From: dr_jeff on
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/business/energy-environment/09noaa.html?ref=todayspaper
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:20:35 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/business/energy-environment/09noaa.html?ref=todayspaper


And it's openeing has been delayed by cold and snow at the chosen site...


From: Jeff Strickland on

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:teOdnXUvsdFuiu_WnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/business/energy-environment/09noaa.html?ref=todayspaper


There's nothing wrong with the old climate.






From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:49:33 -0800, Conscience wrote:

> On 2010-02-09 18:25:28 -0800, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno(a)e86.GTS>
> said:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:20:35 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/business/energy-environment/09noaa.html?ref=todayspaper
>
>
> And
>>>
>> it's openeing has been delayed by cold and snow at the chosen site...
>
> Another anachronism, courtesy of your tax dollar.
>
> Glad we've got superfluous spending under control.


Not only that but they cut the NASA budget to help fund it, and NASA is
going to be part of it. There are no plans for new spacecraft.

I guess we'll just hitch rides with the Russians...or the Chinese.

This guy is making Carter look good...


From: ACAR on
On Feb 9, 9:25 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:20:35 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/business/energy-environment/09noaa....
>
> And it's openeing has been delayed by cold and snow at the chosen site...

actually, as the article says, Congressional approval is required
before the Agency is formed.
at about 1/10 the size of the National Weather Service, you'd think it
might be more efficient to make it an office within the NWS rather
than another organization within NOAA.