Satellites have been cut Whittington 11 (Mark, author of The Last Moonwalker, contributes articles to major newspapers, 2/26/11, http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110226/us_ac/7949516_nasa_earth_science_missions_eliminated_by_obama_administration) JPG
Unarguably one of if not the highest prioritymissions the Obama administration has set for NASA is climate change research. So it is surprising news that two very high profile Earth observation missions have been scrapped for budget reasons. The missions are the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) andthe Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) missions, saving $1.2 billion between 2012 and 2015. Overall, not doing CLARREO and DESDynI would save about $2.4 billion through the rest of the decade. The Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) would have launched two satellites in 2018 followed by another two satellites two years later. CLARREO would have gathered data on emitted and reflected energy in order to study long-term changes in the Earth's climate. Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) was an Earth imaging radar and lidar mission to study formation of ice packs on the Earth's surface. NASA will not be forced to go back to the drawing board to figure out ways to do these missions more affordably. There may be, as one suspects, a political element to the decision to kill these programs in their infancy. Congress has been making noises about raiding the Earth science account at NASA to pay for the development of a space craft and a heavy lift rocket to send humans beyond Low Earth orbit. Eliminating the CLARREO and the DESDynI missions will make that maneuver all that much harder. The Obama administration has shrunk the amount of money that is available for raiding. Furthermore it has burnished its cost cutting bona fides by taking away missions that it really cares about.
EOS faces cuts all the time—not solving anything Borenstein 11 (Seth, staff, MSNBC, 3/4, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41895904/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/lost-satellite-deals-heavy-blow-climate-research/, accessed 7-2-11, CH)
NASA's environmental division is getting used to failure, cuts and criticism. In 2007, a National Academy of Sciences panel said that research and purchasing for NASA Earth sciences had decreased 30 percent in six years and that the climate-monitoring system was at "risk of collapse." Just last month, the Obama administration canceled two major satellite proposals to save money. Also, the Republican-controlled House has sliced $600 million from NASA in its continuing spending bill, and some GOP members do not believe the evidence of manmade global warming. Thirteen NASA Earth-observing satellites remain up there, and nearly all of them are in their sunset years. "Many of the key observations for climate studies are simply not being made," Harvard Earth sciences professor James Anderson said. "This is the nadir of climate studies since I've been working in this area for 40 years."
Satellites – No Link—No T/Off
No trade-off, NASA focusing budget on EOS SpaceRef 6/8 (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33782, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
With the shift in budget authority, NASA Centers focused on Earth observation, space technology, and aeronautics will see increases in funding, while those involved in human spaceflight will see major funding reductions. Indeed, the termination of the Space Shuttle program will lead to a budget cut over $1 billion for Space Operations, resulting in a 21% budget cut for the Johnson Space Center. Overall, the agency's budget for R&D will account for about 50% of all NASA spending. "Budget allocation across Centers will vary greatly," said Steve Bochinger, President of Euroconsult North America. "As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from Shuttle operations to Human Exploration Capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs. Likewise, as NASA shifts its science mission focus away from space science to Earth science, the science budget will be redistributed among centers."
The crash Friday of NASA's Glory satellite couldn't have come at a worse time. The incident is a blow for climate science and the space agency's efforts to rebuild an Earth observation program weakened by years of lean budgets. It also comes during a protracted spending fight on Capitol Hill in which science agencies have become prime targets for House Republicans' budget ax. According to NASA, problems with Glory's launch vehicle, a Taurus XL rocket, sent the climate probe crashing into the Pacific Ocean early Friday morning. The agency has begun an investigation, expected to take months, into what went wrong (Greenwire, March 4). Preliminary data suggest that the rocket's fairing, a nose cone designed to shield Glory during the journey through Earth's atmosphere, did not detach the way it was supposed to. A similar problem two years ago caused the crash of another NASA climate satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO). No impact to warming—even if satellites are accurate, scientists exaggerate collected statistics Dunetz 11 (Jeff, writer for Washington Post, Big Government, 5/13, http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/05/13/nasa-gets-caught-faking-climate-change-data-again/, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet). But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating. The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass. The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century. This isn’t the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it. James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore’s global warming Moonbat. It was Hansen’s data that was used in Gore’s Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen’s work is ruled by one motto: “If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it’s champagne. In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced “Oops, never mind, I was wrong.” He only admitted the mistake after he was “outed” by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.