US wants to privatize Space Station

[JF Mezei]

I haven't seen other news articles or gone to the actual text of budget


Trump wants business to take over space station from NASA by 2025
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-space-station-private-business-1.4531843

##
Under President Donald Trump's 2019 proposed budget released Monday,
U.S. government funding for the space station would end by 2025. The
government would set aside $150 million US to encourage commercial
development.
##



Question: At the technical level, has NASA given any hints on how well
the station is aging and what its life expectancy would be from a
structures point of view?


What about the Russian side? would it be expected to last as long from a
structures point of view?

Say NASA pulls out of station and SpaceX agrees to run it as a "hotel"
for the other station partners to continue to do research, would the
station still get free access to TDRS comms?

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
>
>I haven't seen other news articles or gone to the actual text of budget
>
>
>Trump wants business to take over space station from NASA by 2025
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-space-station-private-business-1.4531843
>
>##
>Under President Donald Trump's 2019 proposed budget released Monday,
>U.S. government funding for the space station would end by 2025. The
>government would set aside $150 million US to encourage commercial
>development.
>##
>

I don't understand why the Press is suddenly acting surprised and
claiming Trump did this. This has been the 'plan' for several years
now.

>
>Question: At the technical level, has NASA given any hints on how well
>the station is aging and what its life expectancy would be from a
>structures point of view?
>

I think 'structures' are the last thing to worry about. The biggest
issues will be environmental (moisture accumulation, mold, etc) and
avionics.

>
>What about the Russian side? would it be expected to last as long from a
>structures point of view?
>

I don't know if it's still true, but the Russians used to be better at
metallurgy than we are.

>
>Say NASA pulls out of station and SpaceX agrees to run it as a "hotel"
>for the other station partners to continue to do research, would the
>station still get free access to TDRS comms?
>

I doubt it. I wasn't aware they got 'free access' now.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Brian Gaff]

That is because its supposed to be worn out by then.
Personally if I live in the states right now, I'd think about going
somewhere where they won't be broke and in debt to the world for ever.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:tqngC.10952$yv1....@fx07.iad...

[JF Mezei]

From Trump's budget proposal:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/


The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is responsible
for leading an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with
commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across
the solar system and bring new knowledge and opportunities back to
Earth. As it pioneers the space frontier, NASA supports growth of the
Nation’s economy in space, increases understanding of the universe and
our place in it, works with industry to improve America’s aerospace
technologies, and advances American leadership.

• The Budget supports the Administration’s new space exploration policy
by refocusing existing NASA activities toward exploration, by
redirecting funding to innovative new programs that support the new
policy, and by providing additional funding to support new
public-private initiatives.

• The Budget requests a total of $19.6 billion for NASA, a $500 million
(2.6-percent) increase from the 2018 Budget ($61 million below NASA’s
2017 funding level).

• The Budget proposes to end direct U.S. Government funding for the
space station by 2025 and provides $150 million to begin a program that
would encourage commercial development of capabilities that NASA can use
in its place.

• The Budget refocuses and consolidates NASA’s space technology
development programs to support space exploration activities.

• The Budget continues strong programs in science and aeronautics,
including a supersonic “X-plane,” planetary defense from hazardous
asteroids, and potentially a bold mission to retrieve pieces of Mars for
scienti c study on Earth.

Further down:

In addition, the Budget fully funds the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket
and Orion crew capsule as key elements of the human space exploration
program. The Budget provides $3.7 billion for SLS and Orion, which would
keep the programs on track for a test launch by 2020 and a rst crewed
launch around the Moon by 2023.

So looks like SLS first test launch is now 2020.


Further down:

Provides Cost Savings by Phasing out Government Programs and Replacing
them with Commercial or Public-Private Operations. The Budget proposes
to end direct U.S. nancial support for the International Space Station
in 2025, after which NASA would rely on commercial partners for its low
Earth orbit research and technology demonstration requirements. A new
$150 million program would begin support for commercial partners to
encourage development of capabili- ties that the private sector and NASA
can use. The Budget also proposes a transition away from NASA’s current
Government-owned and operated eet of communications satellites and
associated ground stations. Instead, the Budget proposes a greater
reliance on commercial communications satellite capabilities. The Budget
also proposes canceling, pending an independent review, an over- budget
project to upgrade the current NASA-owned system in order to make
resources available for these new partnerships.



Does this mean retirement of TDRS ? Or does this target earth
opbservation satellites etc?


WFIRST telescope project terminated.
Office of Edication is terminated.

