Mark, a sensible article.

Ev - apparently from Canada - I was recently in touch with a BC environmentalist named Evie (though not using my nom-de-net). I wonder ...?

I'm alright Jack, I don't live on the coast.

Faustino: I'm not from Canada - Oz.

Bennie: Rather than reading about claims that the moon landing was a fake, you may be interested in what's going on now at NASA, where future moon-landings and other such ventures have been given priority over climate studies, at a time when we need to learn so much more. This article outlines the problem:

"Other canceled missions would study water vapor in the atmosphere, monitor deforestation, examine ocean currents, and figure out how much solar heat is reflected back into space by tiny aerosol particles in the atmosphere. These decisions come on the heels of NASA's deep-sixing of a project to place an Earth climate observatory at one of the Lagrange points, the positions in space where the gravity of the Earth and moon are equalized. This recent National Academy of Sciences report excoriates NASA for paying too little attention to Earth observation and for doing relatively little to study the sun, on which, after all, Earth life depends.

You might assume that NASA is canceling Earth study missions because the Bush administration does not want environmental data. Yet the projects in question would not yield substantive results until after President George W. Bush leaves office. What's really going on is that NASA holds the taxpayers in contempt. Space agency top management has long clung to an attitude of "We are experts, no one dares question us." And NASA entertains a silly Sci Fi Channel fantasy that its core task lies in deep space, because humanity is already on the verge of discovering the origin of the universe. Earth is low-prestige—too local. As Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., noted in 2005, NASA "describes Earth science research as being significant to the extent that it informs our knowledge of, and our capability, to explore other planets. This is precisely backwards. The planet that has to matter most to us is the one we live on."

Full article - http://www.slate.com/id/2138943/

David Latimer: Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else? "Don't post something, and expect nobody will check your sources.." - Pretty rude.

Response to Ev 20 February 2007 5:19:00 AM:

"Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else? ... Pretty rude."

Are you allowing someone else to use your account? Try searching for: "Posted by Ev, Sunday, 18 February 2007 9:54:19 AM" and let us know if that's you.

Whoever that unscrupulous person is, they have given us a link to URL to National Geographic. Under your name, they cherry-picked the quotes from an article from National Geographic to give a misleading impression.

But here I am to clear things up. The article says "now, with global warming, the glaciers are disappearing eight times faster than before."

David Latimer: And now you've called me 'unscrupulous' and said that I'm trying to give a misleading impression. Exactly what misleading impression do you think I'm trying to give? The article relates the opinions of two different scientists studying the topic. You have quoted one (Hastenrath), I have quoted the other (Hardy).

In the quote from Hardy that I posted previously, he says: "The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved."
And the article continues with: "According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession."

So I don't understand what you're getting so up-tight about.

thanks Ev. I'm a big fan of NASA, regardless of how politics shapes its programs.

My link is to illustrate where you're going to end up in 10-15 years.