The Planetary Society is Both For and Against Earth and Climate Science
Congress, we have a problem, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, The Hill
“Just a few months ago we marked up and passed out of the House a bipartisan NASA authorization. That bill was negotiated on a bipartisan basis, voice voted out of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and then passed by the full House in a similar fashion. Today, my committee, the Science, Space and Technology Committee, is marking up H.R. 2039 — a NASA reauthorization act that the Democrats on the committee did not even know existed until late last Friday. Needless to say, there was no bipartisan negotiating. After we saw the bill, we understood why. In addition to other problems in the bill, it cuts earth science funding by more than $320 million. Earth science, of course, includes climate science.”
Committee’s NASA Bill Draws Space Community Support, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
“In a letter to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Planetary Society Director of Advocacy Casey Dreier praised the Committee’s “scientifically ambitious, affordable plan of solar system exploration” as well as the bill’s “clear directives and support for [NASA’s] future exploration.” The Planetary Society, led by CEO Bill Nye, is considered one of the largest and most influential public space organizations in the world.”
Keith’s note: Planetary Society CEO Bill Nye (The Science Guy®) got to fly on Air Force One and hang out with President Obama on Earth Day. According to the Planetary Society website “Last week, our CEO Bill Nye joined The President of the United States for an Earth Day visit to The Everglades, one of the country’s renowned National Parks and a vital global ecosystem. The Washington Post covered the news, and we at The Planetary Society shared in the excitement.”
Yet at the same time Bill Nye (The Science Guy®) was talking about the importance of Earth science and climate change with the President his organization was sending a letter of overt support to the Republican-led House Science Committee which is seeking to cut funding for the very same things that Bill Nye (The Science Guy®) and President Obama were openly supporting. No where in that letter (now trumpeted by the Committee) does the Planetary Society mention the value of NASA Earth and climate studies on this planet or express concern that this committee desires to cut that research by $320 million. These cuts are proposed against the budget submitted by the same President that Bill Nye (The Science Guy®) was hanging out with.
Yet curiously in this 29 April 2015 Planetary Society post Good Planetary Support in A Flawed NASA Bill the author says “Obviously, the cuts to Earth Science make this a hard bill to support, therefore The Planetary Society cannot support the full bill as written at this early stage. We want an Authorization bill for NASA that can pass Congress and be signed by the White House, we hope that the committee markup will find ways to preserve and grow all science as this moves forward.” Yet the Planetary Society makes no mention of these concerns in their letter of support for the proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017.
Which is it, Bill Nye (The Science Guy®)? Do you and/or the Planetary Society support the proposed cuts to Earth and climate science or do you oppose these cuts? Earth is a “planet” too.
– Showdown Over NASA Earth Science Budget Looms, earlier post
– Hollow Promises From Stealthy Inept Space Advocacy Organizations, earlier post
You don’t need to screw taxpayers to love the earth.
But you do need to pass laws and spend money if you wish to convert that love to actual protection of the Earth.
And spending a microscopic teeny-weeny part of the GDP to actually monitor the health of the Earth we love, and to understand its dynamics is required.
I love my kids, but I need to show it by keeping my eye on them and making sure they get medical checkups.
They passed a law and will spend more than generously on NASA’s job programs. FYI, the job to protect the earth from human beings is assigned to EPA in this country, not NASA. NASA is assumed by default to have a job to protect earth from rogue astroids (nothing to do with earth science), but that’s not explicitly spelled out by law. It is a shame that so many like you in this country just think they are entitled to a certain fraction of the GDP. Remember scientists are only lucky to be granted the privilege to do whatever they like and still live a decent life thanks to others who pay their bills. Asking more than people willing to give is simply ungrateful and dishonest.
The EPA bases its POLICIES upon the DATA and ANALYSIS of NASA, NOAA, and a zillion other academic and government research.efforts.
I most certainly DO think they are entitled to their funding. I think the SLS/Orion effort is misguided , but most else they do is GREAT and I would love to triple their tiny budget.
You still can’t name one reason why earth science cannot live with the $1.5B budget. No matter how much you give scientists they can always find ways to spend all and ask for more. Government should base funding selection not on need but on merit.
“I would love to triple their tiny budget.”
Wishful thinking of yours won’t hurt anyone, but what you wish just won’t happen.
I haven’t tried to “name one reason” hence you’re comments are totally out of coherence.
If you claim the small cut to the budget will cause “catastrophic” damage, you are obliged to prove it, got it? “Out of coherence”? LOL, glad to hear it from someone who has a track record of incoherent thinking.
There is what is called a prima facie case.
Without having to go into the details, if you cut a budget by about 1/3 in an instant it is obviously catastrophic. The prior budget number paid salaries, rent, supplies, satellites, computing resources, whatover, and suddenly 1/3 of the cash to pay for it is gone.
Einstein’s real agenda is not based on science or logic. She just does not like the conclusions that real science and earth studies will bring to counter her pre-conceived ideas. She believes that that cutting off funds to study it will effectively squash it. Future generations may be very unforgiving.