[JF Mezei]

There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Budget proposes to terminate five Earth Science missions: Radiation
Budget Instrument (RBI); Plankton; Aerosol; Cloud; ocean Ecosystem
(PACE); Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3); Deep Space Climate
Observatory (DSCOVR) Earth-viewing instruments; and Climate Absolute
Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) Pathfinder. The missions
would be terminated and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) funding would be prioritized toward supporting an innovative and

sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international

partners.

Justification
The missions proposed for termination are lower-priority science
missions that cannot be accommodated under constrained budgets. The
proposed termination of these five missions realigns the NASA Earth
science portfolio to focus on the highest-priority missions for the
science and applications communities within a balanced, comprehensive
Earth science program.

The RBI would have flown on a future weather satellite to make
measurements of the Earth's reflected sunlight and emitted thermal
radiation. Similar instruments flying now, including on the recently
launched NOAA-20 satellite, would continue to provide continuity for the
data record. In January 2018 the Science Mission Directorate conducted a
detailed review of the RBI project and recommended cancelling the
project due to cost growth and technical challenges.

Measurements similar to those that would have been taken by the PACE and
OCO-3 missions are or would be acquired by other satellites. Under this
proposal, NASA would cease funding data processing for the DSCOVR
Earth-viewing instruments, which provide images of the sunlit side of
the Earth and measure the energy reflected and emitted from it. These
instruments do not contribute to the core DSCOVR mission of providing
measurements for space weather.

The CLARREO Pathfinder mission would have demonstrated measurement
technologies for a larger, more expensive, potential future mission
focused on improving detection of climate trends. Other missions funded
by NASA are maintaining measurements needed for climate data records.
The CLARREO Pathfinder mission is in the earliest stages of
implementation and is proposed for elimination to achieve cost savings.

[Fred J. McCall]

In 2014 the Obama Administration EXTENDED funding for ISS until 2024.
Guess what the plan was after 2024? If they couldn't get commercial
concerns to take it over they were going to deorbit it.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
>budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
>
>ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
>National Aeronautics and Space Administration
>

This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[JF Mezei]

Question:

Can the US government (whether president, House or Senate) commit to
funding the Space Station beyond their 4 year term?

For instance, when the president signs an international agreement to
operate the station till 2024, is it correct to state that domestically,
it only means that the president will ask House/Senate to approve
funding on a yearly basis until 2024 and that the USA cannot actually
commit to funding the station till 2024 ?


Does the real impact of Trump's budget really means that he will
instruct NASA to NOT negotiate any extension of the current
international agreement for Station operation ?

How does this affect SpaceX since it can not longer bank on getting
cargo/crew transport contract from NASA which would remove a commercial
application for its BFR?


Does this mean that SpaceX would, from today, forget about planning for
the ability of BFR to dock/berth with the station?

And what does this mean for commercial crew which will get started late
in the game, and force to split the likited market between SpaceX and
Boeing? will that market be big enough for both? Or would Boeing abandon
CST to cut its losses if it can never have enough flighst on it to make
any money?

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>Question:
>
>Can the US government (whether president, House or Senate) commit to
>funding the Space Station beyond their 4 year term?
>

They can 'commit' in the policy sense, but I don't think they can
allocate funding for more than two years at a time.

>
>For instance, when the president signs an international agreement to
>operate the station till 2024, is it correct to state that domestically,
>it only means that the president will ask House/Senate to approve
>funding on a yearly basis until 2024 and that the USA cannot actually
>commit to funding the station till 2024 ?
>

Correct, if by 'commit' you mean actually allocate money.

>
>Does the real impact of Trump's budget really means that he will
>instruct NASA to NOT negotiate any extension of the current
>international agreement for Station operation ?
>

That's not what needs 'extended'.

>
>How does this affect SpaceX since it can not longer bank on getting
>cargo/crew transport contract from NASA which would remove a commercial
>application for its BFR?
>

SpaceX is affected to the extent that resupply and crew missions would
go away. BFR is probably largely unaffected, though, since it
probably would just barely be into that business and once it is,
development spending is largely complete.

>
>Does this mean that SpaceX would, from today, forget about planning for
>the ability of BFR to dock/berth with the station?
>

No, because it's not designed to have "the ability to dock/berth with
the station". It's designed to have INTERNATIONAL STANDARD DOCKING
PORTS.

>
>And what does this mean for commercial crew which will get started late
>in the game, and force to split the likited market between SpaceX and
>Boeing? will that market be big enough for both? Or would Boeing abandon
>CST to cut its losses if it can never have enough flighst on it to make
>any money?
>

Why would 'commercial crew' be forced to split? Do you know what
'commercial' means?

