JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Major win: NASA was neutered, turned into political PR machine, and Trump is going to fix that

Trump is going to slash funds for NASA’s politicized climate program

In the last 20 years NASA has been turned from a space agency to one that ignores satellite data in favour of doing statistical tricks with badly placed ground thermometers and relies on Russia to do things in space.

NASA Logo

Former NASA stars have been protesting for year at the dismal standards in NASA climate research. The same guys who walked on the moon, worked on the Apollo missions, and ran the shuttle program were fed up with NASA’s excellent brand name being exploited by junk scientists to do political promotions. Under Obama NASA was told to do three things -- inspire kids, help international relationships and help Muslim nations “feel good”. So much for space exploration and science.

Obama slashed former President George W. Bush’s Constellation program, designed to take humans back to the moon and eventually to Mars, by leaking information to the press and threatening to veto the projects. NASA astronauts now rely on Russia to reach space, and NASA has been forced by the Obama administration to delay the Mars mission until 2030.

Apollo 11 Launch. Photo. 1969.

Apollo 11 Launch. Photo. 1969.

That’s about to change:

Today the guy who Trump appointed to chair the NASA transition team said “there was no need for NASA to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.”He went on to say “We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” and “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.”

Trump could slash the more than $2 billion NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate, which covers global warming science like improved climate modeling and weather prediction. Comparatively, NASA plans to spend roughly $2.8 billion on space exploration next year. NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are currently only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively.

– from the Daily Caller, “Trump Will Scrap NASA’s Global Warming Research”.

Don’t underestimate how important this is

NASA always should have been the first and foremost agency to remind everyone of how important solar and astronomical events were on our climate.  NASA could have killed the green machine stone dead anytime in the last 20 years. Capturing NASA GISS was one of the most vital of PR tools for the regressive-progressives to damp down any suggestion that the Sun has a big influence on our climate. Look at the way Brian Cox used NASA’s good name to mock Malcolm Roberts on national television even though Cox was absurdly pretending that NASA always produces perfect graphs and never gets anything, ever wrong. NASA has a “God like” status, above question. Or it did. That’s over.

Can you imagine if the head of NASA had got out three of the guys who walked on the moon, Harrison Schmitt, Buzz Aldrin and Charles Duke and held a press conference saying that the links between the sun and our climate were recorded all over the planet. Imagine if NASA rolled out its prizewinning former employees John Christy and Roy Spencer to tell us how satellites showed the models were abject failures. If that had happened ten years ago, the world could have been saved billions (probably trillions) of dollars.

When Lewandowsky got headlines claiming that skeptics are moon landing deniers, NASA could have got headlines that skeptics have walked on the moon. In so many ways, NASA can neutralize bad science.

Trump, total skeptic, has “open mind” on climate,  but open does not mean ignorant

24 hours is a long time in politics. So many commmentators still have no idea where Trump is coming from. A few fans of the man-made crisis got excited when Trump said “he has an open mind” on the Paris deal. (As if he would say his mind was closed.)  But having an open mind  is not an uninformed mind. He already knows enough to spot junk politicized “science” and shut it down. Hallelujah.

Some commentators thought for a moment that he was “softening his stance”: Donald Trump just backtracked on man-made climate change: ‘I think there is some connectivity‘. That was so yesterday. Today his skeptical hand stomped all over that bubble.

On climate Trump already knows too much to be fooled by “experts”

Trump knows engineers, he is even related to one. How deadly for the climate faith. He also knows the Climategate emails were “terrible”. There is no undoing that…

Transcript

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

 TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

Only a skeptic would say things like this:

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).:

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

Bennet thinks Trump may be uninformed about the science. Instead Trump is saying the scientists may not know, and the economics are crazy:

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

 

h/t Scott of the Pacific, AndyG, Angry, Pat.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (131 votes cast)
Major win: NASA was neutered, turned into political PR machine, and Trump is going to fix that , 9.5 out of 10 based on 131 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hhp9d9d

293 comments to Major win: NASA was neutered, turned into political PR machine, and Trump is going to fix that

  • #

    tonyfromoz – we all hope those fires stay away from you today.

    120

  • #
    RAH

    People that support trump and some of the writers on the right need to just chill out! The man is not in office yet! He is limited in what he can say in more than one way. Trump is an administrator. He is going to pick the people that he feels certain will get the job done and which will be loyal to him and his agenda. Then he’s going to let them get with it once they’re in their offices. He’s a delegator oriented towards getting his objectives met and is making his appointments based on that philosophy and not on politics. If for example as president elect he said it was going to prosecute Hillary then he would be taking the ball out of his AGs hands and telegraphing to the FBI what he wants their investigation(s)to lead to and in essence ordering his AG to a course of action before he even knows what all the evidence is or even what the focus of all the investigations are. That’s the kind of crap that Obama would do and not the way the government is supposed to work and is not the way justice works. Let him do what he does and get his team in place and wait and see the results in the first 100 days after they can really work on it for awhile.

    632

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      RAH. thanks. Correct, Mr.Trump is not even President yet.
      But beware that the radical leftists (and their lapdog media) that would lie and cheat to hurt him before the election will continue, or increase, their attacks, smears, lies, and dirty tricks after he is in office.
      Watch what he does, and does not do, after he is in office, and ignore the radical leftists caterwauling.

      320

      • #
        RAH

        The left is going to do what the left always does. When you get down to it, they really don’t know how to do anything else. People have to realize that their objective is to prevent Trump from implementing his agenda in any way possible and every thing they read from NYT and hear from the MSM is going to be produced with that very objective in mind. IMO the most effective thing they’ve done since the election is the recent NYT ploy claiming he isn’t going to do this and he’s “walking back” that, there by getting the reactionary types on the right to start wailing. It was aimed at undermining Trumps support from those that voted for him. And some of those on the right swallowed it hook, line, and sinker until they finally were put straight by others or actually read the transcript or listened to the tape of what Trump said. It never ceases to amaze me how people that rejected what the NYT said before the election would take their spin and run with it without first check the facts for themselves after the election. When are they going to learn that the NYT lies every single day and first produce their partisan line and then go out and try to find anything that can be spun to support it. And if they can’t find any real evidence to support what they want to say then they will make it up! And all that came at a time when every single appointment Trump has made indicates he is going to do exactly what he has said. This conservative and constitutional constructionist could not be more happy about what Trump has done so far nor how he has done it. And if one thinks about it, Trump would not be the one to prosecute Hillary. Jeff Sessions as the AG will be when and if the evidence warrants it.

        511

        • #
          • #
            RAH

            I just hope Romney isn’t his Sec. State pick and I’m doubting he will be despite the buzz. If one would look up the definition of the term “milk toast” as it applies to people, they would certainly find a picture of Mitt Romney there.

            60

            • #
              Eric Simpson

              Romney as Sec of State would be a great missionary for his religion and for the religion of global warming. But a missionary for Trump? Not so much.

              40

              • #
                Mike

                Galileo Galilei/Quotes
                You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.
                All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
                I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
                The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do.
                In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

                281

              • #

                Mike (#2.1.1.1.1),

                Long before Galileo, Socrates taught (in Plato’s “Meno”) “all
                enquiry and all learning is but recollection.”

                I would recommend everyone read the dialogue between Socrates and Meno (concerning “what is virtue?”) leading up to that line, because it is at the heart of all the ancient mystery traditions, and will give you your heart’s desire, whether you know it (i.e., are ready to accept it) or not. I’m sure the dialogues of Plato are available online (I found them there).

                90

            • #
              clive

              He’s not called”Mittens”for nothing.

              20

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          The left will indeed do what they have always done. And Trump must counter by doing what Abbott declined to do, that is fight them tooth and nail. Lay the boot in.

          It shouldn’t be too difficult. If it is so easy to sell lies, how much easier should it be to sell the truth? Trump has already put the media on notice. Don’t imagine that he does not have the power to punish them.

          The people are not all dumb. But they do depend on leadership. A great many lack confidence in the quality of their information, and run after the bloke they think is in front.

          60

      • #
        Lawrie Ayres

        They did the same to George W and he rode it out. Just ignore the left and that is the most hurtful thing you can do. They can’t stand being ignored.

        20

  • #
    bobl

    Jo, your story mirrors a comment I made on WUWT yesterday. Trump has not said anything I wouldn’t have said, yes we nudge local and regional climate here and there by clearing and land use change, but on the whole we don’t impact over 90% of the planet and the aggregate impact is near zero – but it is not zero. However Trump is just asking for the magic Cost/Benefit like any businessman would. The Negligible cost of a slightly changed climate does not warrant killing 25000 Grannies in a British Winter or denying Africa electricity and associated industrial development or burning poor peoples food aid in cars as ethanol.

    Trump knows that industrial development solves climate vulnerabilities and that the best things we can do for the world is expand cheap energy. That’s what he has said he plans to do.

    520

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘That’s what he has said he plans to do.’

      Trump intends more than that, he is determined to open up this can of worms to the glare of public scrutiny. Just before the election, with victory in sight, he sought out independent submissions on climate change.

