Earth-observation satellites

Something to watch over us

The Earth should be monitored more carefully

See article

Readers' comments



The governments that support the IPCC "CO2 causes global warming" fraud are concerned that the fraud has been revealed and more accurate measurements will just confirm that fact. By maintaining that the "science is settled" they hope to convince voters and taxpayers to pay higher taxes based on the IPCC fraud. The "science is settled" fits in well with the refusal of warmers to debate skeptics, even though the "science is settled" position means that the warmers would easily win such a debate. The fraudsters know they would lose such a debate and that is why they need a more plausible lie to refuse to debate.

Konker in reply to hikeandski

hikeandski why do you turn everything into an anti-global warming rant? Why do you only comment on that topic irrespective of what the article is about? Are you a paid portavoz of a tar sands extraction company or linked to fossil fuels extraction or financing?

hikeandski in reply to Konker

Konker - I "rant" about the IPCC "CO2 causes global warming" fraud because it is the biggest fraud in history and I am sick that The Economissed keeps supporting it. I am not paid by anybody. I have offered to sponsor a debate about the IPCC theory and whether it is proven. Most warmers state the "science is settled" yet refuse to enter a debate for $100,000 to the winner! I am trying to get additional sponsors to raise the winner prize to $10,000,000 and the loser's prize to $1,000,000. How much can I count on you providing?

Yours for truth in science.

Robert Del Rosso in reply to hikeandski

Popular Science Magazine (March 2011) had an article (“Who Killed the Deep Space Climate Observatory(Satellite)?”(
The text in quotes is from the article.
The Satellite, known as DSCOVR,“would travel a full million miles from Earth to a gravity-neutral spot known as the L1 Lagrangian point, where it would remain fixed in place, facing the sunlit half of our planet. It would stream back to NASA video of our spherical home, and the footage would be broadcast continuously over the Web… it would do something that scientists are still unable to do today: directly and continuously monitor the Earth's albedo, or the amount of solar energy that our planet reflects into space versus the amount it absorbs.”
Francisco Valero was the physicist NASA chose to design DSCOVR.“In 2004, when Ukraine offered to send DSCOVR to L1 on a Ukrainian rocket—for FREE—Valero lobbied NASA to accept.”
“The satellite was built, the launch was free, and what did NASA say? The launch wouldn’t be safe for the satellite.” He shook his head in disdain. “I tell you, I lose sleep thinking about this stuff.” Much of Valero’s career focused on the effects that human activity can have on the Earth’s albedo, and when the opportunity to lead DSCOVR arose, he immediately recognized its potential.
"With low-Earth-orbiting satellites, you can’t get that,”he said.“It's like you're reading a book with only one letter on each page. You can't get the whole story.”
"But in 2001,just a few months after Bush's inauguration,DSCOVR's launch plan was quietly put on hold.“We were preparing to transport it to the launch site when we heard,”(another satellite worker) said. Instead, they wheeled the $100-million satellite into storage….”
“It has never become entirely clear why the satellite had ended up here (in storage). In his 2009 book "Our Choice", Al Gore wrote,"The Bush Cheney administration canceled the launch within days of taking office on January 20, 2001, and forced NASA to put the satellite into storage.”Warren Wiscombe, a senior physical scientist at NASA, blames a Bush-era “hostility”to earth science at NASA. "As to who ordered the axing of the mission,”he says, "we'll never know, but the word we got was that Dick Cheney was behind it.”
"Dick Armey,then a Republican congressman from Texas, said of the satellite,“This idea supposedly came from a dream. Well, I once dreamed I caught a 10-foot bass. But I didn't call up the Fish and Wildlife Service and ask them to spend $30 million to make sure it happened.”(That is what Dick Armey felt about Gore's warning about Global Warming, that it was just something he“dreamed up”.)
"Despite the protests of independent scientists (including Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist and Nobel Laureate who wrote in a 2006 letter that “it would be a major waste of scientific effort and opportunity to discard such a meaningful mission"), NASA delayed the launch indefinitely.”
Apparently, the Bush Administration just did not like the DSCOVR satellite since it was first proposed by Al Gore and they feared that the satellite would find more proof of man-made Global Warming. And we know how bad that would be for Halliburton and the oil Industry!
Hikeandski, I realize you will not agree, but the fact is the Global Warning “deniers” would like there to be no GW satellites. The Rush Limbaughs and Sen. James Inhofes who say GW is a "Liberal Hoax”do not need any scientific data!
Hikeandski, ask yourself why the Planet Mercury (at 801 Degrees Fahrenheit) is colder than Venus (864 Degrees F*)? This, despite Mercury being much CLOSER to the Sun than Venus. (Mercury’s distance from the Sun ranges from 28.5 to 46.0 million miles, while Venus’ distance ranges from 66.7 to 67.6 million miles. So Mercury should be much hotter! Could it be that Mercury has only trace amounts of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), while Venus’ atmosphere is 96 per cent CO2? See:
Watch this video of Nobel Prize in Physics winner Burton Richter:
Richter says “you can calculate what the Earth’s average temperature would be if there was no greenhouse effect at all.”(If we had no CO2 in the air at all.) “it would be minus (4) degrees Below 0 (Fahrenheit). Instead it is 60 degrees (F*)". He asks:"why do you think that if I add more of what has made the Earth warm I am not going to make it warmer?”
If we continue to add CO2 to our atmosphere (up from 280 Parts Per million (PPM) in 1780 to 392 PPM in 2011) then our planet will warm up.
Yes, I will debate you about Global Warming, but who decides who is the winner?

hikeandski in reply to Robert Del Rosso

You must know many people who would accept the debate challenge about the proof of the IPCC theory "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" that I have offered for over three years. Perhaps even you would take the "it is proven" side. There are many climate scientists who will take the "not proven"side, but so far NO ONE to take the affirmative.

Make sure they bring LOTS of money if they agree to debate and are prepared to forgo any public money or publicly funded offices in future.


Sounds like an excellent opportunity for the private space companies we have been hearing about recently.



Products and events