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-13 20:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> SpaceX is affected to the extent that resupply and crew missions would
> go away. BFR is probably largely unaffected, though, since it
> probably would just barely be into that business and once it is,
> development spending is largely complete.

In all of the fancy powepoints, SpaceX has its BFR attacxhed at the
station (where PMA2 is, so docked).

If SoaceX intends to retire Falcon 9, then one would expect BFR to
replace its duties to bring cargo/crews to/from station.

Loss of station about the time BFR gets functional removes a commercial
customer for its crewed version. And also removes the need to develop
docking software for the station.

> Why would 'commercial crew' be forced to split? Do you know what
> 'commercial' means?

If you hjave 10 years with of crew rotation split between 2 companies,
each company has a fair number of paind launches. But if you now have
only 5 year worth of crew transport, can 2 companies cost justify the
development costs for manned capsules?

With SpaceX ahead, wouldn't it make sense for Boeing to kills it CST
program since the number of launches it could expect to make before the
station is shut wouldn pay back the investment in CST and whatever
rocket gets man-rated to launch it ?

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-13 20:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> SpaceX is affected to the extent that resupply and crew missions would
>> go away. BFR is probably largely unaffected, though, since it
>> probably would just barely be into that business and once it is,
>> development spending is largely complete.
>
>In all of the fancy powepoints, SpaceX has its BFR attacxhed at the
>station (where PMA2 is, so docked).
>

Yes. Go read what I wrote again.

>
>If SoaceX intends to retire Falcon 9, then one would expect BFR to
>replace its duties to bring cargo/crews to/from station.
>

Correct. Go read what I wrote again.

>
>Loss of station about the time BFR gets functional removes a commercial
>customer for its crewed version. And also removes the need to develop
>docking software for the station.
>

There is no "docking software for the station". BFR knows how to do
to things (including ISS). So "extra special" development is
required. As for the rest, go read what I wrote again. The primary
purpose of BFR is ***NOT*** to dither around ISS. Yes, shutting down
ISS costs you some missions, but it costs you some missions regardless
of what you planned on flying them with.

>
>>
>> Why would 'commercial crew' be forced to split? Do you know what
>> 'commercial' means?
>>
>
>If you hjave 10 years with of crew rotation split between 2 companies,
>each company has a fair number of paind launches. But if you now have
>only 5 year worth of crew transport, can 2 companies cost justify the
>development costs for manned capsules?
>

Uh, you understand they're being paid for that development as part of
a separate program, right? Recovery of costs is generally not reliant
on number of flights to ISS.

>
>With SpaceX ahead, wouldn't it make sense for Boeing to kills it CST
>program since the number of launches it could expect to make before the
>station is shut wouldn pay back the investment in CST and whatever
>rocket gets man-rated to launch it ?
>

As long as NASA is paying Boeing to develop CST, they will continue to
develop CST even if it never flies at all outside the development
program.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <fvm58d56qq49h0t1n...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

>
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> >There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
> >budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
> >
> >ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
> >National Aeronautics and Space Administration
> >
>
> This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
> Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
> climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.

You sound like a cigarette manufacturer exec saying "I believe that
nicotine is not addictive". Follow the money for the "opposition view".
It's not hard.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <fvm58d56qq49h0t1n...@4ax.com>,
>fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
>> >budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
>> >
>> >ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
>> >National Aeronautics and Space Administration
>> >
>>
>> This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
>> Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
>> climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...
>
>NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
>like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
>doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
>is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
>own data.
>

No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

>
>You sound like a cigarette manufacturer exec saying "I believe that
>nicotine is not addictive". Follow the money for the "opposition view".
>It's not hard.
>

You sound like a 'flat-Earther' insisting that the evidence all shows
what you want it to whether it does or not and that the Earth being
flat is therefore 'settled'. Follow the money for the pro-view. It's
not hard.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-14 00:45, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> As long as NASA is paying Boeing to develop CST, they will continue to
> develop CST even if it never flies at all outside the development
> program.

Thanks. So the pork covers all development costs for both CST and
Dragon-2?

[Fred J. McCall]

It's not 'pork' to pay someone to develop a capability you want. The
companies bid and they either win or they don't. Presumably they're
going to bid enough so that it is worth their while to do the work.