      He is looking for a fight and compared to all the other things on his plate, the destruction of the ‘precautionary principle’ should be a snip.

      300

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      The problem is NOT NASA but NAS and the alliance of guilt-ridden scientists with one-world globalists after nations and national academies of sciences were united on 24 Oct 1945.

      The alliance was created save the world from possible nuclear annihilation by hiding the source of energy in uranium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 – NEUTRON REPULSION.

      NAS took control of annual budget review for all federal research agencies to make certain the public remained unaware NEUTRON REPULSION powers the Sun’s pulsar core and controls human destiny.

      33

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      While climatologist Dr. Ralph Cicerone was President of the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), all federal research agencies were neutered through NAS control of annual budget review for Congress.

      To restore integrity to government science, NAS must be held accountable for abusing its control over budgets of federal research agencies to finance the AGW scam.

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Gavin asked for it, Trump obliged.

    To the west, America, he said, full of greedy fools fouling up their inheritance.

    Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy – John le Carre – 1974

    US manufacturing jobs have crashed in the last 50 year.
    See https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/thad-beversdorf-death-of-an-economy/

    81

    • #
      tom0mason

      Some scientists and meteorologists have voiced their support for Trump –

      Norwegian Astrophysicist Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim of University of Tromso: ‘Trump’s victory is very promising. We can get real science back in the field.’

      Prominent Swedish Geologist Dr. Nils Axel Morner of Stockholm University: ‘We have a benefit from Trump’s victory: We scientists may see a liberation from this unscientific closing of journals.

      Agro-Biologist Dr. Albrecht Glatzle of Paraguay: ‘I have very much hope that Trump’s election will be the initialization of a turnaround in science relating to climate change.’ “Go straight ahead Mr. Trump with your plans to this end the politicized climate agenda and bring the science back again to its place.”

      UK Astrophsycist & Meteorologist Piers Corbyn also declared Trump’s views on climate change are ‘excellent’.

      Marc Morano, World renowned meteorologists and writer on climate skeptic site ClimateDepot.com, said the president-elect was not only “the most strongly skeptical” Republican president or nominee ever but unlikely to be swayed by global pressure. “Even going back to the 1980s, Trump’s political philosophy was a form of ‘America first’ and not very supportive of international trade or similar agreements,”

      http://www.climatedepot.com/

      130

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Thanks, tom0mason, for confirming widespread support for President-elect Trump among the skeptics of 97% consensus science.”

        20

  • #
    Peter

    FYI Australian Senator Roberts received a letter from Director Gavin Schmidt of NASA just last week.
    https://twitter.com/ClimateCollege/status/800531688128286720/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
    Merry Xmas Gavin

    100

    • #
      tom0mason

      Interesting reply from Gav.

      Secondly, you appear to be mistaken as to the effect of homogeneity adjustments (from whatever source) on Arctic temperatures. The figure below shows the estimates over time (from 1997 to the present day) of the temperature changes in the Arctic in the GISTEMP analysis (which defines the Arctic as 64°N-90°N). The small differences over time are due to increases in the number of available stations, small differences in methodology, as well as improved homogenization. Please see the GISTEMP history page for more information and method and data source changes over time.

      Curiouser and curiouser…
      Unsurprisingly Gavin believes the estimates are real temperatures. He also believes that gross homogenization of the few Arctic stations adjusted readings actually shows a real temperature for all of the Arctic.
      He says “increases in the number of available stations”, I can not find any records for recently added station(s).
      I note that most Arctic stations only give data-feeds intermittently. Do they (like at all other sites) just insert ‘estimated’ numbers in that data field? How are these ‘estimations’ generated?
      See https://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution/ and the many links therein …

      Hopefully Trump will have this sad facsimile of real science erased from the record, rendering Dr Gavin A. Schmidt work as an object lesson of conformation bias, advocacy, and how not to do science

      222

      • #
        cohenite

        Curiouser that the Arctic is the fastest warming of any region on the NASA network. Those estimates work a treat.

        203

        • #
          TedM

          Yes Cohenite, and if you put the same volume of heat into the equatorial region the temperature change would be almost statistically insignificant because it would mostly be in latent heat. Raises serious questions as to the validity of a global temperature.

          163

        • #
          AndyG55

          Actually, this century before the recent El Nino, there was absolutely NO WARMING in the Arctic.

          https://s19.postimg.org/jrz6i34oj/UAH_No_Pol_2000_2016.png

          and before the 1998 El Nino, it was actually COOLING !!

          https://s19.postimg.org/t5vk23e5v/UAH_nopol_1980_1995.png

          123

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, there you have it. We need to ban any further El Nino … problem fixed!

            10

            • #
              AndyG55

              The Sun provides the energy for El Ninos, with a fair delay in the system.

              The Sun is heading into a weaker period, so El Ninos should be less frequent and less strong.

              I have an idea/hypothesis that this latest El Nino was the ocean’s attempt to balance the sleepier sun with the amount of energy the ocean can hold, hence a very large discharge. It will now take a long time to re-charge.

              We will see.

              00

        • #
          tom0mason

          I’m indebted to Another Ian at comment #26, a link that linked me to http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/23/fake-news-update-media-falsely-spins-trumps-climate-comments-read-full-nyt-transcript/
          and this comment from John (magnum) on that post —

          John (magnum)

          The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

          Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
          Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
          Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

          Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
          Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
          Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

          * * *
          * * * * * *
          I must apologize.
          I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago.
          This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?

          :)

          291

        • #

          Also, long term records (unadjusted, unhomogenized) from weather stations around the Arctic circle show the warming there is unalarming, similar to European fluctuations.

          https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/arctic-warming-unalarming/

          112

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        I still like the comment that we didnt remove we homogenised .

        130

    • #
      Frank

      Peter,
      This response from NASA only highlights the fact that Malcolm ( the highly ranked climate non-scientist) doesn’t understand the data shoved under his nose.

      340

      • #

        Har-de-ha. It was Cox who didn’t know which dataset was used to make that graph. Nor did he know that other graphs from NASA show that Roberts was right about NASA adjusting the heat away in the 1940s. Which NASA is right?

        You know I only bother to publish your inane, illogical comments because you “highlight the fact” that fans of global warming have no good answers just repetition of their religious doctrine “Argument from Authority”.

        stick with the Herd eh Frank.

        422

        • #
        • #
        • #
          Dave N

          “Which NASA is right?”

          The NASA in the present, of course; until the future, when what was “present” becomes the “past”, and becomes wrong and needs to be adjusted. This is because they retrospectively find (even years later) that people still haven’t learned to read thermometers, or that the thermometers couldn’t measure temperature accurately enough.

          Note also that “independent” bodies apparently have their own sets of thermometers, so they can verify the results using their own data, instead of using exactly the same data to come up with the same answers

          152

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          “fans of global warming have no good answers just repetition of their religious doctrine “Argument from Authority”.”

          The irony!

          [I'm approving this one reluctantly. But you are entitled to your opinion.] AZ

          220

          • #
            AndyG55

            Still waiting… have you anything to put forward by way of evidence?

            141

          • #
            el gordo

            Harry the reality is that the temperature trend has been flat for 20 years, only brainwashed people believe industrial CO2 is causing a weakening of the polar vortex in both hemispheres.

            Global cooling has begun, rejoice!

            101

            • #
              bobl

              Rejoice, you have got to be kidding 270PPM CO2 and 1 degree colder 65% less food yield is what resulted from the last cool period – you want to rejoice in a Global Famine and intense cold with only windmills and solar panels to warm us.

              Yikes, the greenies preferred climate scares me s***less.

              *Remembering that the colder seas of a sustained little ice age will take up the excess CO2 very quickly. Just how do we know that the next little ice age isn’t actually going to be the big one that ends the interglacial period.

              PS Sorry El-Gordo I know you were being sarcastic but it was just far too good an opportunity to show exactly what the greenies succeeding in their naive quest would actually mean for the world (according to their own assumptions of sensitivity) to pass up.

              101

              • #
                el gordo

                We still have to get our story right, why AGW theory is falsified.

                My guess, the planet is returning to the 1950s and 1960s so there is no need for alarm.

                40

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              el Gordo.

              Slightly bizarre subject change.

              I think irony and discussion of informal logical fallacies might be above the regular readers of this blog.

              19

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It is not a logical fallacy to ask for empirical evidence. The null hypothesis is; that the climate has not significantly changed in the previous twenty years. The onus is on you, and your fellow travellers, to prove otherwise.

                That has always been the crux of this arguement, and the “climate scientists” have yet to provide the empirical evidence, because they can’t, because nature does not agree with what they say.

                And what is an “informal logical fallacy” when it is at home? Is it a regular logical fallacy wearing Bermuda Shorts? Inquiring minds would like to know.

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                “might be above the regular readers of this blog”

                Certainly not within your realm of discussion.

                Still waiting for some actual science from you Twotter.

                You seem so, so empty so far.

