« Science Policy: General »

Kit Stolz writes the following comment:

------------
Troubling. Is this simply the usual politics of budgeting, or is it a way to punish individuals and institutions (such as Scripps) that are doing good work on climate change, but in the process are raising big questions that embarrass the White House?

Not being immersed in the budgeting process, it's difficult for me to tell. But the fact that Kennel of Scripps is refusing comment, and that the NASA climate change program is being cut substantially is alarming:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/nasa-budget-cutback/

Kit- Thanks for your comment. However, I disagree with various claims being made that NASA's focus on prioritizing human space flight over everything else in the agency (including but not limited to climate-related science) reflects anything more than the agency's decades-old priorities.

In about 1980 Van Allen complained of a "slaughter of the innocent" as NASA cut a wide range of science programs to feed the Shuttle program. History is simply repeating itself, given NASA's institutional culture and priorities.

Climate conspiracy theories are good fun of course, but in this instance incorrect.

Thanks!

Hi Roger,

You write, "However, I disagree with various claims being made that NASA's focus on prioritizing human space flight over everything else in the agency (including but not limited to climate-related science) reflects anything more than the agency's decades-old priorities. In about 1980 Van Allen complained of a 'slaughter of the innocent' as NASA cut a wide range of science programs to feed the Shuttle program."

And we know how well that worked out! ;-)

I hope NASA (or better yet, president Bush ;-)) reads my previous suggestions on what NASA's priorities should be, but in case they can't find them:

1) Develop fusion drives...since chemical rockets will never get us very far (and since terraforming Mars will require fusion power).

2) Send robotic probes (since they are getting much more capable, and humans aren't).

3) *If* money is left over after #1 and #2, build cool space telescopes.

Mark

P.S. If you do see Dubya, tell him I've got a lot more ideas, that will save him plenty of grief. ;-)

P.P.S. For example, if he'd had my hurricane wall system for New Orleans, his good friend Brownie would still be doing his super job at FEMA. ;-)

P.P.P.S. The more I look at this idea, the better it looks. (Very unusual, for an engineering concept!) I'm pretty confident I could have *deployed* the thing--that's fabricated, installed, and removed--for under $2 billion. And it would have stopped not only the flooding of New Orleans, but all of the storm surge damage in Western Mississippi (e.g. Slidell, Pass Christian, Long Beach, Gulfport, etc.).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48135670@N00/151207642/

That would have saved over $60 BILLION...not to mention probably more than 1000 lives. Pretty %^&* good investment!

Plus, it would have provided a proof of concept demonstration for a system that could protect all of BOTH coasts (Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard) from storm surge for up to Category 5 hurricanes...and probably for less than a Net Present Value cost of $40 billion. That's less than half the cost of storm surge (plus related flooding) of Katrina alone. Such a system would guarantee that there is no future greater disaster--at least from storm surge...it would do nothing for wind or inland flooding--from a major hurricane hitting Miami Beach or New York City.

Mark,

You could of saved New Orleans by damning the entrance to Lake Ponchartrain.

Now you have your next challenge! Calculate where your tubes are currently and how long it will take for you to put them in place. In 5 days we will likely have a hurricane in the Southeast or South Central Gulf. From there it well either hit Florida or Mexico or somewhere inbetween. Or it may meander in the Gulf for 5 days without ever making landfall!

What do you do?

Concerning the notion that recent events with the NAC are punishment for a climate change issue:

I decided to google 'climate change budget'. The top two results were most interesting. The first was the FY 2006 Bush Administration Budget for climate change. It starts with a measured, reasonable statement from the President, then outlines a 5.5 billion dollar climate change budget! The second link was the Clinton Administrations FY 2001 budget for climate change. It starts off with the following quote from President Clinton:

"The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global warming . . . If we fail to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, deadly heat waves and droughts will become more frequent, coastal areas will flood, and economies will be disrupted. That is going to happen, unless we act."

The website goes on to discuss a 2.4 billion dollar budget for climate change; less than half of the Bush budget!

If you are part of the climate change industry, which would you rather have, a President who gives you more money to do your job or one that says the things you want to hear, but doesn't fund you nearly as well?

Judging from the never ending criticism of Bush and all the 'love-memories' of Clinton, it seems that climate change scientists prefer to be told what they want to hear over actual funding!

Jim-

Thanks for your comments. On the budget, be careful. The Bush Administration lumps in technology spending with science spending, hence the much larger number than what the Clinton Administration reported, which was only science.

I do believe however that overall spending by Bush for climate change (S&T) is at least as much as under Clinton, though the emphasis is more on the T than the S.

Thanks!

Roger,

Upon further review, you are correct on both counts. It looks like the total budget for science in Clinton's last year was 1.7 billion and nearly 2 billion in Bush's fifth budget. Figuring for inflation would make the budgets almost equal. Total spending for all aspects of climate change appears to be 4.4 billion for Clinton's last budget and 5.5 billion for Bush in '06.

It is noted that the Clinton website boasts a 40% increase in spending in his last year, while the Bush Administration has maintained that higher level of spending for 5 years.

I will guard against sensationalizing in the future, but my point is still valid. The Bush Administration is often cited as impeding the science of climate change while the reality of the budget indicates he has at least maintained Clinton's best effort.