[Alain Fournier]

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
> Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <fvm58d56qq49h0t1n...@4ax.com>,
>> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
>>>> budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
>>>>
>>>> ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
>>>> National Aeronautics and Space Administration
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
>>> Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
>>> climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...
>>
>> NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
>> like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
>> doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
>> is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
>> own data.
>>
>
> No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
> climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
> doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
> the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you, but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

Alain Fournier <alai...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>> Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <fvm58d56qq49h0t1n...@4ax.com>,
>>> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
>>>>> budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
>>>>>
>>>>> ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
>>>>> National Aeronautics and Space Administration
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
>>>> Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
>>>> climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...
>>>
>>> NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
>>> like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
>>> doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
>>> is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
>>> own data.
>>>
>>
>> No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
>> climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
>> doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
>> the years would have come true. They haven't.
>
>I know mere facts won't convince you,
>

Well, gee, fuck you, too.

>
>but if you look at the
>predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
>https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
>(
>http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
>)
>at page 63, item 3.
>« Based on current model results, we predict:
>« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
>« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
>« global-mean temperature during the next century of
>« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
>« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
>« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
>« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
>« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
>« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
>« because of the influence of other factors; »
>
>Which can be compared to the graph in:
>https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
>
>You will see that observations fit predictions.
>

So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. Now list all
the shit they (and their fellow travelers) got wrong.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jeff Findley]

In article <2ue88dtui4bfuaatv...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

>
> Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <fvm58d56qq49h0t1n...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There are more cuts elsewhere: (I like the "constrained budget" for a
> >> >budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).
> >> >
> >> >ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
> >> >National Aeronautics and Space Administration
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
> >> Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
> >> climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...
> >
> >NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
> >like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
> >doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
> >is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
> >own data.
> >
>
> No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
> climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
> doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
> the years would have come true. They haven't.

Like the current trend of sea level rise? You do know there have
recently been several articles about sea level rise using satellite data
going back decades. The data is consistent with climate change models.
Again, you don't get to pick your own data.

> >You sound like a cigarette manufacturer exec saying "I believe that
> >nicotine is not addictive". Follow the money for the "opposition view".
> >It's not hard.
> >
>
> You sound like a 'flat-Earther' insisting that the evidence all shows
> what you want it to whether it does or not and that the Earth being
> flat is therefore 'settled'. Follow the money for the pro-view. It's
> not hard.

This is the same bullshit argument the tobacco companies used regarding
nicotine addiction.

The problem is that climate change research isn't limited to the US.
It's all over the globe. Such a vast global conspiracy actually makes
the climate deniers sound like the moon landing deniers. The only
difference is that there are no big fossil fuel corporations funding
moon landing denier "research".

[Fred J. McCall]

Yeah, like that. Any nitwit realizes you're going to get a few
centimeters of increase from thermal expansion of water. All the
additional hype, of course, is merely bullshit.

>
>>
>> >
>> >You sound like a cigarette manufacturer exec saying "I believe that
>> >nicotine is not addictive". Follow the money for the "opposition view".
>> >It's not hard.
>> >
>>
>> You sound like a 'flat-Earther' insisting that the evidence all shows
>> what you want it to whether it does or not and that the Earth being
>> flat is therefore 'settled'. Follow the money for the pro-view. It's
>> not hard.
>>
>
>This is the same bullshit argument the tobacco companies used regarding
>nicotine addiction.
>

This is the same bullshit argument the flat Earthers use regarding
Earth being flat.

>
>The problem is that climate change research isn't limited to the US.
>It's all over the globe. Such a vast global conspiracy actually makes
>the climate deniers sound like the moon landing deniers. The only
>difference is that there are no big fossil fuel corporations funding
>moon landing denier "research".
>

What utter bullshit! Follow the money....

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-15 06:13, Jeff Findley wrote:

> Like the current trend of sea level rise?

What trend? Your illustrious President who is always factually correct,
has stated that glaciers are are record levels as proof global warming
isn't happening :-)

And he is correct on this. The ice caps are at record levels. (alas,
record LOW levels, but don't tell him that, it could make him mad).

:-)

>> You sound like a 'flat-Earther' insisting that the evidence all shows

There was a recent tweet circulating with the Flat Earth Society
claiming they had members from around the globe. :-)

[Alain Fournier]

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


--
"Now I'm hiding in Honduras.
I'm a desperate man.
Send lawyers, guns and money.
The shit has hit the fan."
-- "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money", Warren Zevon

[Alain Fournier]

The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.

> Global Warmists like to ignore that
> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
> where things got cooler instead of warmer.

The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.

> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
> "settled".

I have no problems with facts.


Alain Fournier

[Scott M. Kozel]

Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront,
like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims
that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on
seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the
almost 50 years that they have lived there.

