Feds cut funding to key science facility


mentalfloss
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

But right now the goal of the staff is to keep as many highly paid government employees working there. You think this doesn't taint the results?

This is just something cooky conservatives like to say.

It's like the 'get a job' of the 90s.
 
Tonington
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

But right now the goal of the staff is to keep as many highly paid government employees working there. You think this doesn't taint the results?

You're conflating paying good money for talent with wanting highly paid employees. Unlike CEO's, scientists don't get bonuses for failing... Not the same thing at all. And no, paying good money for good scientists does not taint the results, it's the opposite in fact.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

I was thinking of existing satellites rather than launch a new on that would be 100 times the cost of running the station. Rent it out for the next meeting of the elites, $1B in security costs saved, perhaps we should look at useless spending first. One meeting up there and it would pay for 100 years of operating costs. (with many times that left over)

Which satellite(s) do you have in mind to replace the work? You think it's like renting a car? Satellites have missions, they are put in orbit for a purpose, and teams on the ground use them. They are not for rental.
 
MHz
#33
Does the data they were getting not support the global warming senerio, that could get it shut down all by itself if the 'warming trend' is a manufactured conclusion that is to be followed despite the hard data
 
taxslave
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This is just something cooky conservatives like to say.

It's like the 'get a job' of the 90s.

Not at all. This is about the needs and wants of taxpayers vs the cravings of government unions. Which brings us back to my original question. If this research is so valued by the international community why are other countries not contributing cash?
 
Tonington
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

If this research is so valued by the international community why are other countries not contributing cash?

Because they have their own research programs, and their own facilities that they contribute with...
 
taxslave
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Because they have their own research programs, and their own facilities that they contribute with...

fair enough. Do we get to exchange data that is of benefit to us?
 
Tonington
+1
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

fair enough. Do we get to exchange data that is of benefit to us?

Sure. The product of science is a public good. We all benefit when the understanding of the universe is made more complete. If an American researcher funded by the NIH finds a cure for some disease, it's not just Americans that benefit. If a German researcher creates a new plastic that degrades within days in sunlight, it's not just Germans who benefit.

This research station was linked to a larger international network that track air quality...that benefits more than just Canadians. Continual measurements are important. There were only four people up there year-round to maintain the equipment...
 
mentalfloss
#38
Now is not the time for spending cuts: study

OTTAWA—Given the fragile economic recovery and the weak job market, now is not the time for a sharp turn to spending cuts, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

“It would be a huge mistake to significantly tighten the fiscal screws,” says the study’s author, economist Andrew Jackson. “While debt has risen due to the Great Recession, there will be a major human and economic cost if deficits are eliminated before a real recovery has been achieved.”

The study points out that debt in Canada—even after two years of stimulus—is still at very low levels compared to other countries, and compared to the mid-1990s. It warns against repeating the major spending cuts of the 1990s, which shredded social programs and public services.

“Cuts will shrink rather than raise our economic potential. We need to maintain high rates of public and private investment to boost our future rate of growth,” Jackson says.

Balancing the books can be done without spending cuts or raising taxes: deficits and debt will shrink rapidly so long as interest rates are lower than the rate of economic growth and interest rates are at historically low levels today.

Once the economy has recovered, the report recommends changes in taxation in order to address the small structural deficit and to meet the costs of an ageing population.

Now is not the time for spending cuts: study | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (external - login to view)
 
petros
#39
Remote sensing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
 
captain morgan
+2
#40
Even better:

remote-viewing.com (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Sure. The product of science is a public good. We all benefit when the understanding of the universe is made more complete. If an American researcher funded by the NIH finds a cure for some disease, it's not just Americans that benefit. If a German researcher creates a new plastic that degrades within days in sunlight, it's not just Germans who benefit.

Exactly.

People are willing to scrap lower cost, important projects, but they have no problem with jets, prisons and senate?

We need to get our priorities straight.
 
petros
+1
#42
You prefer putting people who pollute polar bear habitat up there instead of remoting sensing from an already existing research facility down south?
 
captain morgan
+2
#43
Make-work projects aren't nearly as effective unless you double-up on the resources that are already in place.
 
mentalfloss
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You prefer putting people who pollute polar bear habitat up there instead of remoting sensing from an already existing research facility down south?

Are you questioning the merits of this research station?
 
petros
#45
Why keep it open when remote sensing is far cheap and better for the polar bears?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why keep it open when remote sensing is far cheap and better for the polar bears?

Why acknowledge the facts when you can make something up and ignore my questions?
 
captain morgan
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why keep it open when remote sensing is far cheap and better for the polar bears?


Are you questioning the merits of useless make-work projects or remote-viewing?

