• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constellation or Climate Research?

Constellation or Climate research?

  • Total voters
    27
1984

1984

Banned
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
496
Reaction score
159
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you had to pick, which enterprise would you fund?

The Constellation Program or climate research?

Of course, I would choose space exploration, because I consider it vitally important to our long term prosperity and security.

How about you?
 
I'd choose climate research. We can't really afford to trash the planet we've got. And, unless we learn to live in a way that doesn't destroy our location, we'll trash the universe.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'd choose climate research. We can't really afford to trash the planet we've got. And, unless we learn to live in a way that doesn't destroy our location, we'll trash the universe.
Click to expand...

How does climate research stop anyone from trashing the planet? You know "climate research" is just code for "anthropogenic global warming research", right?

Damn! Climate research over space exploration!? Has the whole world gone mad?
 
1984 said:
How does climate research stop anyone from trashing the planet? You know "climate research" is just code for "anthropogenic global warming research", right?

Damn! Climate research over space exploration!? Has the whole world gone mad?
Click to expand...

Naaaaa...... just the liberal minority.
 
I do not believe in the man made global warming fairy tale that enviro-religious zealots try to espouse but I can see climate research being useful if we ever find out how to exactly manipulate it.Which would come in handy if somewhere down the road we wish to terraform other planets because I do not think it is as simple as melting the ice on Mars like in Total Recall. Of course I do see religious nuts using climate research to try to push the man made global warming fairy tale belief.
 
Climate has been changing since the dawn of this planet. Nothing we can do to stop it. Space is much more important in my opinion.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'd choose climate research. We can't really afford to trash the planet we've got. And, unless we learn to live in a way that doesn't destroy our location, we'll trash the universe.
Click to expand...

Not to mention we'll have to deal with the by-products on adverse ACC far longer then it would take to establish a sizable human colony on Mars.
 
repeter said:
Not to mention we'll have to deal with the by-products on adverse ACC far longer then it would take to establish a sizable human colony on Mars.
Click to expand...

Oh my God! I wish I would have never started this poll. It's already driving me bat-**** crazy!

Assuming anthropogenic global warming is a real problem, what in the hell do you think "climate research" will do to solve it? We already know what the solution is to this phony problem, so why do we need to research it?

This doesn't even address the fact that you're making inferences based upon nothing more than assumptions, e.g., we'll have to deal with the by-products of adverse ACC. You don't know that, and neither does anybody else.
 
I see AGW as dubious at best. I definitely don't see it as a looming catastrophe threatening all life on the planet.

Therefore I vote for space.
 
1984 said:
How does climate research stop anyone from trashing the planet? You know "climate research" is just code for "anthropogenic global warming research", right?

Damn! Climate research over space exploration!? Has the whole world gone mad?
Click to expand...

Yeah, similarly, space exploration is code word for: "I drive a hummer because I'm overcompensating, " or in other words: "when we've thoroughly exploited this planet for a short-term buck, we'll have a plan B."
 
And, we're off and running on yet another AGW debate.

I picture a car stalled on the railroad tracks, with the people inside debating whether there really is an oncoming train, and whether there is anything that they can do to stop it if there is.

Some of them can hear the train approaching, others apparently can't, so there is the debate over whether there really is a train or not. Some of the passengers who know very well that there is a train say it does not matter, as there have been trains on this track for years anyway. We didn't put the train on the tracks, after all, and we can't stop it.

Others are contending that they must do whatever it takes to stop the train, or there will be a disaster.

It really doesn't matter whether global warming is man caused or not. It is abundantly clear that it is real. What is not clear is that we can actually stop it. Most likely, we can not.

The rational thing to do is research the phenomenon and be as ready as possible for the inevitable.

In other words, quit debating and get the hell out of the car before the train does get here!

Of course, no one expects the human race to do the rational thing. We never have done so before.

Oh, yes, and by all means let's continue to fund space exploration.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Yeah, similarly, space exploration is code word for: "I drive a hummer because I'm overcompensating, " or in other words: "when we've thoroughly exploited this planet for a short-term buck, we'll have a plan B."
Click to expand...

I'd pick space for the cool factor, but you're hella funny! :mrgreen:
 
I voted for climate research. True science without an agenda will show the world that AGW is false and save us from government intervention. Plus I think it is important to study our climate either way. Some chemicals and substances are harmful to the environment and should be disposed of properly.
 
NASA's primary focus should be space, exploration or otherwise. I would support the founding of another agency specifically to study the Earth, climate included.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And, we're off and running on yet another AGW debate.

I picture a car stalled on the railroad tracks, with the people inside debating whether there really is an oncoming train, and whether there is anything that they can do to stop it if there is.

Some of them can hear the train approaching, others apparently can't, so there is the debate over whether there really is a train or not. Some of the passengers who know very well that there is a train say it does not matter, as there have been trains on this track for years anyway. We didn't put the train on the tracks, after all, and we can't stop it.

Others are contending that they must do whatever it takes to stop the train, or there will be a disaster.