[Alain Fournier]

It isn't something that you can see with your eyes like that. Just
like you can't notice that the average global temperature has went
up. In both cases you have to make measurements to see the difference.
Those who have made the measurements do see the sea level rise and
the average global temperature rise.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.

>
>>
>> Global Warmists like to ignore that
>> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
>> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
>> where things got cooler instead of warmer.
>>
>
>The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
>a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
>get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.
>

Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

>
>>
>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>> "settled".
>>
>
>I have no problems with facts.
>

Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

[Alain Fournier]

No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.

>>> Global Warmists like to ignore that
>>> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
>>> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
>>> where things got cooler instead of warmer.
>>>
>>
>> The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
>> a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
>> get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.
>>
>
> Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
> increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.

>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>> "settled".
>>>
>>
>> I have no problems with facts.
>>
>
> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

>>>> Global Warmists like to ignore that
>>>> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
>>>> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
>>>> where things got cooler instead of warmer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
>>> a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
>>> get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.
>>>
>>
>> Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
>> increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.
>
>If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
>at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
>the science says it should do.
>

For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of

>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>> "settled".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>
>Which fact am I ignoring?
>

Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Ok, maybe it rose a millimeter or two. I will grant that would be
hard to see on your dock or seawall.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-17 08:10, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

> Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront,
> like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims
> that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on
> seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the
> almost 50 years that they have lived there.

When sea level increase is smaller than average size of waves, the
markings on seawalls and dock pilings reveal nothing.

You can't take a few cm of average sea level rise independently. It is
more of a side effect of global warming.

1- Sea level rise is indicative of ice cap melting. Reducing ice cap
also resiudes albedo since you replace a white surface with a dark one
which means more of the sun's energy is absorbed by planet.

2- Warmer waters and more water means more frequent and stronger storms.
Stronger storms dump more water (Houston). And higher sea levels means
that storm surge is amplified. (Sandy which flooded lower Manhattan,
destroying Verizon's copper wiring under streets, flooding tunnels etc).

Much municipal infrastructure was no built to widthstand this.

In Québec, during the 1998 ice storm, Hydro Québec initially stated that
this was once in a lifetime event and its power distribution network had
not been builot to widthstand this. This was challenged by a reporter
during press conference. The next day, the HQ chair re-adressed the
issue and said his staff pull up statistics and that indeed, the number
of freezing rain events had been rising in the last 15 years.

As a result of this, Hydro Québec changed its standards, dumping wiring
insulation and using bigger gauge wires to better survive such events.
It also developped tech to heat high voltage transmission lines to cause
ice to fall off before it got too big.

The province of Ontario instituted new standards for poles, and while
existing poles were grandfathered, no changes to them (adding fibre for
instance) could be made without ensuring the pole meets new strength
standards or is replaced.

Freezing rain is now common in our winters while when I was youger, it
was a rare event.

Obviously, if you watch Fox news, you'll never hear any evidence of
changes to climate happening. But they are, and thee are costs.

Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does
this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to
better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel
so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from
Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all
eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the
cost of climate change.

[Scott M. Kozel]

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:57:00 PM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-02-17 08:10, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront,
> > like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims
> > that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on
> > seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the
> > almost 50 years that they have lived there.
>
> When sea level increase is smaller than average size of waves, the
> markings on seawalls and dock pilings reveal nothing.

Chesapeake Bay estuary, the average wave size is an inch or less,
I have been observing this location as well. You don't look for
"markings" you observe the average water level.

Nevertheless it is a branch of the ocean and is sea level which
is whatever it is worldwide.

[Alain Fournier]

Not really. Take for instance the fact that wind helps dry clothes
on the clothesline. If you put clothes on the clothesline and watch
its dryness on windy days and less windy days you will probably
notice that the clothes tends to become wet on more windy days
because rainy days tend to be windy. That doesn't mean that wind
doesn't help to dry clothes. It just means that there can be
other factors than the wind. Anyway, for CO2 levels and global
temperatures we do have correlation.

It might not stay that way. If for instance we have extremely
high volcanism in the next few weeks and that these volcanoes
emit great amounts of fine dust in the high atmosphere, this
could block sunlight and this year could turn out to be the
coldest year in a very long time. If this kind of thing
goes on for several years, we could lose the correlation.
That would not disprove that humans cause the global temperatures
to rise. Global temperatures would still be warmer that they
would have been if humans had not put all that CO2 in the
atmosphere.