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                Another subject change. I was discussing the misuse of the term “argument from authority” by JoNova and no one is discussing that, so I assume they accept that her usage of it is indeed ironic.

                I usually do not bother to respond to you as your understanding of climate science is pretty dismal, and I cannot be bothered to explain basic stuff to you. Do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading.

                And usually when someone says “null hypothesis” I know straight away their knowledge is limited.

                “the climate has not significantly changed in the previous twenty years”

                An odd question. Maybe you need to define “climate’ before you try to shift the burden of evidence. If you are actually referring to the Global Mean Temperature, then yes it has increased in the last 20 years.

                ” have yet to provide the empirical evidence..”

                Really? The IPCC AR5 report details a huge amount of empirical evidence. Go look at any number of websites for the empirical evidence. I cannot believe you are unfamiliar with the IPCC AR5 report.

                14

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Another subject change. I was discussing the misuse of the term “argument from authority” by JoNova and no one is discussing that, so I assume they accept that her usage of it is indeed ironic.
                I usually do not bother to respond to you as your understanding of climate science is pretty dismal, and I cannot be bothered to explain basic stuff to you. Do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading.

                Oh dear, Harry. Have I struck a nerve? Am I getting under your skin? Poor Harry!

                The reality is that the temperature trend has been flat for 20 years. That is what the unadjusted temperature data in the public domain implies. We are told that the data must be adjusted for various reasons, that are never published, with the result being, that there suddenly appears to be global warming. This is the real man-made global warming that the press goes on about. That is the argument from authority – Climate Scientists (as opposed to Climatologists) claim to be the sole guardians of the truth.

                And usually when someone says “null hypothesis” I know straight away their knowledge is limited.

                Well, given your superior knowledge of logic, and the scientific method, perhaps you can define what is meant by “null hypothesis”, so that we all know, and can bow down to your superior knowledge.

                “the climate has not significantly changed in the previous twenty years”
                An odd question. Maybe you need to define “climate’ before you try to shift the burden of evidence. If you are actually referring to the Global Mean Temperature, then yes it has increased in the last 20 years.

                No, I mean climate. Prey explain to the rest of us lesser mortals how you can have changes to temperature in isolation from humidity, wind patterns, cloud density, etc, etc, all of which can, and will, effect temperature. Just focussing on one dimension is an amateur mistake. And while you are at it, can you also explain to the rest of us, how a Global Mean Temperature is calculated, and what that term actually means in relation to time of day, latitude, and hemispheric seasons?

                The IPCC AR5 report details a huge amount of empirical evidence. Go look at any number of websites for the empirical evidence. I cannot believe you are unfamiliar with the IPCC AR5 report.

                Oh, but I am familiar with AR5. It is a nice political document written for, and aimed at, the politicians who provided the funding in the first place. “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” I have been in that space, so I know how it works. Have you?

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                “your understanding of climate science is pretty dismal”

                From you Twotter, that is a bizarre comment

                You have yet to show you have even the most basic understanding of anything

                “Global Mean Temperature, then yes it has increased in the last 20 years.”

                NO Twotter. it has NOT There have been two very slight, warming events, mostly affecting the NH. They can from NON-CO2 El Nino events.

                Those El Nino events , one from mid 1997 , settling down in early 2001, and one starting mid 2015, and not quite finished yet, have been THE ONLY ATMOSPHERIC WARMING events.

                Places unaffected by those events, HAVE NOT WARMED AT ALL.

                ps.. the fact that you don’t even know what the “null hypothesis” and use it demean someone else’s understanding, is shows just how tiny your knowledge of any sort of real science is.

                22

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                When I see Gish Gallops such as yours, I usually do not respond. Gish Gallops do not have to be taken seriously. But I will bite on a couple of points.

                “The reality is that the temperature trend has been flat for 20 years.”

                No, it has not. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please post. The reasons for adjustments is explained on the various climate websites, especially the satellite data set which is adjusted a lot. But by all means use the raw data for the surface data sets and the satellite data sets if you prefer.

                Null hypothesis: “”The ‘no difference’ or ‘no association’ hypothesis to be tested (usually by means of a significance test) against an alternative hypothesis that postulates non-zero difference or association” The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics.

                “No, I mean climate”

                OK, then the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate that the climate has not changed in the last 20 years.

                “Oh, but I am familiar with AR5…”

                If you are familiar with the report, why haven’t you noticed the empirical evidence it contains?

                [Harry I think you have your own special definition of Gish gallops, because I can't see what Rereke Whakaaro has posted fits the generally accepted definition.

                When it is stated that the climate has not changed significantly, it is meant in the statistical sense. There is nothing unusual about the current climate or temperature or severe weather patterns or ice coverage or floods or droughts when considered over a statistically significant time period. Sure you can achieve a statistically significant number in temperature change if you limit the time period. With climate, a century is not even a blink of the eye.

                But even if you show a statistically significant change, that doesn't give you any information about the cause of the change. In that regard, the UN IPCC relies on assumptions and excludes important areas such as solar activity, for their convenience.

                However even the AR5 confirms that they have not yet detected a significant increase in severe weather events and other measures. They also attempted to explain the lack of statistically significant change in temperature with a swathe of peer reviewed papers which hypothesised that the extra heat they can't find has been taken up in the oceans.

                Hypothesis is not the same as empirical evidence.

                With regards to temperature adjustments by BOM and other institutions, what they have made public is the new adjusted temperature, and the peer reviewed publication on which they claim to be making their adjustments. But they have never allowed access to the individual calculations for each station, nor the rationale for including and dropping temperature stations from the data set by each temperature station. - Mod]

                02

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mod.

                “With regards to temperature adjustments by BOM and other institutions, what they have made public is the new adjusted temperature”

                Except they have also published on their website the raw data.

                01

              • #

                And their raw versions of data (weekly versus monthly averages) conflicts with each other. And the raw data shows a repeat pattern of non-random adjustments that always make the trend warmer. The BOM cannot explain each adjustment. They admitted only someone at the BOM could recreate the trends and adjustments.

                32

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JoNova.

                “And the raw data shows a repeat pattern of non-random adjustments that always make the trend warmer.”

                Evidence to back up your claim?

                11

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                “Gish Gallops” is Twotter meme. !

                All he has , and all he will ever have.

                EMPTY

                ““The reality is that the temperature trend has been flat for 20 years.”

                No, it has not

                Apart for NON-human forced El Nions.. YES IT HAS..

                In fact, apart from those non-human forced El Ninos, the world’s temperatures have been FLAT, ie ZERO TREND, for the WHOLE of the ONLY reliable temperature series we have. (RSS or UAH)

                As for the null hypothesis, wow, you can cut and paste..
                with ZERO comprehension or understanding…..
                yes we knew that.

                Adjustments..

                AGAIN you are unable to comprehend the difference between “political” non-scientific “adjustments” from NOAA/GISS, based on highly dubious surface data and fabricated surface data, and engineering adjustments based on KNOWN issues with satellite.

                You constantly display this total lack of even the most basic understanding of the difference between brain-washed propaganda pap and actual real science and actual real data.

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                “““The reality is that the temperature trend has been flat for 20 years.”

                No, it has not

                This was meant to be in quotes, the last 4 words showing Twotter’s total ignorance of the actual real data.

                12

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JoNova.

                Well we can argue who is the more dishonest here, but it is not me who is defaming the BOM. Get up on your soapbox and claim you have outsmarted all those scientists all you want – you are not taken seriously.

                You said this:

                “And the raw data shows a repeat pattern of non-random adjustments that always make the trend warmer.”

                So which of your article shows adjustments to the raw data, and making the trend warmer?

                [Since you persist and ask a question I'll approve this. But you're pushing your luck, Harry] AZ

                11

              • #

                Harry, of the six links, numbers 2 3 4 and 6. (And there are many more I could post).

                No, we can’t debate who is the more dishonest. You have nothing but bluster, ill manners and apparently chronic amnesia.

                I note you never apologize for asking the same questions and ignoring my personalized answers over and over.

                32

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JoNova.

                “Harry, of the six links, numbers 2 3 4 and 6. (And there are many more I could post).”

                OK, I will try it this way. Post just ONE link that describes the adjustments to the raw data that you claim. I do have the time, resources and patience to check one link.

                I will remind you again what you claimed:

                “And the raw data shows a repeat pattern of non-random adjustments that always make the trend warmer.”

                If you defame the Australian BOM, you MUST provide evidence that what you say is true, and you are not just being malicious.

                PS anyone else who is following this thread (I cannot tell exactly due to JoNova’s censorship of my comments). Please provide a reference that shows adjustments to the BOM raw data, as described by JoNova.

                (You are not trying very hard,since she did give you links that would answer your endless same questions) CTS

                10

              • #

                You don’t deserve a reply Harry, but because this is so easy…

                The pattern , means repeats. They did it for their HQ data set. We asked for an ANAO audit, so they invented a new dataset called ACORN, and did the same thing. The repeat was so much worse because they knew about the bias. They could have fixed it, but instead they knowingly did it again and tried to hide it.

