Nice stuff...except for the about page.<p>&quot;but our federal science budget is controlled by climate denialists who dishonestly impede Earth observation because environmental science embarrasses them.&quot;<p>Uh no.  The House voted not to spend money on a Vice Presidents dream of a beautiful 38 million dollar picture.  Now you can argue that it has merit, but even the NY Times (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1999&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;science&#x2F;politics-keeps-a-satellite-earthbound.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1999&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;science&#x2F;politics-keeps-a-s...</a>) leaves that question, quite rightfully, hanging.<p>And to say you won&#x27;t discuss contentious remarks after being pointedly contentious is really, pathetically bad form.  If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.