>>>>> Global Warmists like to ignore that
>>>>> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
>>>>> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
>>>>> where things got cooler instead of warmer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
>>>> a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
>>>> get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
>>> increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.
>>
>> If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
>> at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
>> the science says it should do.
>>
>
> For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
> half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
> past conditions? Not that I'm aware of

The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
is the basic idea.

>>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>>> "settled".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>>
>> Which fact am I ignoring?
>>
>
> Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
> rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...

You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
won't necessarily follow the trend.

> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
adjust the data.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-17 08:10, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>> Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront,
>> like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims
>> that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on
>> seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the
>> almost 50 years that they have lived there.
>>
>
>When sea level increase is smaller than average size of waves, the
>markings on seawalls and dock pilings reveal nothing.
>
>You can't take a few cm of average sea level rise independently. It is
>more of a side effect of global warming.
>
>1- Sea level rise is indicative of ice cap melting. Reducing ice cap
>also resiudes albedo since you replace a white surface with a dark one
>which means more of the sun's energy is absorbed by planet.
>

Actually, no. The majority of sea level rise so far is purely from
thermal expansion. The north polar cap melting will have little to no
effect on sea levels, since that stuff is already floating and so is
already displacing water and so increasing sea level heights. The
south polar cap, which is largely on land, is a different matter.

>
>2- Warmer waters and more water means more frequent and stronger storms.
>Stronger storms dump more water (Houston). And higher sea levels means
>that storm surge is amplified. (Sandy which flooded lower Manhattan,
>destroying Verizon's copper wiring under streets, flooding tunnels etc).
>

Actually, no. Both those cases were the result of peculiar weather
combinations and not climate (or so the experts say).

<snip>

>
>Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does
>this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to
>better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel
>so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from
>Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all
>eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the
>cost of climate change.
>

No, what he's proposing is NOT shipping billions of dollars to Third
World nations in the name of 'compensation' for Global Warming.

[Fred J. McCall]

Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't
change that.

<snip>

>>>>>> Global Warmists like to ignore that
>>>>>> and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
>>>>>> tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
>>>>>> where things got cooler instead of warmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
>>>>> a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
>>>>> get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
>>>> increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.
>>>
>>> If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
>>> at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
>>> the science says it should do.
>>>
>>
>> For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
>> half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
>> past conditions? Not that I'm aware of
>>
>
>The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
>we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
>Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
>much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
>temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
>is the basic idea.
>

You've never developed a simulation, have you?

>>>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>>>> "settled".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>>>
>>> Which fact am I ignoring?
>>>
>>
>> Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
>> rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...
>>
>
>You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
>won't necessarily follow the trend.
>

Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
you should listen to what you're saying.

>> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
>> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.
>
>I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
>pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
>forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
>adjust the data.
>

But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
longer.

[Scott M. Kozel]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> >Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does
> >this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to
> >better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel
> >so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from
> >Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all
> >eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the
> >cost of climate change.
>
> No, what he's proposing is NOT shipping billions of dollars to Third
> World nations in the name of 'compensation' for Global Warming.

It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the
notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars
from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations.

[Alain Fournier]

That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for
sexually transmitted diseases.

>>>>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>>>>> "settled".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>>>>
>>>> Which fact am I ignoring?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
>>> rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...
>>>
>>
>> You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
>> won't necessarily follow the trend.
>>
>
> Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
> what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
> you should listen to what you're saying.

Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value
of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48.
The traditional threshold used are:
0.05 to 0.01 significant
0.001 to 0.01 very significant
less than 0.001 extremely significant.
In Spaceballs they would probably say that
less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant.
10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer.

>>> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
>>> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.
>>
>> I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
>> pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
>> forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
>> adjust the data.
>>
>
> But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
> year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
> longer.

I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
data to get a fit.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

And you don't do iterative comparison of your simulation to real data
and correct factors for better match? All I can say is that I'm
astonished!

>>>>>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>>>>>> "settled".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which fact am I ignoring?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
>>>> rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
>>> won't necessarily follow the trend.
>>>
>>
>> Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
>> what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
>> you should listen to what you're saying.
>
>Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value
>of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48.
>The traditional threshold used are:
>0.05 to 0.01 significant
>0.001 to 0.01 very significant
>less than 0.001 extremely significant.
>In Spaceballs they would probably say that
>less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant.
>10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer.
>

Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model
is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should
not count.

>>>> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
>>>> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
>>> pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
>>> forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
>>> adjust the data.
>>>
>>
>> But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
>> year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
>> longer.
>
>I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
>global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
>real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
>worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
>data to get a fit.
>

Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put
forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away
with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you
want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity.
That's not how you validate a model in an observational science.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-18 08:00, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

> It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the
> notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars
> from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations.