                They called the ACORN adjustments “neutral”:
                Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, stated clearly that the adjustments made “a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature”.

                And yet, even after skeptics had pointed out that their adjustments increased the trend and the non-random bias, they repeated it, they tried to disguise it.
                Though the average size of the adjustments that increased the warming trend was far larger than the adjustments that cooled it, they hid the size and used weasel words about the number of adjustments to fool people:

                “There is an approximate balance between positive and negative adjustments for maximum temperature but a weak tendency towards a predominance of negative adjustments (54% compared with 46% positive) for minimum temperature.”

                The BOM defames itself. I just report the facts.

                12

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Note to Hairy:
                One of the pilot’s ten commandments;

                “Never fly too low nor too slow, lest the ground come up and smite thee”

                01

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                JoNova.

                This is like pulling teeth. Your claim is:

                “And the raw data shows a repeat pattern of non-random adjustments that always make the trend warmer.”

                So please produce a link to the evidence that shows a “repeat pattern of non-random adjustments” to the raw data.

                You attempted to change the subject to the ACORN-SAT. It is no surprise ACORN-SAT is adjusted, the BOM say this and the reasons why they adjust it on their website. It is a REFERENCE data set, not a raw data set. They have merged stations into locations, and have adjusted the data set to reduce the effect of non-climatic breaks in series caused by station moves such as from a warm location (centre of town at the post office) to cooler locations such as airports.

                01

              • #

                I didn’t change the subject, I was talking about ACORN all along, as you’d know if you followed the links I provided.

                You didn’t ask me about raw data conflicts which I mentioned the sentence before that. If you want those, that’s Lance Pigeons work.
                Vanishing hot days of December 1931 — and BOM monthly averages hotter than every single day that month

                Camouflage illusions in the matrix: same mysterious temperature, same day, year after year

                You commented on both of those posts, so you apparently knew about those raw data issues. You knew they have “different” raw data sets – monthly raw data, daily raw data, historical handwritten records, CDO, and AWAP data and they sometimes conflict. This didn’t bother you in June last year, presumably it doesn’t bother you now. It doesn’t matter what I provide, nor how badly BOM manage their data does it?

                Your inane description of what an adjustment is, and what ACORN is, as if we havent written 20 posts detailing them, suggests you haven’t read any posts here at all, either that or you are dishonest, or a troll? You pick.

                11

        • #
          Frank

          I will, I will but you don’t address my basic question : why can’t you submit any credible evidence in the real world ?, hearing things you don’t like is not trolling.

          01

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Having problems keeping up with the pack, Frank?

            01

          • #
            AndyG55

            Why can’t you submit any credible evidence even here

            So far.

            NOTHING. !!

            But that is all you have, isn’t it Fronk. !!

            01

          • #
            AndyG55

            Posting childish unsubstantiated nonsense, which is all anyone has ever seen you do.. is trolling.

            The absolute emptymess of your posts is a wonder to behold…

            I can only assume they reflect what is in your mind.

            01

      • #
        tom0mason

        Frank.

        How do you know what he understand?
        He may understand very well that all that homogenized dross invalidates what Gavin attempts to show.
        He might just recognize advocacy BS when he sees it.

        172

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          “How do you know what he understand?”

          I understand Senator Roberts confused NOAA with NASA.

          216

          • #
            AndyG55

            An understandable mistake when you see two pigs swilling at a trough.

            182

          • #
            tom0mason

            Harry,

            “I understand Senator Roberts confused NOAA with NASA.”
            I doubt that that was confusion, perhaps it’s his humor.
            Well I think it’s funny but it is just the sort of thing I would do to the same egoistical bladder of pomposity, and I would hopefully extract the “Do you not understand who I am?” response from him. I have many funny replies for that one!

            51

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              tom0mason.

              That is the worst attempted twist I have seen in a long time. Thanks, you have made my day.

              And have a look at who Senator Roberts CCed on the email, they now know the fringe Senator from Downunder can’t even tell the difference between NASA and NOAA. Senator Roberts is very good at shooting himself in the foot – no one has to discredit him, he does a pretty good job himself.

              311

              • #
                Egor TheOne

                As spoken by ‘foot shooter’ Harry!

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                Gavin is the only person discredited by this email.

                He has affectively ADMITTED that he uses NOAA data that he knows is highly tainted. His unwarranted arrogance will be his down-fall.

                He is left with both feet in his mouth…

                From life-long experience, you know exactly what that is like, don’t you, Twotter.

                22

      • #
        bobl

        I find it ironic that the soon to be unemployed Gavin points to GISTEMP which is a homogenised temperature set, homogenised by a computer MODEL. A model that smears a few isolated temperature measurements over major portions of the earth’s surface. It’s a model stupid!

        GISTEMP is as unreliable as the climate models because it is based on assumptions of how the (warmist indoctrinated) scientists at NOAA think one point relates to another point of the earth.

        We know for a fact of course that the weather consists of elements that can be way smaller than even a grid cell. An isolated shower in a particular location will make that location considerably cooler than a model will assume. The infilled grid points are wild guesses nothing more!

        I call these Modelled temperature sets because they are not DATA, they are contaminated with (many) assumptions. Terminology matters, they should never be referred to as datasets because they are not data!

        161

        • #
          Russ Wood

          As far as grid cells go, the South African Highveld has “isolated thundershowers” in its summer. I have seen it pouring rain in my back garden, while my FRONT garden was dry and in full sunshine. Now THAT’s isolated!
          And if this happens on a small scale, what are the 100 km (or is it more?) cells doing in a model?

          20

          • #
            Mari C

            It’s currently cold and snowing at my sister’s house, in NE Ohio, USA – she lives 15 miles southeast of me. Here I have slightly less cold and rain showers. Being further north you’d expect me to be colder, but no, I live on the edge of Lake Erie, and am basking in its warmth. All summer I reveled in its cooling breezes.

            Come February, I will hate the lake.

            There is a good 5, 6 degree (F) difference, maybe more, between her house and mine right now. But we are counted as being the same by the climate gurus. Add in the large concrete expanse of Cleveland, which is cooler than the Hopkins airport, our official weather station, and the “climate” differences are even greater.

            Add to that all the other little, and not so little, regional and inter-regional mini-climate/weather differences, the lack of measurement over what looks to be more than half the planet. The fact that the Warmest Year EVAH!! is by tenths, or even hundredths, of a degree, with the error bar being close to 2 degrees, and you get a load of half-posterior mad guesswork and flagrant adjusting of facts.

            10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Malcolm’s understanding.. at least +8 /10

        Fronk’s understanding.. well into the negatives.

        103

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      But top jobs are inevitably 80% politics, 20% actual work. As such, you dont get the top job unless you first sign onto “the cause”….

      QED

      30

  • #
    stan stendera

    star comment Egotistically I surmised the JoNova acolytes might be interested in my experiences with the Trump campaign. Well, here it is for what little it’s worth. For the first time in my 74 years I contributed to a political campaign, a total of 275 USA$. Not much, I wish I had done more. I made many, many phone calls (something I’m pretty good at). I hobbled around on my cane in the neighborhood to plead for the support of my neighbors. I don’t like pleading, but I did it! On a USA political website I read in a comment where someone was proud they did their little part. I’m proud I did my little part.

    Little parts had a lot to do with the outcome. President Elect Donald J. Trump raised $250,000,000 in small contributions. That is a staggering number of “small” (less than $100) contributions to the Republican Party. Simply STAGGERING. No other Republican campaign is even in the football pitch (a hat tip to Aussies, Americans would say ballpark).

    I learned some things reverent to the main thrust of this wonderful, wonderful website. I/we are RIGHT about climate change. Because of my sensitivity to this particular issue the subject came up in my campaign endeavors. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNEQUILIVANTLY REALIZE CO2 BASED GLOBAL WARMING IS BUNK!!!!!!!!!! Ultimate crowd sourcing.

    Donald Trump is what America has frequently produced, someone unique who has changed everything. Sometime ago I predicted in a comment of this website the Trump would win convincingly. I was challenged not to bet too much on the outcome. I bet my money, my time, and myself. It was a nearer run outcome then I would have wished for, but I won. Most importantly, the American people won and the world won.\
    —-
    It’s great to hear these kind of stories. Thanks Stan. – J

    832

    • #
      Dean from Ohio

      Well done, sir!

      230

      • #
        stan stendera

        Thank You!!! I am so proud of my country as you buckeyes should be.

        220

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Well done Stan you glorious deplorable and congratulations on getting an American back in charge, you will win bigly.

          322

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I recall the story and photo of the Hellary campaign bus dumping raw poo down the street drain.

          At that moment the whole reality of what every ( as called by Hellary ) “deplorable” American has narrowly avoided, was crystalized there for all to see in one perfect moment.

          Its early days, but lets hope DJT is good for his word.

          70

    • #
      RAH

      It was 1,000s upon 1,000s of you that won that made this happen. Thank you! We’re going to win our battle for the Republic.

