US wants to privatize Space Station

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (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, **** 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%...ull_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/Fe...ecadaltemp.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.

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