Conservative Physicist Didn't Like My Article Here on DSCVR (Al Gore's Triana)

[RestoreGore]

Both of my entries on this in both venues where I placed them seems to have ruffled the feathers of this proclaimed physicist who here offered no concrete scientific basis for his namecalling of Al Gore, the trashing of this project, or actually, me, and also the other blog, DeSmogblog that this was posted in. However, we now know what some Conservative physicists do in their free hours besides doing anything constructive for humanity. And if you read this entry all you see is the same hate that was displayed in Congress, so I actually thank him for making my point so susinctly.

And I am now more incensed than ever in writing Congress, NASA, and anyone else I have to write to to request that Triana be given a second chance to fly. As my OP stated in my last response, the hopes for it to fly were evident up until 2004. Therefore, there is no reason why it cannot at least be considered again, especially when death rays, missile defense systems, and other unnecessary weapons of war and death would not be beneficial to anyone but the defense contractors who make them.

Triana is a groundbreaking scientifically viable effort that WAS sanctioned as such by the NAS, NASA, and Scripps. And no "Conservative physicist" who is afraid of "liberal activists" because they actually have the capacity to have a discussion without ignorant namecalling and demeaning comments to get views across is going to deter me from writing about this. And actually, if he could get past his own brainwashing, I am mot a "liberal activist" as much as I am a citizen of this world who sees any project that can bring us important and useful information about this Earth to aid us in our knowledge of it as worthwhile.

If he truly understood what DSCVR was about and what it was to measure (which of course was not mentioned in his tirade) he would understand its viability and usefulness regarding climate change and this climate crisis, which is what this is all about to me. I am also not just writing about this because I think Al Gore is a great man, I am doing this because I believe in this project and that Republicans need to atone for what I believe was a purely partisan action to ground this effort out of partisan hatred in total indifference to the damage being done to this planet that this effort may have countered, and Democrats need to atone for allowing it because that is not how a DEMOCRATIC government is supposed to work.

So thank you to the lurking Conservatives and freepers who have nothing better to do but cultivate their political hatred by scanning blogs in order to find material to write about for all of their purported intelligence. Your true motivations are clear. BTW, anyone who reads this, feel free to write to the Science Committee, NASA, or your Senator about this as well. The more letters they get the better the chance in hoping to see this groundbreaking scientifically viable effort finally reaching the heavens where is should be. The first satellite with 24 hour views of Earth at L1. Not scientifically viable? BS.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Based upon *what* do you think he's a fake physicist? Did you call Rutgers?

[RestoreGore]

3. Did I say he was fake?

No, I did not. I said IF because I don't know one way or the other from just looking at a blog, especially based on the tone of the reply. Do you?

[BlooInBloo]

4. Putting his profession in quotes, doing the "cough, cough" suffices.

EDIT: And you would know by doing even 5 minutes of research on your own.

And note, *I* never said *you said* he was fake. You were oh-so-clever as to not use the *exact* words. Phew - so clever!

[RestoreGore]

6. Well guess what? I am entitled to be skeptical

But thanks for supporting the side in this that grounded this good mission that even NASA stated was scientific. Your making this about my impressions of the poster rather than the content proves much here.

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) You're entitled to be as stupid as you want to be, like all Americans...

... If you were truly interested in the truth of his profession, you could have spent 5 minutes and found out.

[RestoreGore]

8. There, changed it just for you

Though to me the profession doesn't really matter in the end. I'm not a physicist and I know as much about Triana as he wrote about. So your reason for attacking me here is really curious. So do you have anything to state about the content or is your only reason for being here to namecall as well? I am far from stupid BTW, and as I stated have every right to be skeptical based on the same old "Rush Limbaugh" talking points in the response.

[BlooInBloo]

9. "proclaimed physicist" - ROFLMAO!!! You just can't accept it, can you?

[RestoreGore]

10. What is your problem?

Are you him? Where is the proof then? Show it yourself.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Yes, yes, I know: anyone who prefers truth to ideology must be "on his side"...

... America has faced this problem for decades. I'm quite familiar with it.

[RestoreGore]

12. Seems he has a habit of doing this

http://reasic.com/2007/04/10/response-to-lubos-motl/

So again, why the attacking of me here when he was the one doing the attacking? Oh, and thanks so much for supporting this project and what is right.:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

14. Oh - he's a complete asshole, there's no doubt about that - nor did I express any...

... It's just unfortunate that DUers would let ideological differences trump the truth. He IS a physicist, whether you like it or not. And to intimate otherwise is simply lazy and/or dishonest.

DUers love nothing more than taking the media to task for not backing up their suggestions with actual research. We should lead by example.

