We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
As all deniers, skeptics and heretics know, NASA has been the leading pusher of the global warming hoax here in America. While such august agencies as NOAA and the USGS have been firmly on board, NASA has been the real pioneer.
So it should come as no surprise that NASA has just spent another bazillion dollars of taxpayer money in a vain effort to bolster its feeble, warped and biased conclusions.
Or at least it tried to:
So that's not only good news, but, thanks to the hard efforts of the Washington Examiner, quadruply so! Thanks, Washington Examiner!
Aaurgh. Both this, and the carbon-measuring satellite that failed with the same fault not long ago would have provided good data. Data that would have displaced portions of the conjecture and models that NASA have been reliant upon for much of what we "know" about climate.
The purpose for this satellite was to measure brightness of the sun and reflectance of aerosols in the earths atmosphere. If greenhouse effect is your thing, then both of these are extremely important, and it is much harder to fudge the numbers if you have more hard data.
There is a backup satellite already ready to go, but the backup launch is another two years into the solar cycle.
I have a hard time considering this launch failure to be
They are calling it "Climate Change" now, a much broader term where Modernity can be blamed for just about anything. They haven't included Volcanoes & Earthquakes yet but they ought to be able to work that in somehow.
Not to defend NASA (I got tired of doing that long ago) but the problem with this launch does not appear to be any of NASA's doing. Currently, suspicion is focused on the nose fairing of the Taurus XL launch vehicle, which was built by Orbital Sciences Corporation, not NASA. The same fairing malfunctioned the last time NASA used one of OSC's Taurus boosters to launch a satellite.
I agree with Chuck and Doug: Less information is not a 'win' for anyone.
I know the launch failure is not technically NASA's fault. I'm snarky because even if NASA collected new data, I have no faith in them actually doing good science with it. They jumped the shark in global warming science when they still let a hack like Jim Hansen head up their efforts.
And no, I don't let them get by calling it "climate change" or "climate disruption" either. They started out blaming CO2 as the driver for global warming and claimed the science was settled. They have no credibility as real scientists.
Got news for you - its a conspiracy. They knew the satellites would show that their suppositions about climate change were wrong, so they sabotaged the nose fairing of these two satellites to make the launches fail.
If the 'science is settled', why would they need 'more' proof?
having said that, I too was disappointed in this launch failure as I believe more information will ultimately expose the hoax of 'man made' global warming.
As far as the "lost data" goes, since we're semi-guaranteed it's going to be twisted and tweaked in some computer model to suit their agenda, I'd say "Good riddance to bad rubbish." If it had been anybody but NASA, it would have deserved some sympathy, but as soon as they hopped aboard the AGW bandwagon, any semblence of reputation they had was cast to the four winds.
As many have stated above in different ways, NASA has lost its way. As somebody noted, just look at the name.
Dr. Hansen, who is the main perpetrator of this hoax, used his Radiative Transfer Model (which was a brilliant piece of work by the way - give him credit for that) for the study of Venus to study the same effect on Earth. The only problem is that while the model was slightly modified, it largely remained intact and was totally inapplicable to our atmosphere and planet.