      260

    • #
      Raven

      As we say in Straya . . ‘onya Stan. :)

      220

    • #
      Peter C

      Stan,

      I remember when you said you would be away from commenting for a while because you were going to contribute time and energy to the Trump campaign.

      Thanks for reporting back.

      I have been reading some MSM reports on the Trump victory and will reference this one:
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-20/us-election-why-did-61-million-americans-vote-for-trump/8040648

      I do not think that Emma Albericic gets it at all. In fact she barely mentions any reasons why Americans might have voted for Trump (except that the last 2 administrations failed to get any of their jobs back).

      Perhaps you can tell us again why you voted for Trump and why you think others did?

      60

      • #
        stan stendera

        I voted for Donald J. Trump simply because I love what my country means to me. My ability to speak freely of my beliefs, of my thoughts without fear or fetter. I harbor no ill will to gay folks, I just don’t believe that gay marriage is, considering that there is 2000 years of history for man-woman marriage, is a very good idea. When the State of Utah votes 85% percent no to gay marriage and some Federal Court overrules that vote something is wrong. When a baby is born and then killed in heinous ways something is wrong. My beliefs are not religious. I am an atheist, sometimes to my chirgrin, (spell check is bias leftist, it will not let me spell that word right). I abhor PC, political correctness, it is anti free speech. End of statement.

        Most of all, I voted for Donald Trump because I am an American. And a proud deplorable.

        242

        • #
          bobl

          That deplorable comment was, well, deplorable. She said half of Trump’s supporters were deplorable, but WHICH HALF? No-one knew so not just half, but every potential Trump supporter was slighted by that.

          Stan, I know we are on the opposite side of the planet and all but our country is in a similar bind, right now we have two major parties left and more left. Last election fully 40% of our population DID NOT VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM. It’s only the fact that other candidates are so fragmented that we can’t seem to consolidate enough votes with one of them them to pull off our own Trump like victory except in the senate, but it’s coming. There was enormous interest because our politics is on the verge of the same thing.

          I hope for your sake, and because we are so intertwined with the USA’s success that Trump meets his contract with the people. I hope also that he or his AG does drain that swamp and particularly the lawless Clinton Foundation goes down big time – since the Oz taxpayers are in the can for a few hundred million quid due to the Clinton Foundation. Maybe we can extradite Bill and Hill since they don’t have any diplomatic immunity now…

          151

          • #
            Manfred

            Hear, hear bobl!
            Oceania is overburdened with UN-centric eco-Marxists, so much so that even mention ‘Right’ and people scurry to safe spaces or claim ‘insult’. The MSM was lost to reality decades ago. All the political parties have drifted well left of centre as people become increasingly intoxicated by their unending addiction to State largesse and bureaucratic rules for an infantilised society, obligingly provided by their elected parents with the promise of more to come. Cultural Marxism, the lifeblood of the Left and and UN has flourished down under and in the Pacific, where the UN gains significant traction peddling climageddon for money and votes.
            We need a pragmatist uprising and how!

            40

            • #
              bobl

              Yes, of course why do they call us the “Right” maybe it’s because we’re right and the left is well Wong.

              /joke

              40

              • #
                RAH

                I don’t know how it is down under but in the US in most restaurants you will find that the woman’s bathroom is to the right and the mens room to the left. I think there’s a joke in there somewhere.

                00

          • #
            stan stendera

            Keep believing. We in America did and we WON.

            20

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Folks, even USA folks, can learn something from the different behavior of Stan (comment #6) versus me with respect to the election.
      We live in Washington State, that’s one of the left Coast states. Before the election I wrote that Clinton would likely win our state with about 55% of the vote. The actual was close to 54.4%. Trump = 38.2%; with >7% to all others.
      The Hillary – Donald spread was about 500,000 votes.

      Because of the rules of selection process – the Electoral College thing – neither the candidates nor the voters, including me, paid a heck of a lot of attention to the campaigning. The small county we live in did (barely) go for Trump – the local University folks showed their influence, as they did farther east in the county of Washington State University (Wazzu; Cougars). That county went for Clinton. Otherwise, all counties east of the Cascade Crest went for Trump.

      President-elect Trump did explain that his campaign strategy would have been very different had the selection process been by popular vote. He then might have visited Washington State and instead of being 500,000 down he might have been just 300,000.

      The Trump-team played the “game” well.

      50

    • #
      Mari C

      I am certain that the successful small-contribution fundraiser is another thorn in the side of the career politicians. They rely on large corporate hand-outs, elite monies funneled in through various organizations, and so on. It is very expensive, they say, to run a campaign – just the travel costs to stump for votes are beyond many people’s abilities. Take a year, 6 months, off work to run? Puts most of the USAn citizens right out of the race.

      That’s why we vote, and contribute – we can’t run, but we can help those we believe in. And for most of the US, Trump was the guy they believed in this year. They said it with their pocketbooks, checkbooks, and votes.

      And now that we have the change the people want, boohooing Dems and Greens are demanding recounts and imploring the Electoral College to break faith with their states’ wishes. The fakey-fake pro-Dem pro-Green web sites are proclaiming that voter fraud has not only been committed, but admitted. It’s worse than when Gore lost – the only state he whined about was Florida. Now they are going after Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania – and it looks like Wisconsin will do one
      http://nypost.com/2016/11/25/jill-stein-files-for-recount-in-wisconsin/

      Everything [they] said Trump was going to do if he lost, they’ve done. Riots, tantrums, now this.

      Sore losers ain’t the half of it.

      [amended by Mod]

      30

  • #
    ROM

    Trump the “Disrupter”.

    “Disrupter”; = “drastically altering or destroying the structure of”!

    i.e.;
    Politics ;
    East and west coast self serving elites.
    Biased, bigoted dishonest city centric Media;
    Ideologically driven Climate science,
    Lost purpose NASA,
    Border crossing carpet baggers
    Hard left Academia which is most of them;
    International, aka; EU political egoists who thought they had the Americans sewn up but will now have to pay their own way.
    Globalists who thought that with 98% electable Hilary they were home and hosed and ready to rule the world and its peoples.
    UN and all its parasites now totally at sea and no idea on what their future might be except it probably will no longer be the highly paid life time sinecure they thought was theirs forever.

    Plus many, many more and more still to come;

    Disrupted, destroyed, unpredictable but new and different and the dispensing and dismissal of the Old Order in a way that only a couple of weeks ago was fixed for all eternity in the beliefs and mind set of the Old Orders main beneficiary’s, the now unwanted and increasingly unsavoury Elites.

    Trump , the “Disrupter”.

    And now becoming the destroyer of the old political, bureaucratic and “Politically Correct” cesspits of the bigoted progressive” Elites”.

    180

  • #
    David Maddison

    Excellent. Another Trumpgasm!

    101

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    We may simply be returning to an earlier time.
    Not as an anachronism; the clock cannot be rolled back, nor should it be,
    else we might be arguing for telephone and elevator operators.
    But we may see an attitudinal readjustment.
    “The business of America is business.”

    90

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I studied American history, and first and foremost America was set up to pursue religious freedom ( Christianity ) and a place t eescape from the tryanny of europe and despotic rule by tyrants. As such the USA will always stand up to bullies. The current incumbent was trying to turn it into a marxist state on par with Mugabe and Rhodesia, and nearly succeeded. I’m proud Americans have given the marxists a blood nose. Lets see how it all unfolds. Trump is a bit of a liberal ( american meaning ) at heart.

      51

      • #
        bobl

        I think (from observation from afar) that Trump isn’t a liberal – He best matches what Americans would call a libertarian. Tea party – get the government out of my way so that I can work my way to success type.

        Small government
        Individual responsibility
        Anti Nanny State
        Pro business (Trickle down economic model)
        Freedom of everything.

        If I’m right and he lives to it then the USA might be a good place to live in 8 years.

        40

      • #
        CC Reader

        The only reason this happened is because of the electoral college (article 2) and the 22nd amendment.

        20

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Sorry, you will have to explain what that all means….

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The only reason this happened is because of the electoral college (article 2) and the 22nd amendment.”

          Then the USA is lucky they have them.

          30

        • #
          CC Reader

          Article 2 – popular vote does not count – each state has a number of electors based on total population of the state. Hillary has 2M more popular votes – but Trump has 306 (?) electoral votes compared to Billary’s 230 . this prevents states like California and New York controlling the politics of the USA. 22 amendment only allows a president to run for 2 terms.

          10

  • #
    PeterS

    Excellent news. It’s about time NASA got out of the leftists propaganda game of the AGW scam and focused on what they were supposed to be doing full-time – space exploration. I suspect Trump has realised that other nations are surpassing the US in more and more areas to do with space and it’s becoming a major embarrassment.

    181

    • #
      Raven

      Yep . . we’ve always known NASA had been captured by the big green cause . . but sometimes it takes a post like this to put things in plain sight.

      Exactly the same thing has happened in Oz with the CSIRO.
      What on earth are CSIRO doing with ~300 scientists navel gazing about the climate while we have the BOM?

