Also our British friends are doing good ....
Apparently an ESA employee leaked this news to them -- wait for it .... Rosetta, Aliens .... just read it I do not want to spoil it for you
Its in italian sorry ... but its worth trying to understand ..basically its how an important italian news channel (TG4) gave the rosetta news ...
WOW ... middle ages
Basically they say ESA spoilt the magic of comets (jesus birth and similar stuff) revealing to the world that it is just a rock and nothing more spending 100 Meuros in the process.
Summary of the critics: the project cannot but fail, its a waste of money that will dry funds for serious research and will thus create an enormous disappointment in the public opinion that is, ultimately, the real funder of the project
"Time travellers may be using Twitter and Facebook, claim scientists, despite finding no evidence of it"
the same can be said for most moders science "big claims with no evidence" :)
We thought about a modular SAT concept in tahe past (looking to the second issue of Acta Futura its already there) .... but never made concrete steps ....
True, but fundings are allocated to climate modelling 'science' on the basis of political decisions, not solid and boring scientific truisms such as 'all models are wrong'.
The reason so many people got trained on this area in the past years is that resources were allocated to climate science on the basis of the dramatic picture depicted by some scientists when it was indeed convenient for them to be dramatic.
I do not think there is anyone arguing that the question is not interesting and complex.
The debate, instead, addresses the predictive value of the models produced so far. Are they good enough to be used outside of the scientific process aimed at improving them? Or should one wait for "the scientific method" to bring forth substantial improvements to the current understanding and only then start using its results? One can take both stand points, but some recent developments will bring many towards the second approach.