[RestoreGore]

22. Well, you got your research

[RestoreGore]

15. he also appears to be a "flat earther" according to his review of An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM/ref=cm_pdp_about_see_review/103-1714006-4902247?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview

So again, why are you attacking ME here? He looks like a scientific fraud to me.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Where did he suggest he believes the earth is flat?

[RestoreGore]

18. That is a phrase for those who dispute anthropogenic climate change

It wasn't meant as literal. Are you doing this on purpose? Because I'm done with you now.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Your regard for the truth is almost as low as the asshole physicist's...

... It does NO service to the cause of getting a handle on global warming. That's unfortunate.

[RestoreGore]

20. And your attacks here are doing nothing regarding debate

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/lubos_motl_vs_the_logarithm_fu.php

Apparently the TRUTH is that he is also a follower of Richard Lindzen. You do know who he is, don't you? This person is then a climate skeptic who then in my view attacked me because I was supporting a project that had Al Gore's name attached to it. That then means there was no scientific basis for his response, it was clearly political. And again, based on my research of him, I do not respect his credentials which is MY right. And your nasty responses here to me are then moot. My original comments stand. He may be a physicist in the context of the word, but as far as his political views he is nothing more than a shill. So you can continue attacking me here all day if you like and contributing nothing to debate, but it changes nothing as far as my opinions are concerned.

[BlooInBloo]

21. lol!

[RestoreGore]

23. Typical.

A climate skeptic attacks a fact based article because he has a grudge against Al Gore for speaking the truth about climate change, and all you can do is laugh.

[papau]

28. Other than dumping on Gore, the case against Triana seems solid to me

Lumo (the fellow that dumped on Gore and implied Gore said he invented the internet) posted (paraphrased in part):

Lumo says that 'the new dramatic invention of the inventor of the Internet was to place a satellite so far that the whole Earth can be observed 24 hours a day." (at the L1 Lagrange point). ..NASA added some survey tasks, including measurements of the albedo every fifteen minutes, that were not really needed and that are effectively performed by existing devices, for example by CERES.'

He then worries that it is taking money away from things that will have no impact on earth - namely big dollar physics - and that the lack of NASA money for his microwave background,cosmic inflation, gamma ray bursts, supernovae and the cosmological constant projects will slow his research.

So he is happy that the Gore project (DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) -the new name for Al Gore's Triana) is being 'postponed' many years (actually after a NASA committee of 10 scientists was formed and reported that Triana did have scientific merit, the entire program has been scrapped by NASA). And he is angry that DeSmogBlog has started an investigation into who killed Triana.

DUer Xithras says that meteorologists state that while existing satellites may not cover 100% of the Earth in a single shot, but they do cover 100% of the Earth in multiple shots, and they do it with higher resolution and a wider spectrum of instruments than Trianna would ever be capable of, titching them together into a single comprehensive atmospheric map that is a great deal better than the "single shot" that Trianna would provide.

The objectors are said to ignore the fact that the Triana mission will complement and enhance data from other missions now in operation or in development because of the unique character of the measurements obtainable at the L1 Lagrangian point (nearly one and a half million kilometers between the Sun and Earth), which allows continuous imaging of the full sunlit disk of Earth and monitoring of the solar environment upstream from Earth, providing new databases that will validate and augment existing and planned global and local interplanetary databases. There is also a point that it gives us "space weather readings". Indeed stiched maps being validated by the first imaging camera (radiometer) giving direct measurements of how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from the whole Earth is considered a good thing - as are the measuring of the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, cloud patterns, weather systems, the monitoring of the health of Earth's vegetation, and tracking the amount of UV light reaching the surface through the ozone layer.

To which DUer Xithras notes (with posts that impress at least me) that next years launch of "SDO" takes care of "space weather readings" (and notes the CeReS cameras on the TRMM, the Aura satellite (launched 2004), the two MODIS equipped satellites that observe vegitation, The OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) measuring carbon dioxide concentrations globally beginning next year, and that thae Sat is expected to have a 2 year life before falling to earth, and would have to the only seat available into space through 2012 - the cargo bay of the August 2008 last flight of Space Shuttle Atlantis which is on its way to repair the Hubble. If not on that flight (and it is just about too late to prepare it for that flight already), it would need time and money to be modified for a rocket launch rather than via the Space Shuttle. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9789

[RestoreGore]

30. Well, thanks for that recap

Which was all responded to in the previous OP with many others offering good viewpoints as well for wanting this satellite to be considered again and lamenting the fact that political rancor grounded it. How many on the Science Committee that grounded it in Congress were even scientists? The point of this OP was questioning the motives of his attack on it in the first place (especially when it is now sitting in a warehouse and doing NOTHING to stop anything he is doing) and stating that it does not have scientifc merit when that has already been refuted many times over. Of course, it would follow that climate skeptics out to discredit Al Gore and the science behind climate change would be against Triana. He also stated in his response that Triana would only get half the Earth in its camera... does he not know as a physicist that the Earth turns on an axis? You can agree with his points if you wish which to me are nothing new, but as far as I am concerned it is nothing more than political sour grapes.


