We still do the international space station and of course all the satellites and rockets. This is one of the casualties and it's too bad. http://www.sofia.usra.edu/
Sending rockets into space is probably 5% of what NASA is responsible for. Climate Science is a huge area of responsibility for NASA. Cruz overseeing NASA is like Qadaffi sitting on the UN Human Rights Council.
What the fuck is "soft science"? You can downplay global warming all you like, but the evidence is greater than that of intelligent life on other planets or within the Republican Party.
I really doesn't matter what the political leanings of the NASA administrator are. You might not like Cruz because of his conservative ideology but the fact that he does have a lot of connections in the political arena would enable him to be a more effective administrator. I don't know whether Cruz is a good administrator or not but that should be the main critera, not his politics.
The 2015 Budget breaks down differently. Total proposed-17,635. Earth Science and Planetary Science account for 1,770 and 1,280 respectively. The bulk of the budget is for Aeronautics, Space Technology, Exploration, Space Operation, Education, Cross Agency Support, and Construction. So, sorry but your numbers are not correct. Soft science is almost self-evident, isn't it? There are lots of places on the web where you can learn the nuances. In terms of NASA, it's obvious. Soft science is "Earth" and "Planetary" science....numbers, data, projections, everything that is a part of global climate information. Hard science would be something like Beagle2, SOFIA, International Space Station, James Webb Space Telescope. I did not downplay anything. I simply provided an explanation. What I do know is that we only have data on global temperatures for a tiny fraction of Earth's existence and we only know a tiny fraction of the size and scope of the Universe.
Totally irrelevant and meaningless. The age of the earth and the universe are vast. Man's existence on the plant is a tiny fraction of Earth's existence, too. And the data available for that time is real, valid, and significant.
What many climate change doubters don't take into account is that data keeps being added to the knowledge base and our ability to understand grows. Ten years ago I was a serious doubter but as data got better and covered more area for both temp and CO2 it has become obvious that we are a significant contributor to global warming. As you say the rest of the universe is meaningless. The past can help understand the consequences of warming but it is at best a indicator not a guide. While we need to address warming and CO2 concentration in both the atmosphere and oceans we also need to understand radical movement away from carbon fuels is not an option. We also need to recognize there are 5 billion people who don't have the same standard of living and infrastructure we do and the want it. There is much to do and neither denial or demand for radical action are realistic.