How much is the USA spending each year to repair damage from weather?
How much will the USA be spending to increase its defenses against weather?

It would be cheaper to cooperate with the rest of the world to reduce
the impact of these changes instead of paying for constantly occuring
damages.


Unless the USA builds an airtight dome over itself, its pollution will
affect others, and other's pollution will affect the USA. You can't be
"unilateral" on this.

The fair way to go about this is to set a per capita CO2 limit.
countries that exceed that limit have to pay countries that are below
the limit.

And countries whose standard of living is bvelow that of USA cannot be
told by the USA that they can't start to have large industries, 2.4 cars
per family etc. And if those countries raise their energy consumption to
match the USA's per capita number, the planet will have a large cataclysm.

In other words, the western world must reduce its emissions while
allowing developing nations to increase theirs until they match a
universal target for the planet (or participate in credits where those
who exceed the limits buy credits from countries that are below limits).


It,s amazing that people believe in a president that rarely says
anything true. His PR on Paris accord is totally wrong, but since he
doesn't understand anything more complex than pouring concrete or hiring
a porn star, it isn't surprising.

[Alain Fournier]

Yes I do. And they do too. But not in the basic part of their model.
They don't need to do so to show that humans cause global warming.
The factors they need to adjust are things like future human behaviour.
Or if you prefer how much CO2 humans will output in the future. They
also need to adjust parameters pertaining to feedback loops, which
are totally irrelevant unless you do have global warming.

>>>>>>>>> But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
>>>>>>>>> "settled".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no problems with facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which fact am I ignoring?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
>>>>> rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
>>>> won't necessarily follow the trend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
>>> what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
>>> you should listen to what you're saying.
>>
>> Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value
>> of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48.
>> The traditional threshold used are:
>> 0.05 to 0.01 significant
>> 0.001 to 0.01 very significant
>> less than 0.001 extremely significant.
>> In Spaceballs they would probably say that
>> less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant.
>> 10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer.
>
> Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model
> is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should
> not count.

No a p-value of 10^-48 on the whole data set is not meaningless.

>>>>> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
>>>>> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
>>>> pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
>>>> forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
>>>> adjust the data.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
>>> year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
>>> longer.
>>
>> I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
>> global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
>> real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
>> worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
>> data to get a fit.
>>
>
> Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put
> forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away
> with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you
> want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity.
> That's not how you validate a model in an observational science.

Once again I'm not saying and have never said that this is proof of
the validity of the model. It is only proof that your claim that they
need to re-adjust the data to fit their theory is not valid.


Alain Fournier

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-18 08:00, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>> It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the
>> notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars
>> from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations.
>
>How much is the USA spending each year to repair damage from weather?
>How much will the USA be spending to increase its defenses against weather?
>

Weather is not climate. All that would still have to be paid PLUS the
billions in 'fees' to the Third World.

>
>It would be cheaper to cooperate with the rest of the world to reduce
>the impact of these changes instead of paying for constantly occuring
>damages.
>

It would be even cheaper (and about as effective) to keep a herd of
unicorns that could shit magic weather-correcting pixie dust.

>
>Unless the USA builds an airtight dome over itself, its pollution will
>affect others, and other's pollution will affect the USA. You can't be
>"unilateral" on this.
>
>The fair way to go about this is to set a per capita CO2 limit.
>countries that exceed that limit have to pay countries that are below
>the limit.
>

So overpopulation is to be rewarded? Why is that 'fair' to nations
that don't breed like rabbits?

[Fred J. McCall]

But just a bit ago you denied 'tuning' existed.

>
>They don't need to do so to show that humans cause global warming.
>The factors they need to adjust are things like future human behaviour.
>Or if you prefer how much CO2 humans will output in the future. They
>also need to adjust parameters pertaining to feedback loops, which
>are totally irrelevant unless you do have global warming.
>

You can make a model say ANYTHING by tuning such parameters.

It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, either.

>>>>>> If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
>>>>>> what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
>>>>> pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
>>>>> forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
>>>>> adjust the data.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
>>>> year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
>>>> longer.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
>>> global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
>>> real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
>>> worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
>>> data to get a fit.
>>>
>>
>> Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put
>> forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away
>> with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you
>> want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity.
>> That's not how you validate a model in an observational science.
>>
>
>Once again I'm not saying and have never said that this is proof of
>the validity of the model. It is only proof that your claim that they
>need to re-adjust the data to fit their theory is not valid.
>

So why do they keep doing it, then?


