Wondering where the money is coming from for our three wars, including the over $1 billion for the latest war in Libya? Well, as we spend billions on the wars (including one for an oil-rich nation which has refused to re-pay any of the costs), the White House is slashing domestic programs. A good comparison is that the cost to date of the Libyan war is basically what Congress is about to cut from the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The cuts from Congress are above those asked by the Administration. Trillions of cuts are being worked out in light of budget shortfalls.
Hundreds of millions will be cut from the Joint Polar Satellite System, a reorganized satellite system and hundreds of millions more will be cut from NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities budget. NOAA is already a lean organization with an expanding mission. Other countries are increasing oceanic and weather monitoring to protect lives and property. However, with yet another war launched by President Obama, we can hardly be tossing away money on the environment and science while tossing cruise missiles at Tripoli.
Source: Science Mag
@Blouise
I think you are mistaking me for your friends.
The record is clear from the Revere thread who started the name calling first. In each case, the regulars started. I did a time line in another thread, if you care to look it up.
Elaine,
Earlier this year I went to the first MIT Open House in decades. The entire campus was open to the public, with faculty and staff demonstrating state-of-the-art research. I spent time in the robotics labs, in aerospace garages, with infrared drone AI and like technologies. The enthusiasm, modesty and extraordinary talent of the students was unlike anything I’ve experienced on such a scale before. Highly recommended if it is ever repeated.
However, what struck me at the end of the day was how much of MIT’s work was oriented to – and funded by – the US war machine. Over lunch Blackhawk helicopters landed on the campus to enthusiastic crowds, a strong acknowledgment by the military of the value MIT has to their mission. Technology after technology I reviewed was created for a military purpose.
While some of these technologies may eventually have application to domestic policing and may slowly make their way into consumer technologies, they are a diversion from research that would otherwise benefit consumers more directly. I would rather see Pfizer and Intel leading the funding of research at MIT than the DoD.
@GeneH
You are looking at the wrong column. We are talking government funding of research, not government doing the research.
The percentages of GDP slightly favors the US and because we have a much bigger economy our expenditures are triple theirs.
But let’s not let the facts get in the way.
China still is a totalitarian state. So I guess they would spend a bunch of money on government funded research. Most of it on the military.
They are biding their time.
I doubt they care too much about green technology except as some sort of economic weapon. They have huge coal reserves and like nuclear power. Their idea of green is a high efficiency fusion reactor.
kderosa,
You are beating a dead horse (metaphorically speaking) …
I do appreciate that this time around you are attempting to resurrect the “more reasonable self” 🙂
kderosa,
If you can’t understand that partisanship requires a party and consequently an accusation of partisanship requires a party affiliation?
Sorry. I can’t help your basic failures of logic and language. Your failures belong to you. I’d say your successes as well, but honestly, in the threads I’ve read, you haven’t had any to date.
It’s no wonder the collection of smart people attracted to this blog generally have their way with you all the time though.
@Elaine
I actually already stated that I did: “No one is advocating to defund NASA or any other research focused agency. “
kderosa,
Once again, you’ve mistaken me for somebody taking you seriously.
Actually, your Wiki table proves my point and not yours. China’s percentage as a percentage of the whole of government science spending outstrips ours by 10.8% (12.2%U.S. vs. 23%China). It shows the difference if priorities as does the other article I linked to which shows their top priority is green technology, i.e. freeing themselves from fossil fuel dependence. That their green initiative outpaces our spending in that area in net dollars spent should be of come concern considering the latent and largely untapped manufacturing capacity of China.
What a coincidence! Freeing ourselves from fossil fuel dependence and those semi-barbarians in the Middle East should be our national priority as well. But it isn’t.
kderosa,
“It’s not a question of whether. It’s a question of degree and allocation of resources.
“And, no one is arguing that government doesn’t has a role to play in funding research.”
**********
Then you agree that the government has a role to play in funding research.
@GeneH
Now you are just embarrassing yourself.