      Here’s a thought; I expect CSIRO could play a very relevant role in NASA returning to it’s original brief.

      111

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Ah, Raven, but not with Turncoat at the helm. He is staring at the horizon, with that cloud of threatening CO2 dimming his view of the course to take. Just ask Tony!

        70

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, but remember Money makes the Quango round… What I would do is make CSIRO roll up it’s climate activity in a single report and into a single budget line item. I would then deduct each year the amount that the CSIRO spent on climate nonsense. They would soon be out of the climate business – This is exactly what Trump must do to NASA.

        A bigger deal though is to defund and reclassify the troughers. Greenpiss and Oxfam and the Various UN hanger-on orgs need to be classified as the political organisations they are and if they run commercial or gangster scams like the ubiquitous “shame and certify” scam they use to shakedown companies. That needs to be recognised either correctly as extortion or at the very least as a “commercial activity” that places the org under the securities commission as a business entity with an appropriate level of transparency and 30% company taxation. That includes business activity like the cartridge recycling business that Planet Ark runs.

        60

        • #
          Raven

          Yep, the “shame and certify” scam is just that . . a scam.
          Last week I watched that ABC program on the now booming Salmon farming in Tasmania.

          I noted they (Tassal, I think) paid WWF something like $240K (?) per year for their panda logo essentially.
          Presumably this gives Tassal an Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certificate (also invented and administered by WWF) which revolves around sustainability.
          Just where sustainability comes into a fish farming enterprise escapes me somewhat, but hey.

          I’ve no doubt from the Tassal perspective, this WWF association is a mutual back scratching exercise and a price paid to avoid and perhaps stem any untoward activity from ‘activists’. I may have missed it but I don’t recall Tassal coming under any fire from that quarter. To Tassal, this money is just another cost of doing business . . insurance . . and offers certainty whereas a full on assault by sudo-environmentalists could be very damaging and potentially fatal.

          The other more important angle to this is by the WWF issuing a certificate from their totally in house Aquaculture Stewardship Council, they purport to embody regulatory approval and oversight functions etc.

          Founded in 2010 by WWF and IDH (Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative) the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is an independent not for profit organisation with global influence.

          http://www.asc-aqua.org/index.cfm?act=tekst.item&iid=2&lng=1

          So, not only is it a scam, these people are setting themselves up as an authority.
          As such I’m not in favour of taxing this activity because it doesn’t address the issue of their self styled authority. I’m for shutting it down altogether.

          The other interesting thing that came out of the program was that if it weren’t for the food colour added, the salmon would be grey, not pink . . Hah.

          30

    • #
      tom0mason

      The US must keep ICANN and sell GISS, NOAA, etc to the UN. Let them fund it!

      30

  • #
    stan stendera

    In another comment on this wonderful, wonderful website I said that if, IF, Trump wins he will beat: the democrat party, the republican elite, and,the MSM media. Someone replied he would be a great man if he did that Herculean task.. WEEEEEL, HE WON. My the hosts rejoice.

    200

  • #
    stan stendera

    How about WEEEELL and may the hosts rejoice.

    100

  • #
    pat

    Obama and his team are still in denial:

    22 Nov: The Hill: Devin Henry: Obama diplomat to push Trump team on climate work
    President Obama’s top climate negotiator says he will encourage President-elect Donald Trump’s administration to keep working on climate change.
    Trump’s transition team has begun meeting with officials at the State Department, climate envoy Jonathan Pershing told reporters on Tuesday, though he hasn’t had the chance to talk to them yet…

    But if Trump’s team asks Pershing for advice on how to handle international climate negotiations, he said he’ll make a scientific, diplomatic and economic case for continuing Obama’s work on the issue.
    “The global community has decided to act, and in that sense, I don’t think it’s helpful for the U.S. to stand aside, i think it’s important to move forward. They need to move forward,” Pershing said on a call with reporters Tuesday.
    “There is enormous opportunity here for us. … The opportunities are global, and the U.S. is a pretty small share of the market, so if we actually want to play in that space, we’ve got to play globally. We’ve got to be an international actor.”…

    One of Trump’s top transition officials for the State Department, ***Steven Groves, is a Heritage Foundation scholar who has led the group’s push to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement and other international climate change accords…
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/307172-obama-diplomat-to-push-trump-team-on-climate-work

    ***Steven Groves co-authored the following:

    21 Nov: CNS News: A Raw Deal for Americans: The Way Out of the Paris Climate Agreement
    By Nicolas Loris and ***Steven Groves
    The president-elect has expressed skepticism about the Paris Agreement, and for good reason. American households and businesses will incur higher energy costs and a weaker economy while seeing meaningful change in global temperatures.
    Here are three steps the new administration should take to unwind Paris:…READ ALL
    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/

    71

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I was having a discussion on a linked in group and after a while it turned a bit ugly. It is on this very subject.
    There are a couple of folks on there that are so religiously fanatic there is no talking to them, let alone convince them.
    If AndyG55 or TdeF wanted to have a little fun they could go over there and put in two bits worth.

    112

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: BusinessInsider: Rafi Letzter: A NASA scientist told us why Trump — his new boss — won’t stop him from studying climate change
    “Chopping off science just to prevent people from talking about climate change won’t work,” (Gavin) Schmidt told Business Insider. “You need science for hazards, for weather forecasting, and climate comes along for the ride.”…
    “I’d be lying if I said that there wasn’t some level of concern,” Schmidt said. “But the federal government is a very, very large place. And the number of appointees is very small.”
    “I don’t think one should be complacent,” he added. “I think people are going around going ‘Oh yeah it’s just the same as the last time and it will be fine, it will be fine, it will be fine.’ I’m finding it hard to muster that kind of optimism.”…
    But still, the sheer scale of science at the federal level makes it hard for a new presidential administration to radically alter its course.
    “When I first started working for the federal government I got frustrated,” Schmidt said, “like why are we stuck in this pattern? Why are decisions that are made so difficult to reverse? Why is it so hard to shift anything? And it’s hard because there’s a lot of people and there’s a lot of moving parts and there’s a huge amount of money. But now I’m thinking, ‘Oh, you know what, it’s a good thing that that things can’t be changed on a dime.’”…
    “During the [George W.] Bush administration we had climate sceptics rewriting reports and trying to control what’s said to the media,” he said. “But the planet kept warning. We kept reporting on it. We kept improving the science that underlies our understanding of why it’s changing. And we will work to continue to do so.”…
    If there was a campaign to censor or publish bad climate science under Trump, Schmidt said that outside researchers would notice.
    “All of these things are peer reviewed up the wazoo,” he said…
    “President Obama said that he hopes their (Trump Admin) policies will be ‘thought through,’” Schmidt said. “I think that’s something to hope for, though whether I would put money on it myself is a slightly different question.”
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gavin-schmidt-trump-cant-stop-nasa-climate-science-research-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

    71

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Well that will be the end of Gavin Schmidt. His new boss won’t tolerate mutiny.

      181

    • #
      RAH

      Schmidt works in the GISS. GISS = The Goddard Institute for Space Studies. IOW the focus is to be space. Sure the atmosphere, weather, and Climate of earth should be studied by the GISS because part of their mission is supplying data for the planetary sciences. Studying the earth renders knowledge useful for interpreting what is found on the various terrestrial planets and moons. Just like geology learned here on our planet helps to better understand what is being found on Mars by the rovers and surveyor. But IMO NASA needs to stick to space. When it comes to studying the earth it’s focus should be to do so for seeking knowledge to further it’s exploration of space and other planets and moons etc. Leave the climate predictions and announcements and adjustments to data for interpreting earths data for consumption of the masses to NOAA and others. And the argument that NASA develops and controls the satellites is bogus. They have and will develop and launch the vehicles for other agencies to use and task.

      61

    • #
      Raven

      But still, the sheer scale of science at the federal level makes it hard for a new presidential administration to radically alter its course.

      You got that right.
      h/t Bill Illis over at WUWT


      http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671057.jpg

      Or the earlier version:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/usgao/19149829681/

      20

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: PBS Newshour: Under Trump, NASA may lose climate research
    by Lee Billings, Scientific American
    Emerging victorious from a campaign in which he called climate change a hoax, promised to reinvigorate coal mining and vowed to overturn major international agreements and domestic regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, President-elect Donald Trump’s next target in his political denial of human-driven global warming might be NASA’s $2-billion annual budget for Earth science.
    Trump himself has been relatively mum about his plans for NASA. But in an op–ed (LINK) published weeks before the election, two Trump space policy advisors—the former congressman Robert Walker and the economist Peter Navarro—wrote that the agency is too focused on “politically correct environmental monitoring” of climate change…
    “Earth science’s preferred growth under Obama—the fact that it has grown over all of NASA’s other science—has created a big political target on its back and validated, in a sense, Republican interpretations of its partisan nature,” says Casey Dreier, director of space policy for The Planetary Society. “And this is taking place in a new political dynamic of strong, near-universal condemnation and skepticism of climate change by the Republican Party, without a Democratic president and key members of Congress that used to push back. That’s a bad double whammy for Earth science.”…READ ALL
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-nasa-lose-climate-research-funding/

    CAGW gets plenty of space at the end of this piece, though i would prefer Tierney began the section by referring to “man-made global warming” & not “climate change”:

    Autumn 2016: City Journal: The Real War on Science
    The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.
    by John Tierney
    (John Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal, coauthor of Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Strength, and a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, where he previously wrote “The Big City” column.)
    http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

    70

  • #

    Uh-oh. Someone’s going to discover a particularly habitable planet soon. Likelihood of water…artist’s impression of Alpha Centauri setting over horizon…looks like the landscape in that Jason Statham space movie…

    This is no time to be slashing the NASA budget!

