The Economist Magazine On The Scientific Value Of The International Space Station

The Economist has an interesting conclusion in their June 30 2011 article

The end of the Space Age – Inner space is useful. Outer space is history

“…… the benighted International Space Station (ISS) [is] surely the biggest waste of money, at $100 billion and counting, that has ever been built in the name of science.”

The funding of  climate impact studies, decades into the future, based on multi-decadal global climate model predictions is a similar waste of many millions of dollars ,

as I have discussed in past posts; e.g.

Is The NSF Funding Untestable Climate Predictions – My Comments On A $6 Million Grant To Fund A Center For Robust Decision–Making On Climate And Energy Policy”

The Difference Between Prediction and Predictability – Recommendations For Research Funding Related to These Distinctly Different Concepts

Diminishing Returns From Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Simulations

The National Science Foundation Funds Multi-Decadal Climate Predictions Without An Ability To Verify Their Skill

The funding of climate science needs to return to a focus on testable scientific hypotheses, instead of continuing being used as a platform to advocate for particular energy policies. The International Space Station is an appropriate example of how vast amounts of resources can be wasted for non-scientific goals.

source of image

Comments Off on The Economist Magazine On The Scientific Value Of The International Space Station

Filed under Climate Science Reporting

Comments are closed.