Here’s a law
http://www.nasa.gov/offices…
These may also apply
I think the Planetary Society was limiting itself to only supporting the planetary science allocation, not taking a stand on the other authorizations:
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson,
The Planetary Society strongly supports the authorization levels and
accompanying language regarding NASA’s Planetary Science Division in the House’s proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017.
The proposed authorization of $1.5 billion for the Planetary Science Division demonstrates the House Science Committee’s continued commitment to the scientifically ambitious, affordable plan of solar system exploration recommended
by the National Research Council’s Decadal Survey report for planetary science.
The Society is particularly pleased to see this authorization level maintained in a difficult fiscal environment, as well as language in support of decadal survey recommendations for all of NASA’s science divisions.
This year, NASA’s planetary exploration program will reveal two new worlds to humanity. The Dawn spacecraft will map the strange surface of Ceres, and New Horizons will fly by Pluto. Both missions took years to design, build, and guide to their destinations, and both required consistent support by Congress and the White House. New worlds await us still, and this bill provides NASA with clear
directives and support for their future exploration.
Earth and Planetary science are inextricably linked.
YES!! We are not something apart from the rest of the solarsystem. Even beyond the importance of Earth Science at the most practical “mundane” level, it is a PLANET which we can study in vast depth and width, informing what we understand about the rest of the Universe.
Just the study of ice is inextricably meshed between Earth and most of the objects in the solar system (including LIFE). What we learn in the Planetary Sciences Division applies to the Earth, and what we learn in the Earth Science Division applies to Europa, Mars, Ceres, whatever.
It would be a good question to the PS as to why they (apparently) limited themselves.
The Planetary society does not support the full bill:
Good Planetary Support in A Flawed NASA Bill
Posted by Casey Dreier
2015/04/29 14:49 UTC
Topics: FY2016 NASA Budget, Planetary Society Political Advocacy
The House released a draft bill the other day that would authorize NASA funding for the years 2016 and 2017 (authorizing bills generally set policy and spending limits, but do not actually provide money).
Marcia Smith at SpacePolicyOnline has a good analysis of the overall bill. But here are a few highlights:
Planetary Science gets a very good authorization: $1.5 billion for both years and specific priority in a reduced budget scenario.
Earth Science takes a big hit, dropping by about $300 million from 2015 and nearly $500 million below the 2016 request by the President.
SLS/Orion is authorized at a high level, basically by the amount removed from Earth Science.
NASA itself is authorized at the President’s requested level, which is an increase from 2015 and grows with inflation in 2017.
Obviously, the cuts to Earth Science make this a hard bill to support, therefore The Planetary Society cannot support the full bill as written at this early stage. We want an Authorization bill for NASA that can pass Congress and be signed by the White House, we hope that the committee markup will find ways to preserve and grow all science as this moves forward.
The Planetary Science numbers, however, are very good, as is the language relating to the frequency of planetary science missions. We submitted a letter to the House Science Committee that acknowledged these important additions and support of Planetary Science. This has been seen by some as full throated support for the full bill. It is not, but we believe that good language is good language, and the planetary numbers deserve support. We hope this planetary language makes it in to the both the Senate and House versions of this bill, as well as improved support for science overall.
Then why does their letter to the House omit this rather important piece of information? Reading the letter, its sounds like Planetary Society supports what House republicans want to do.
I most certainly agree and they rather defensively try to justify the omission.
Let me quote another post of mine:
It would have been nice if that letter had included the blog words: “as well as improved support for science overall”.I wonder if its omission was a deliberate case of political nuance or simply an oversight due to enthusiasm.
I, being a cynic, assume the former.
So was it craven cowardice for political gain, or just super focus on a single line item?
“Reading the letter, its sounds like Planetary Society supports what House republicans…”
It makes me puke. Look at what an angry WaPo blog said!:
http://www.washingtonpost.c…
The Committee’s press release lists several outside organizations that have expressed support for the bill, including the Planetary Society and Commercial Spaceflight Federation. (??!?!!)
You have to drill down on the PS website to see: “the Planetary Society cannot support the full bill as written“
Damn
The Planetary Society letter linked from the Committee website expresses support for the proposed funding for NASA’s Planetary Science Division. It is not a statement of support for the whole bill.
Where do the planetary science increases come from? Answer: earth science cuts. If Planetary Society had any credibility they would denounce the earth science cuts. Instead they ignore the reality of where their increase came from. Shameless.
It is indeed shameful. Bill Nye took a ride on Air Force One – like Kucinich before him – and changed his mind by the time Air Force One landed. That is the really offensive corrupt part of his ride.
By the way, it is not hypocritical for environmentalists to use fossil fuel in the furtherance of their cause. It is an excellent use of fossil fuel. Quietly making a point with science obviously does not work. Keith is right to point out earth is a planet too.
It would have been nice if that letter had included the blog words: “as well as improved support for science overall”.
I wonder if its omission was a deliberate case of political nuance or simply an oversight due to enthusiasm.
I, being a cynic, assume the former.
What point are you trying to make by repeating “(The Science Guy®)” ad nauseam?
Because that is how the Planetary Society refers to him in press releases.
Bill Nye? You mean The Science Guy®, right, Keith? 🙂