    50

  • #
    ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

    Just take the $Bns off GISS who know nothing of space and throw it at the guys who do. I wanna see faces swap emotion instantly and for generations hence.

    We have to get off this planet sometime before the Sun dies and gob-flapping over dribbling icicles wherever they can dig them up and flying to exotic locations for yet more gob-flapping at our expense won’t ever make it happen.

    111

  • #
    Ross

    The MSM don’t learn. Reporting of that interview completely misrepresented what Trump said. Or maybe Trump is just too clever for them. They have been spoon fed for so long they have forgotten how to listen , understand and “read between the lines” of the person being interviewed.
    For them ( including Schmidt ) to be surprised shows they have not read Trump’s Contract –they probably aren’t aware it exists because they were only following one person on the campaign.

    91

    • #
      RAH

      They do tend to hear that they want to hear. I am wondering if any of them really can do true investigative reporting anymore? After all they haven’t done any in EIGHT FRIGGEN YEARS!

      100

      • #
        ROM

        The news media went to hell in a bread basket when Journalism went from a Trade to a Graduate Degree.

        As in the Trades everywhere, the new chum journalist learnt the ropes and pitfalls and the best and most customer pleasing way of doing his / her trade i.e.; journalism, from the old hands who were quick to kick his / her proverbial if they didn’t shape up and report with truth and accuracy as required by the often local readers who picked up bad reporting very fast and said so in a no uncertain manner.

        Graduates from university and advanced education colleges where they are isolated from the real world and I have heard many stories around this, who often don’t even know or aren’t smart enough to know how to turn on a tap are so full of themselves as they have a degree and therefore their opinion on anything is backed by their highly educated years learning at the feet of left wing Professors and academics who had never ever had to take any responsibility for what they are implanting as journalistic gospel into the naive and temporarily open minded newby journalists.

        The situation is so bad in some cases re graduate degree theoreticals versus actual real time on hand experience that on another forum an industrial chemist recounted how he had to retrain new Degreed industrial chemists so they would not put Acids into the Alkaline cabinet or vice versa.
        They just didn’t know and had never been instructed on the dangers of getting such simple item wrong with such possible serious consequences.

        Academically trained journalists in the media are likely the main reasons why there is now so much bias and deliberate distorting of facts to fit the journalist’s own particular and personal brand of ideology and to hell with the truth and the public’s rights to know all the facts if it gets in the way of that journalist’s personal and group beliefs and ideology.

        He / she after all is numbered amongst the elite with that journalism degree, an egoistic characteristic strongly reinforced when their name appears in the heading of the article they have just dreamt up and submitted to the sub editor who also as is well known in the big media , adds his / her bit of media fluff to the article regardless of the facts and truth.

        150

        • #
          Mari C

          It’s the new wave of journos who are mucked up – maybe starting with my generation (shudder, I hate being associated with the crud going on) and definitely with the ones after me. There are a few good ones out there, but they don’t seem to fit in with the network look and sound, and empty-headed bright-eyed chatter isn’t news.

          My mom went to “J”-school, and while she ended up being a mom instead of a globe-traveling in-the-trenches reporter (her dream, but back then she couldn’t do both, it was hard enough to get off the wedding and fashion pages for women then) she instilled in me a deep distrust of other people’s word. Investigate, she’d say. Don’t just take what they said at face value. Look at what they do, read what they said before. Look it up, check it, check it again, know your sources’ sources, and so on. Keep opinion on the opinion pages, don’t mix it with the news.

          She and I didn’t see eye-to-eye on many things, but we both agreed, sometime before the new millennium, that the news was becoming advertising and propaganda. Opinion counted more than fact. She was a die-hard Republican, and when that party began to fail her she refused to discuss any politics. When the Tea Party popped up she applauded, then decided they were full of it too. I think Palin is what killed them for mom; she didn’t like her for a long list of reasons I can’t enumerate without going into moderation. She hated Gore, hated Bush Jr. Her most favorite president was JFK, the next favorite president was Reagan, with Bush Sr. a distant third.

          The one thing I learned from mom and her insisting I listen to her “J” School teachings was that -facts- are what makes the news, makes things “true” – but that facts can change, information and understanding can change, and the worst thing anyone can do it toe the line when they know that line is full of aromatic droppings.

          10

  • #

    Let’s hope that Trump delivers and keeps on delivering.

    101

  • #

    It’s really really important to keep the
    NASA Space Program. Wot if Canada refuses to
    take all those US celeb (unskilled) immigrants spilling across the border to escape a messy, revitalized, democratic America? – (Yikes!)

    Them celebs are gonna hafta’ go somewhere –
    won’t a supra – space – w/out – borders be
    just the place?

    100

  • #
    Manfred

    This was an utterly necessary, predictable, inevitable and logical first step on the road to normalizing NASA. The tragedy is that it was necessary in the first place. GISS will naturally be returned to its core purpose and thoroughly purged and defunded of its mission ‘drift’. DJT like all of us, will want GISS to live up to its august name, one it has blatantly betrayed under an odious mantle of Green slime.

    111

  • #
    TdeF

    Never before has the president elect so overshadowed a President. No one cares what Obama thinks. The world is in thrall about what Donald Trump will do on his first day and there is so much he could do. Eight years of Obama and sixteen years of Clinton and the world has gone backwards, America has gone backwards, society has gone backwards in so many ways.

    So many hopes are pinned on the new President and top of the list is the gravy trains of Climate Change and the United Nations and the European Union and peace with Russia and peace in the Middle East. The world has been stalled for so many years while a sort of Climate Scientology has ruled, crippling Western Democracies very deliberately according to IPCC leader Christiana Figueres for whom it was always about the money. Not just the US has been crippled but Japan, the UK, Germany, France and even little Australia. I just cannot believe the South Australian government blew up a working power plant because of Climate Change? Nuts.

    241

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: Reuters: Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes in Michigan: unofficial tally
    Republican President-elect Donald Trump defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes in the state of Michigan, according to certified unofficial county-by-county results released on Wednesday by the Michigan secretary of state…
    Some media organizations did not call a winner of the presidential race in Michigan on election night because of the closeness of the race. Michigan is the last state where the winner was not yet clear…
    If Trump is declared the winner in Michigan, he will have accumulated 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-michigan-idUSKBN13I2N1?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=69

    Steigrad calls Trump inflammatory?

    23 Nov: Times: GQ and other lifestyle magazines grapple with flubbed Trump coverage
    by Alexandra Steigrad
    Pick up the November issue of GQ and you may think you’ve landed in an alternate universe — one in which Donald Trump lost the election. While many in the media disavowed Trump via endorsements in favor of his opponent Hillary Clinton or sharply penned editor’s letters, GQ went a step further.
    The issue, which features Russell Westbrook on the cover, includes a letter from editor in chief Jim Nelson entitled “Hack Trump,” which forecasted a Trump loss.
    Nelson predicted that after Nov. 8, “Donald Trump will go. But he will not go easy.”
    The editor expounded on that thought: “The good news: He will lose this election badly, by which I mean poorly. Exceedingly poorly. … Donald Trump is the enemy of the people.” (The letter still appears online, unchanged and without a postscript).
    While most publications endorsed rival Clinton (and to be fair, almost no one in establishment media expected the ???inflammatory Trump to win), GQ’s prediction was bolder than most — an unusual move for a lifestyle magazine, unless there’s a medium on staff writing horoscopes…
    To make matters worse, GQ also ran a feature and coverline in the same issue, which read: “Trump’s Secret Plans Revealed! It’s Gonna Be So Much Better Than Being President.”…

    GQ wasn’t alone in it sentiment. Especially noteworthy was Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour‘s role in holding fund-raisers for Clinton while her magazine endorsed and advocated for Clinton.

