The Bicker Board

[HiloJulie]

However, I'll accept your misuse of sarcasm and request that you do indeed narrate the info for me because I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

This is the PunaWed "Ohana" I guess I am not part of, and which, as I said earlier is why some posters, "..believe you can say anything and its gospel truth, whereas whatever I say, its bullshit. In addition to the fact that I am a woman."

I'm taking Rob's sage advice about when someone puts a hoop in front of you, there is no requirement to respond, other than to say for a 60ish year-old man, you sure do love to argue like my 3-year-old granddaughter.

But sometimes, she makes sense.

[TomK]

However, I'll accept your misuse of sarcasm and request that you do indeed narrate the info for me because I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

This is the PunaWed "Ohana" I guess I am not part of, and which, as I said earlier is why some posters, "..believe you can say anything and its gospel truth, whereas whatever I say, its bullshit. In addition to the fact that I am a woman."

I'm taking Rob's sage advice about when someone puts a hoop in front of you, there is no requirement to respond, other than to say for a 60ish year-old man, you sure do love to argue like my 3-year-old granddaughter.

But sometimes, she makes sense.

So you were wrong and can't admit it. If you want to take further advice, I suggest looking in the mirror and reflecting on your posts.

[HiloJulie]

So you were wrong and can't admit it. If you want to take further advice, I suggest looking in the mirror and reflecting on your posts.

OMG the excessive quoting!!!

So, NASA defines a satellite as:

A satellite is a body that orbits around another body in space. There are two different types of satellites – natural and man-made. Examples of natural satellites are the Earth and Moon. The Earth rotates around the Sun and the Moon rotates around the Earth. A man-made satellite is a machine that is launched into space and orbits around a body in space. Examples of man-made satellites include the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station.

So, one could argue that the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 is an instrument, but then, since it is attached by NASA's definition to a satellite, the Space Station, one could also argue that it is a satellite.

As I see it in that regard, there is no real right or wrong way of arguing it - both terms can reasonably apply.

But that was never the argument to begin with. It is the funding cuts being implemented that will end its mission as well as its complimentary free flying satellite Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 that is the ONLY argument. 

But as we saw, some see that as bringing national politics into PunaWeb. And as I said about that, I still defy ANYONE to prove to me that high levels of CO2 in planet earth's atmosphere does NOT DIRECTLY impact Hawaii.

But if you want to make it about an argument of minutia of the smallest semantics, i.e. like saying Obama Care sucks, but the Affordable Care Act is GREAT, then yes, Tom, I was wrong, and you were right.

[Rob Tucker]

Communication does not require winning.

Running the forum is often like being a hall monitor and a middle school.

[kalianna]

Sometimes thereʻs a kid who, despite many warnings and a few suspensions, continues to provoke the class. Sometimes expulsion is the only way to stop the chaos. Are we getting close?

[leilanidude]

However, I'll accept your misuse of sarcasm and request that you do indeed narrate the info for me because I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

This is the PunaWed "Ohana" I guess I am not part of, and which, as I said earlier is why some posters, "..believe you can say anything and its gospel truth, whereas whatever I say, its bullshit. In addition to the fact that I am a woman."

I'm taking Rob's sage advice about when someone puts a hoop in front of you, there is no requirement to respond, other than to say for a 60ish year-old man, you sure do love to argue like my 3-year-old granddaughter.

But sometimes, she makes sense.

"no requirement to respond..." yet you do, constantly like a non-stop yapping little dog.

[HiloJulie]

This PunaWeb "Ohana" sounds more and more like a group of tattooed gang banging thugs.

"constantly like a non-stop yapping little dog."

   

[Durian Fiend]

However, I'll accept your misuse of sarcasm and request that you do indeed narrate the info for me because I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

This is the PunaWed "Ohana" I guess I am not part of, and which, as I said earlier is why some posters, "..believe you can say anything and its gospel truth, whereas whatever I say, its bullshit. In addition to the fact that I am a woman."

I'm taking Rob's sage advice about when someone puts a hoop in front of you, there is no requirement to respond, other than to say for a 60ish year-old man, you sure do love to argue like my 3-year-old granddaughter.

But sometimes, she makes sense.

So you were wrong and can't admit it. If you want to take further advice, I suggest looking in the mirror and reflecting on your posts.

I was the first one to incorrectly mention axing two satellites in the CO2 thread, so Julie probably picked up on that.   One satellite, two monitoring systems.

[HiloJulie]

"so Julie probably picked up on that."

No, actually Jule read the original NPR News link which refers to both missions as "satellites." Then, Julie went and researched specifically both missions. Numerous references are made to both missions being instruments and/or satellites. Then Julie made her first post about the issue.

And again, the issue is NOT about calling them satellites or missions or instruments - hell, call them little thingies in the sky for all I care. The issue is the proposed funding cuts to end these missions and the underlying rationale behind it.

Or one could close their minds to THAT debate and continue to argue whether is drizzling or sprinkling outside.

[Durian Fiend]

 ...The issue is the proposed funding cuts to end these missions and the underlying rationale behind it.

Or one could close their minds to THAT debate and continue to argue whether is drizzling or sprinkling outside.

Good point.  OK, let's bicker about it.  From the article:

"The cost of maintaining the two OCO satellite missions up in space is a small fraction of the amount of money taxpayers already spent to design and launch the instruments. The two missions cost about $750 million to design, build and launch, according to David Crisp, the retired NASA scientist...
By comparison, maintaining both OCO missions in orbit costs about $15 million per year, Crisp says...   

( DF adds, the two missions were launched in 2014 and 2019.)

"Just from an economic standpoint, it makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data," Crisp says.

NASA's recent call for universities and companies to potentially take over the cost of maintaining the OCO instrument attached to the International Space Station suggests the agency is also considering privatizing NASA science missions. Such partnerships raise a host of thorny questions, says Michalak, who has worked with private companies, nonprofit groups, universities and the federal government on greenhouse gas monitoring satellite projects.
"On the one hand the private sector is really starting to have a role," Michalak says. In recent years, multiple private groups in the U.S. have launched satellites that measure methane, a potent planet-warming gas that is poorly monitored compared to carbon dioxide.
"Looking at it from the outside, it can look like the private sector is really picking up some of what the federal agencies were doing in terms of Earth observations," she explains. "And it's true that they're contributing." But, she says, "Those efforts would not be possible without this underlying investment from public funding."



 Of course, it's the responsibility of Congress to fund NASA.  Up until this point, they've indicated an interest in maintaining a status quo budget.  The question is whether their Republican members will eventually cave to Russell Vought's Project 2025 desire to cut NASA funding by 25%.  I suspect the answer will be "yes".