First you accuse Roco of bringing up party affiliation.
I called you on it.
And, then you admit that he didn’t, albeit in a backhanded sort of way. “That Roco didn’t specifically name the party he favors is irrelevant. ”
The issue wasn’t about partisanship. It was about bringing up party affiliation.
Your second strawman. And again I’ve explained to you why it is such.
Ok, Roco.
Let’s be honest about partisanship.
It matters to you. I couldn’t care less. I’m not a member of any political party. I like to think for myself. I guess that’s one of the reasons I have gotten such a warm welcome form the other free thinkers that frequent this blog.
You can be partisan all you want (or all you told, however that works). It will serve you no good in dealing with me. Except further convince me you are not to be taken seriously either, much like your buddy.
@GeneH
You didn’t limit your statement to Green research. You stated unqualified research. And the figure I cited was for all research. See OECD, main indicators of science and technology, june 2006. Here’s a table.
So you have actually done, what you accuse me of doing.
Also, you’ve again failed to explain why my arguments are strawman arguments.
kderosa,
Once again your disingenousness comes to the fore. When you accuse someone who has not made a partisan argument of partisanship, you are attempting to make the argument about partisanship yourself. That Roco didn’t specifically name the party he favors is irrelevant. I’m going to assume by the content of his posts he’s some kind of far right wing Republican, a Teabagger or a Libertarian. Really, it makes no difference to me. I think all political parties and partisan arguments are all about the same degree of ridiculous.
However, it was indeed your buddy there who first brought up partisan politics when he couldn’t refute that his reasoning was (and still is) specious.
Gene H:
You don’t need to tell me your ideological proclivity, it is staring me in the face with every word you write.
You are a fascist or a socialist, at best a very liberal democrat. In other words you like big government.
Nothing wrong with that, just lets be honest about partisanship. I freely admit I am a limited government type and I post that way.
@Elaine
“Whether research is government funded or privately funded it will have mixed results.”
It’s not a question of whether. It’s a question of degree and allocation of resources.
And, no one is arguing that government doesn’t has a role to play in funding research.
Actually kderosa, while tripling may be hyperbolic, what I mean is things like this . . .
“China Overtakes U.S. in Green Investment
China has shown determination to be on the frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change.
By Shaun Tandon, Agence France Presse
March 25, 2010
A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 to reach $34.6 billion, far more than any other country in the Group of 20 major economies.”
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_overtakes_u-s-_in_green_investment_21415.aspx
As to why you don’t know what a strawman argument is? I think that’s apparent. You make an awful lot of them yourself but mischaracterize others valid arguments as strawmen when you can’t beat them. Either you don’t know what they are or you’re deploying the term in a disingenuous manner. I’ve now read two very long threads where you’ve done the same thing time and again. It’s not only ineffective, it’s annoyingly ineffective on your part. I can see why some of the regulars like Buddha and mespo enjoy clubbing you over the head and setting you fire in the metaphorical senses of the words. Disingenuous people often bring out that reaction in others. However, quite honestly, I’m perfectly content to just show you don’t know what you are talking about. That being the main reason I don’t take your posts seriously, naturally.
@GeneH
“Roco, Not at all. I didn’t mention a party affiliation once. But you sure did in a hurry.”
Where?
Whether research is government funded or privately funded it will have mixed results. That’s what research is about. If one knew the end result of a study or project, it wouldn’t be research.
Pete:
I imagine we would have had an Internet by now. Look what the private sector has done to the Internet. I has caused a million ideas to bloom and created great wealth for many people.
Of course I would be reading these lines, because someone would have created it and made a bazillion dollars on it.
But on a different note, the Internet did not become what it is today until it was commercialized. From early to mid 1960’s to the late 1980’s the Internet wasn’t all that much. Look at where it was 15 years ago. Now it is teaming with life.
Do you think that wouldn’t happen to any other sector freed from government shackles?
Without private enterprise which actually found a use for that DARPA technology which was being squandered, there would be no Inernet as we know it.