--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-18 19:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Weather is not climate. All that would still have to be paid PLUS the
> billions in 'fees' to the Third World.

An increase over time of severe damage causing weather events is
climate. And this is what has been happening.

If you allow developing nations to reach USA levels of per capita
production, then the costs to the USA due to weather damage will
increase a lot more than the cost of preventing this.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-18 19:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Weather is not climate. All that would still have to be paid PLUS the
>> billions in 'fees' to the Third World.
>>
>
>An increase over time of severe damage causing weather events is
>climate. And this is what has been happening.
>

Well, actually, no, not so much. You're pointing to ONE HURRICANE
SEASON (weather) and ignoring all the others.

>
>If you allow developing nations to reach USA levels of per capita
>production, then the costs to the USA due to weather damage will
>increase a lot more than the cost of preventing this.
>

But us shelling out millions of dollars and crippling our economy
doesn't prevent it.


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-19 01:19, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> But us shelling out millions of dollars and crippling our economy
> doesn't prevent it.

The question is that if you don't take action costing $X now, it will
cost you $X00000 later on in weather damages.

Not spending now, what is current US policy is short sighted and will
lead to severe costs later on.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-19 01:19, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> But us shelling out millions of dollars and crippling our economy
>> doesn't prevent it.
>>
>
>The question is that if you don't take action costing $X now, it will
>cost you $X00000 later on in weather damages.
>

That's not a question. It's a preposterous claim. Trot out your
supporting data.

>
>Not spending now, what is current US policy is short sighted and will
>lead to severe costs later on.
>

So you claim. Your claim is not convincing. Please explain how us
hurting our economy while sending billions of dollars to Third World
shitholes and allowing China and India to do whatever they want does
anything good at all.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-02-19 19:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> That's not a question. It's a preposterous claim. Trot out your
> supporting data.

Obviously, if you will ignore damage from severe weather, like the USA
is doing to Puerto Rico, you won't see the costs of severe weather in
your calculations.

The USA hasn't finsihed paying for the damage caused by Sandy.


But since you refuse to accept that warmer oceans result in more
frequent and more intense storms, there is no point in using logic with you.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-02-19 19:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> That's not a question. It's a preposterous claim. Trot out your
>> supporting data.
>>
>
>Obviously, if you will ignore damage from severe weather, like the USA
>is doing to Puerto Rico, you won't see the costs of severe weather in
>your calculations.
>

Obviously if you ignore the fact that severe weather events aren't
actually rising you can say all sorts of outrageous idiocy.

>
>The USA hasn't finsihed paying for the damage caused by Sandy.
>

How is that relevant to anything. You have made a claim that you only
support by handwavium. You should be able to post a data series of
tropical storms hitting the US by year and severity and show that it
is essentially monotonically increasing by year if your claim is true.
You can't do that because the data doesn't show that.

>
>But since you refuse to accept that warmer oceans result in more
>frequent and more intense storms, there is no point in using logic with you.
>

Since you fail to present any data to support your astonishing claim,
your claim fails.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Scott M. Kozel]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:34:08 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> >On 2018-02-19 19:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>
> >> That's not a question. It's a preposterous claim. Trot out your
> >> supporting data.
> >>
> >
> >Obviously, if you will ignore damage from severe weather, like the USA
> >is doing to Puerto Rico, you won't see the costs of severe weather in
> >your calculations.
> >
>
> Obviously if you ignore the fact that severe weather events aren't
> actually rising you can say all sorts of outrageous idiocy.
>
> >
> >The USA hasn't finsihed paying for the damage caused by Sandy.
> >
>
> How is that relevant to anything. You have made a claim that you only
> support by handwavium. You should be able to post a data series of
> tropical storms hitting the US by year and severity and show that it
> is essentially monotonically increasing by year if your claim is true.
> You can't do that because the data doesn't show that.

And yet the Energizer Bunny keeps on going and going.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <aac78bcd-1bc9-4612...@googlegroups.com>,
koz...@comcast.net says...

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own data.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[Scott M. Kozel]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <aac78bcd-1bc9-4612...@googlegroups.com>,
> koz...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > > JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does
> > > >this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to
> > > >better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel
> > > >so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from
> > > >Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all
> > > >eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the
> > > >cost of climate change.
> > >
> > > No, what he's proposing is NOT shipping billions of dollars to Third
> > > World nations in the name of 'compensation' for Global Warming.
> >
> > It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the
> > notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars
> > from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations.
>
> Your tin foil hat is on too tight.
>
> You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own data.

Then you need to stop making up Fake Data.