It is the 4th July, Independence Day in the USA, and NASA has successfully smashed something the size of a washing machine into a gigantic comet.
The aim of the cosmic collision, and I gather it was successful, was to find out what is inside comets. Comets are from somewhere else and believed to contain “primordial material, preserved in the deep-freeze of space, since the formation of the solar system”.
For fantastic pictures and more information on Deep Impact, visit
http://www.nasa.gov/deepimpact.
It is almost as exciting as that nuclear fusion reactor they agreed to build last week in the south of France.
Asteroids (and also comets) can cause tsunamis, see http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_892.html.
There are about 100 scientists on the lookout for things from outer space that could collide with planet earth see http://128.102.32.13/impact/intro_faq.cfm.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I seem to recall that John Howard, in his first term as PM, made the hideous decision of sacking the two government-funded astronomers helping the international effort to catalogue those asteroids and comets that pose a planetary threat.
I always thought it an atypically short-sighted blunder by an otherwise far-sighted national leader.
I reckon that much (not all) of the money, time and hype spent on ‘greenhouse modelling’ should be redirected to space exploration programs including monitoring and working out how to ‘deflect’ near earth objects.
Jennifer – how much money do you think is spent on Greenhouse modelling?
Ender, I would really like to know what the actual figure is.
CSIRO is doing modelling for state governments and others pretending it can predict local rainfall as in: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2867 .
Isn’t most of what the IPCC does, modelling? How much does it cost to run the IPCC.
Then there is the cost of the recommendations from the IPCC and conforming with Kyoto which is all based on modelling. Compliance has been estimated to cost the (relatively small) New Zealand economy $9-14 billion as per my blog post here
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000674.html.
What would your estimate be?
I actually do not know – I was hoping you did as you seem to think that it would be a good idea to switch funding.
BTW what is the cost of implementing Kyoto for the countries that have joined?
Jennifer,
Wouldn’t it be good if governments did not confiscate our money in the first place. Then we could invest in the research of our choice and Ender could subsidise whichever European welfare state he chooses.
Forester
what is the cost of not implementing the Kyoto Protocol? in the long term! As for John Howard being a far sighted leader – on the contrary, his decision to sack the govt. funded astronomers is consistent with his overall stance that funding for services should be in the private sector not in the public. Basically he represents business and business interests and that is, by its very nature, short term! Nor does it agree with definitions of govt as bodies that represent and protect the people – sort of a people’s union really.
‘cost of not implementing the Kyoto protocol…’
Probably just a temporary increase in dole payments for unemployed scientists and civil servants…
‘business interests…by its very nature, short term…’
No way, large industrial developments must be amortised over a 20-40 year investment cycle.
‘definitions of govt … sort of a people’s union really.’
Absolutely not, as an advocate for one side of the labour market. It’s role is to represent the population in the making of laws, to ensure markets run efficiently. Unfortunately constituents have realised they can ‘vote’ themselves money and have corrupted this vital role. It’s all doomed to failure as we can see in the current slow collapse of European welfare states.
Forester