It really doesn't matter whether global warming is man caused or not. It is abundantly clear that it is real. What is not clear is that we can actually stop it. Most likely, we can not.

The rational thing to do is research the phenomenon and be as ready as possible for the inevitable.

In other words, quit debating and get the hell out of the car before the train does get here!

Of course, no one expects the human race to do the rational thing. We never have done so before.

Oh, yes, and by all means let's continue to fund space exploration.
Click to expand...

If you know the rail line has been shut down for the last year, and your senile old mother in law is the one that hears the train, probably the best thing to do is find out why your car is stalled, or call a tow truck. :roll:
 
digsbe said:
I voted for climate research. True science without an agenda will show the world that AGW is false and save us from government intervention. Plus I think it is important to study our climate either way. Some chemicals and substances are harmful to the environment and should be disposed of properly.
Click to expand...

And you expect "true science without an agenda" from Barry's new Global warming propaganda arm?
 
I'm not sure why we should care right now about going into space, besides sending satellites of course.

There's no point living on the Moon or sending people to Mars right now... unless you are concerned about being the first country to inhabit the Moon then claim it for yourself or first to visit Mars then boost people's moral.

But I'm personally more concerned about the dangers, if there are any, to our home planet. What's the point in going to Mars if we destroy our home planet without realizing it? I want to see more research done to fully understand our planet and realize the effect, if any, humans can have on it.
 
Crunch said:
And you expect "true science without an agenda" from Barry's new Global warming propaganda arm?
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't. I expect the opposite. Obama wants to turn NASA into a KGB of sorts for pushing AGW "truth." However, I think real unbiased science will show AGW is fake, and an open-minded review of the system will show corruption within the community of "consensus" on AGW. We have seen the corruption, we shouldn't be justifying it and letting the theory go unquestioned.
 
digsbe said:
Honestly I don't. I expect the opposite. Obama wants to turn NASA into a KGB of sorts for pushing AGW "truth." However, I think real unbiased science will show AGW is fake, and an open-minded review of the system will show corruption within the community of "consensus" on AGW. We have seen the corruption, we shouldn't be justifying it and letting the theory go unquestioned.
Click to expand...

So how is turning NASA over to a Global warming propaganda arm going to help expose the fraud? I guess it would give us more examples of massaging the data and out right lies, but we already have a bunch of that documented.
 
Crunch said:
If you know the rail line has been shut down for the last year, and your senile old mother in law is the one that hears the train, probably the best thing to do is find out why your car is stalled, or call a tow truck. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, let's call a tow truck, by all means. Meanwhile, we can stay in the car and plug our ears.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, let's call a tow truck, by all means. Meanwhile, we can stay in the car and plug our ears.
Click to expand...

That's what I do when my senile old mother in law is flapping her gums.

Now, back to the subject..... Constellation or Climate Research?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, let's call a tow truck, by all means. Meanwhile, we can stay in the car and plug our ears.
Click to expand...

The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that the rational, default position is that AGW is definitely real and probably a looming global castastrophe that threatens all life.

In other words, you're assuming that those who don't agree with you are ignorant, willfully or unwittingly, or too lacking in perception to understand what's going on.

Contrariwise, there are those, like me, who have studied the matter and found AGW-as-catastrophe highly questionable and certainly nothing to panic over.
 
Goshin said:
The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that the rational, default position is that AGW is definitely real and probably a looming global castastrophe that threatens all life.

In other words, you're assuming that those who don't agree with you are ignorant, willfully or unwittingly, or too lacking in perception to understand what's going on.

Contrariwise, there are those, like me, who have studied the matter and found AGW-as-catastrophe highly questionable and certainly nothing to panic over.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily AGW. My analogy only depends on the fact that the train is coming, not that the passengers of the car put it there, nor that they can stop it.

The Earth has warmed over the past hundred years. That is a fact, not an opinion. It hasn't warmed much, but it doesn't take much of a rise in average temperatures to make a difference.

Saying that global warming isn't happening is much like sitting in the car and plugging your ears. If you want to argue that it isn't anthropogenic, go right ahead. I think you're wrong, but it really doesn't matter. The train is coming. Let's get out of the way. We're not going to stop it anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not necessarily AGW. My analogy only depends on the fact that the train is coming, not that the passengers of the car put it there, nor that they can stop it.

The Earth has warmed over the past hundred years. That is a fact, not an opinion. It hasn't warmed much,....

... The train is coming. Let's get out of the way. We're not going to stop it anyway.
Click to expand...


I bolded the salient points in your statement.

Yes, the Earth has warmed, a little. It is established historical fact that the Earth warms and cools, and that there have been previous periods of warming more substantial than the current one. Conclusion: Don't panic.

We can't stop it. Exactly. The Earth has warmed a bit. Maybe it will warm some more. Almost certainly, natural processes and cycles will curb this trend over time.... and you know, if it doesn't, there really isn't anything significant we can do about it. We are too puny to have a significant effect on the climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom