One can indeed argue that DSCOVR has merit, and people including climate scientists do. (Though arguably it’s really too early to judge either way until there’s time for publications to come out of its data.) Earth’s radiation budget is surprisingly underdetermined, considering its importance.
But it’s certainly a fair criticism of DSCOVR as launched that it’s not state-of-the-art. That’s because it was delayed for reasons of politics, only loosely disguised as reasons of science.
The only places I’d push back on your remarks are:
1. The “Uh no”, which is unsubstantiated (perhaps just facetious, but I’m sensitive because I supported my point relatively laboriously, with the links); and
2. the idea that the NYT should refrain from pointing out political interference in science funding.