousands a year.