"If you think about it for a while, the scientific content of this project is next to nil. It is a typical idea of a crackpot who has no tools to determine whether a project is scientifically interesting or not. Already in 1999, during the Clinton-Gore administration, the project - nicknamed GoreSat or Gore's Screensaver - was more or less doomed. NASA Inspector General has also determined that the project is driven by politics, not science. It was found that the budget estimate was underestimated, too.

How did they ever justify to study that project at all? Did they just tell NASA that it has appeared in a dream of a prophet? Well, Al Gore wanted the fresh picture of the whole Earth (well, just one-half, but it's OK) to be constantly available as a source of inspiration: people could finally see through the Internet, his other invention, that the Earth is a little vulnerable child who has a fever. ;-) NASA added some survey tasks, including measurements of the albedo every fifteen minutes, that were not really needed and that are effectively performed by existing devices, for example by CERES."

[RestoreGore]

31. And I do not dispute the effectiveness of CERES or any other such satellites

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/brochure/intro.html

Matter of fact, I'm grateful we have them. However, my whole point is that L1 is the best place to have a continuous view of the sunlit Earth, and in the case of DSCVR it would have been available to see on the Internet as well. It isn't only the scientific value of a project that has merit to me. There are other factors involved, including spiritual, educational, and the idea that even students being able to view the sunlit side of the Earth as it rotates would bring about a better understanidng that we are all in this together. I don't then see the need for the personal attacks on Al Gore by this person, on me, or on a project that would have had scientific merit. Any scientist who cares about our Earth in my view would not choose to be so blantantly dismissive and politically partisan of anything that has such merit.

[papau]

34. I agree - Bush killed it for political reasons - just like he killed the weekly Osama/terrorist meet

from Feb 2001 to 9/11 that had kept us safe under Bill Clinton.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. from my reading...the poster you mention

knew exactly what the project was for, exactly what he was talking about and exactly why Triana should not fly...sounds like you are just pissed that he disagreed with you...and did so from an apparently well informed point of view.

sP

[RestoreGore]

5. I guess we didn't read the same entry

Because he offered no reason why DSCOVR is not scientifcally viable. And I am angry because people who clearly only have partisan politics driving them hamper good projects that can actually help this planet and educate.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. or perhaps you let your ideology

blind you to facts...oh well. Oh, and heck of a nice job with the slamming of other DU'ers...

sP

[RestoreGore]

27. What facts?

And I didn't slam anyone here. But nice try in trying to start a fight. Good bye.

[TankLV]

13. You know - when I first glanced at this thread - I read "fake conservative psychic"

Oh well...

[RestoreGore]

17. Well, it seems some here can't have a viewpoint due to others' sensibilities

I actually pictured this thread going a bit differently. It should have been about discounting the obvious and blatant political BS of it all and the attacking of people and projects for whom the facts are on their side. I guess my expectations here were just a tad too high.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. well, see it is YOUR desire to slam someone who opposes you

Pthat is the problem. He disagrees with you. He does so with relevant information and you come here to slam him... So all I see is YOU trying to stiffle the debate by questioning the other poster's credentials while offering none of your own. The person in question aparently is a physicist. He apparently is well versed in the topic. He disagrees with you based on factual information. You don't like that. You offer no reason compelling in the light of the other poster's comments to boost that satellite.

He offers science. YOU are the one offering nothing but politics...

sP

[RestoreGore]

26. And what do you offer?

Read the link to the OP he attacked. The information is all in there. And I suggest you do some research on this person yourself. He is not very well liked in his own community and seems to do nothing on blogs but attack people and threaten them. RESEARCH is something that isn't just for the OP. And I offered NO politics in my OP regarding this. He was described as he labeled his own blog, and he is wrong about this regardless of his profession as was also discussed in my first OP on this that is linked here which you are more than welcome to read.

[BlooInBloo]

33. It's everybody else's fault, naturally.

[RestoreGore]

29. Triana- A Deep Space Earth Observatory

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/triana/NAS.Triana.report.12.99.pdf

Report for the NAS.

[RestoreGore]

32. Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html

Yes, we know now what the priorities are.