Sheesh!
 
petros
+1
#48
I'm worried about blind polar bears walking head first into that big building with the satellite up-link.

Costco - National Geographic (external - login to view)

It's wireless!
 
mentalfloss
+1
#49
Closure of polar lab a blow to Canada's scientific reputation
Shutting down the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab (PEARL) will make the world's climate models less precise

The announcement this week that the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab (PEARL) in Canada's High Arctic will be closed has once again lowered this country's environmental reputation on the world scene. This is ironic because, also this week, Canada's highest scientific prize, The Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal, was awarded to a scientist who studies climate change.

It's clear that our scientific community appreciates the importance of studying the Earth's changing climate, but the government does not.

PEARL


PEARL is a unique monitoring station situated at Eureka, 82 degrees north latitude, about 1,100 km from the Pole.

It is one of only three stations in the world that keep track of activities in the atmosphere around the Pole; the other two are operated by Russia and Denmark. Just last year, the international network found a record loss of ozone over the Arctic.

One of the scientists who relies on data from PEARL is Dr. Richard Peltier from the University of Toronto, winner of this year's Herzberg Award. As you will hear this week on Quirks & Quarks, Dr. Peltier develops models of the Earth's systems to not only understand changes in the past, but to try to provide indicators of what's to come.

But any model is only as good as the real data that backs it up.

In other words, models have to be checked against reality to make sure they reflect the way nature works; otherwise, they are just elaborate guesswork. That validation has to come from instruments out in the field, such as PEARL, that track the atmosphere year-round.

When PEARL closes, one third of the data from the High Arctic will be gone, making the climate models less precise.



Timing


This is all coming at a time when changes in the Arctic are happening more quickly than anywhere else on the planet. And changes up North mean changes for the rest of the country as well.

The huge mass of cold air around the top of the planet affects the jet stream, which guides weather systems, which affect rainfall distribution, which affects growing seasons, crop productivity, droughts and floods — the list goes on because everything in the environment is connected to everything else.

Closing our scientific outposts is essentially blinding not only our own scientists, but others around the world, too, because climate science knows no boundaries.

The cost of running PEARL is about $1.5 million per year. That may sound like a lot, but when you consider the government has spent about $1.5 billion on submarines (external - login to view) that still don't work a decade after we bought them, it's not a lot of money. Especially when you consider the returns.


Canada has some of the top scientists in the world. They were part of the IPCC team that won the Nobel Prize for climate science in 2007. They are our eyes on the planet — eyes that need to be wide open in order to make important decisions about how we use energy, water and food in the future.

Turning a blind eye to their view is dangerous denial.

It's akin to the captain of the Titanic, after the ship hit the iceberg, saying, “We're not looking at the hole in the hull; let's focus on what's for dinner.”

Bob McDonald: Closure of polar lab a blow to Canada's scientific reputation - Technology & Science - CBC News
Last edited by mentalfloss; Mar 1st, 2012 at 09:55 AM..
 
captain morgan
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I'm worried about blind polar bears walking head first into that big building with the satellite up-link.

Costco - National Geographic (external - login to view)

It's wireless!


Is there any way that we can ramp-up the costs on this to burn through $35MM per year?

That may take some of the sting away from the actual closure
 
petros
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Is there any way that we can ramp-up the costs on this to burn through $35MM per year?

That may take some of the sting away from the actual closure

Fly in more heating oil barrels?

You can tell there are no crackheads up there. The spool of copper wire is still there.
 
captain morgan
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Fly in more heating oil barrels?


Good idea... And then we can fly them back out right away to claim we did our part on reducing CO2 emissions.
 
petros
+1
#53
Heat the joint with whale blubber. Whales are renewable. Carbon neutral.
 
captain morgan
+1
#54
Come to think of it, so are polar bears
 
petros
+1
#55
Yup. You just gotta think on your feet these days.
 
captain morgan
+2
#56
I just had an excellent idea...

We mount the remote sensing units to the polar bears and get even better coverage of the arctic. Strap on some kind of renewable power device to the bear's back to make Flossy and Suzuki happy and we have an ethical power source... Combine that with compensating the bears a competitive rate and pay them in with 6-packs of Coke.

It's a win-win all around
 
petros
#57
Blind bears just wander in circles
 
captain morgan
#58
No problem... .As part of the remote-sensing helmet, we attach a stick with a dead seal on the end.
 
petros
+2
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No problem... .As part of the remote-sensing helmet, we attach a stick with a dead seal on the end.

Hire an unemployed, hippy-dippy Berkley biologist to run ahead and lead it.
 
L Gilbert
+3
#60
Sounds to me as if the Harpy gov't is not much different than aPAULing Martin's. Make cuts in important areas and leave the bureacracy, administration, overlapping and useless programs alone.
 
no new posts