The title tells you what I’m going to say, doesn’t it? Ah well.
Desmogblog seems to have gone hyperbolic: Dr. Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, was more blunt about the importance of DSCOVR’s data: “Not knowing may kill us.” He is on record as stating that sending DSCOVR to L1 is “the most important thing we could be doing in space right now.”. And “Project leader Dr. Francisco P. J. Valero, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, described the mission as “an urgent necessity”.” Weeeell… you would expect the project leader to be in favour of it, wouldn’t you.
I don’t really know how useful DSCOVR would be. There seems to be general agreement that Gore dreamt it up as a giant space webcam, but that it got more sensible as time went on. Whether its worth launching and maintaining is another matter. After all, the tagline at DSB is The scientific evidence is clear, global warming is happening, our continued burning of fossil fuels (i.e. oil, gas and coal) is to blame and we should be very concerned about the consequences. which is fair enough, so why do we need to spend more on detecting it :-?
mt speaks for it, but not strongly. How about reversing his argument: just because conservatives hate it, should we be in favour of it?
Eli pointed out some interesting science to be done with it, but interesting as it might be its hardly life-or-death.
The Triana folk seem to lean on a NAS review which was supposedly good. Skimming it, I’m less sure. Of course, they have nice words to say about it. But Triana is described as an exploratory mission to develope new tech, rather than a specific science investigation. They also worry about the costs of data processing. And it is (was) only scheduled to last for 2 years.