    And in the days leading up to the election, New York magazine ran a Trump cover with the word “Loser” written across his face. The Oct. 31 cover accompanies a story by Gabriel Sherman that portrays campaign staffers pondering their next acts after an inevitable loss.
    A week later and the world changed. And while it wasn’t quite “Dewey Defeats Truman,” New York back peddled somewhat on its cover, which was produced by Barbara Kruger.
    “We, and Kruger, had always intended for our cover to convey multiple meanings: certainly that Trump was running behind, but also that America itself was losing, dragged down into a filthy dumb-show campaign,” New York said…

    Meanwhile at Vanity Fair, longtime editor in chief and even longer-time Trump critic Graydon Carter, didn’t make the bold prediction that GQ’s Nelson did, but he teetered that line, while throwing in a few well-written jabs.
    “He is a mad jumble of a man, with a slapdash of a campaign and talking points dredged from the dark corners at the bottom of the Internet. I don’t think he will get to the White House, but just the fact that his carny act has gotten so far along the road will leave the path with a permanent orange stain,” Carter said in his November editor’s letter. “Trump, more than even the most craven politicians or entertainers, is a bottomless reservoir of need and desire for attention. He lives off crowd approval. And at a certain point that will dim, as it always does to people like him, and the cameras will turn to some other American novelty. When that attention wanes, he will be left with his press clippings, his dyed hair, his fake tan and those tiny, tiny fingers.”
    That last part may turn out to hold water. Carter could not be reached to comment on the rest.
    http://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-wwd-gq-flubbed-trump-coverage-20161123-story.html

    40

    • #
      clive

      For those who still argue that “Hillary got the most votes,these figures say otherwise.
      Final vote count–Final #Election2016 numbers

      #Popular Vote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750

      #Electoral College vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232

      70

      • #
        CC Reader

        Clive pleas supply a pointer. The latest report that I can find says Billery won by 2 million votes.

        10

      • #
        Margaret Smith

        clive
        November 25, 2016 at 7:29 am · Reply
        For those who still argue that “Hillary got the most votes,these figures say otherwise.
        Final vote count–Final #Election2016 numbers

        #Popular Vote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750

        #Electoral College vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232

        ..and when you take democrat electoral fraud into account……?

        00

        • #

          Thanks Margaret, though I hear tonight there are going to be recounts in a few states. Hmmm.

          00

          • #
            Lionell Griffith

            The official final count for the US Federal Election is to be posted at: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml

            So far the final results for 2016 are not in evidence.

            As usual, we have news, new news, old news, false news, and real news splattered all over the internet and MSM. It is a major challenge find the pathetically few words of real news in all the noise pretending to be news.

            Since the US Federal political system is designed to be a constitutional republic, the popular vote total is irrelevant. What counts is the Electoral Delegate count. By that count, Trump wins no matter what the popular vote total happens to be.

            20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            The recounts were announced almost immediately after I saw news of suspicion of hacking. Nothing was said about where the hacking was supposed to have happened but you can bet that the recounts are going to be in the states that if the count changes enough, Clinton will then have enough electoral votes to become president. I expect they had their strategy all laid out in advance and just needed no more than the flimsiest excuse to call for a recount.

            It never ends. I long ago gave up watching TV all night, holding my breath waiting to hear who won. The information will still be thee in the morning and a good night’s sleep is worth more than the suspense of watching the votes pile up on the red stack and the blue one.

            I hope it doesn’t end up like the Gore-Bush fight did with the courts having to rule on it.

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              If it comes down to the courts, then the questions become, “Does the judiciary have a bias?”, and, “Who gets to select the presiding Judge”? That sounds like a festering can of worms to me.

              And is anything likely to be done, about the paperless, and non-auditable, voting machines, to prevent multiple votes of the resurrected? Even if Trump survives all objections, those are the things that he is going to have to address, prior to the next election, if he wants a second term.

              I am thankful that I am allowed to live in a civilised country.

              30

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                RW,

                I envy the fact that you can make the statement,

                I am thankful that I am allowed to live in a civilised country,

                presumably with a straight, unstrained face and your fingers not crossed.

                These days I’m not sure how to define civilized anymore. Every faction everywhere seems to be out for blood (only slightly exaggerated for impact).

                00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Roy
                Here is a bit of Americana on an Australian Libertarian blog.
                It is difficult to grasp the sense of paranoia this youngster experiences just because of an election.
                Sentimentality and unreason for sure.

                00

          • #
            AndyG55

            The DNC has now had enough time to make the necessary “adjustments” to the counting system.

            30

          • #
            RAH

            This is the best short and concise read I’ve seen about the recount strategy:

            00

            • #
              RAH

              Try again. From the American Thinker Blog:
              “The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts”

              “The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.
              The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.  
              Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time Pthis happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.  
              If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.”

              Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html#ixzz4RF7tO2QN
              Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

              Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html#ixzz4RF7dcloI
              Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

              00

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: Bloomberg: Soaring Consumer Confidence: Are Americans Happy It’s Trump, or Just Happy It’s Over?
    by Luke Kawa and Julie Verhage
    The consumer expectations index of the survey rose by 8.4 points from October to 85.2 — a one-month gain last exceeded in the December 2011 — a testament to households’ optimistic view on the outlook for the U.S. economy and their own pocketbooks.
    And ‘optimistic’ might be an understatement. According to the latest report, in some cases, Americans are the most hopeful they have been in more than a decade…
    It’s not just on the personal finance front either. The index tracking households’ expectations for changes in business conditions over the next year rebounded strongly after tumbling in October, with the share calling for an improvement in this area registering its biggest one-month gain last exceeded in 2008…
    46 percent of respondents surveyed agreed the U.S. will have “continuous good times” over the next year, up a whopping 11 percentage points from October, while the share who expected “bad times” ahead fell by 7 percentage points to 37 percent…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/soaring-consumer-confidence-are-americans-happy-it-s-trump-or-just-happy-it-s-over

    30

  • #
  • #
    Mark M

    Bennet thinks Trump may be uninformed about the science. Instead Trump is saying the scientists may not know …

    Explainer: the search for Earth’s ‘missing fingerprint’ (via The Conversation)

    “The earth’s missing ‘fingerprint’ sits somewhere in the upper atmosphere, but for some reason eludes climatologists.

    But without understanding why the fingerprint has failed to appear, our predictions of precisely how the rest of the globe will warm as carbon dioxide concentrations increase are rather uncertain.”
    . . .
    Trump is correct.

    91

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Go ‘the Donald’!

    I notice herr Schmidt has recently criticized Senator Malcolm Roberts on his recent video with Tim Ball and Tony Heller!
    Something about Roberts being misinformed …..According to our ABC Marxist Conglomerate…very sketchy on details!

    Can’t wait for ‘the Donald’ to give herr Schmidt and co, the Bum’s Rush Out!

    91

  • #
    Roger

    Maybe its time we started to call “Progressive” policies what they really are – “Pregressive” i.e. policies which function primarily or solely to Regress Mankind’s Development and to damage or limit Freedom of Thought and Expression.

    80

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      No, I vote we label “progressive” exactly what it is – corrosive and divisive and with no morality to it…..in a word nhilism.

      20

  • #
  • #
    PeterPetrum

    In her, as usual, exemplary post, above Jo said,

    “Today the guy who Trump appointed to chair the NASA transition team said……”

    Does anybody know who this “guy” or “girl” is? I can find no information on this and would love to know, so that I can write to my “friend” in NASA who said that Dr David Evans was a charlatan and that he had no idea about what he was talking. I did warn him about six months ago that he might need to look for a new field for research. Ah! The revenge of Les Déplorables.

    131

    • #
      ROM

      .
      Peter Petrum @ # 31.

      Still very early days in the Trump administration but for a current round up of Trump’s likely science administration appointments and leaders of his science department transition teams;

      Via the American Institute of Physics

      Election 2016: Science Appointments in the Trump Administration

      From the Independent , it appears that Rep. Bob Walker [ Republican- Pennsylvania ] might still be in charge of the NASA Transition Team despite the caveats re Walker in the above “Science Appointments” link..

      Walker has been labelled correctly or incorrectly as a lobbyist which would bar him from a Trump administration position if that was the case.

      However the Fake News activists operating almost openly even in the MSM are endemic and attacking Trump’s transition teams at the moment so another potential appointment on a permanent basis to head NASA is reported as below from a site that suggests you read and rely on Scientific American, National Geographic and Space news, the first two of which puts any readers in the Frank and Harry “one engine out” Twinotter class.;

      It has been reported that Mark Albrecht will lead the transition for NASA.
      Albrecht is a solid and experienced choice who served as the executive secretary for the George H. W. Bush Administration’s National Space Council and has worked in the space industry for decades.

      10

  • #
    Another Ian

    “New York Times : Trump’s Golf Course Doomed in Only 10,000 Years”

    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/new-york-times-trumps-golf-course-doomed-in-only-10000-years/

    40

  • #
    Ruairi

    Mr.Trump could knock a huge dent,
    In the billions that N.A.S.A. has spent,
    Not, to better our race,
    Through research in space,
    But on, Consensus 97%.

    200

  • #
    pat

    24 Nov: Asahi Shimbun: Central Tokyo hit by first snow in November since ’62; 13 hurt
    At least 13 people were injured on Nov. 24 after central Tokyo, Yokohama and Kofu, capital of Yamanashi Prefecture, experienced their first snowfalls in November in 54 years.
    The injuries, including broken bones in four cases, were reported in the capital and Kanagawa and Saitama prefectures. They were mainly caused by falls on slippery surfaces.
    The snow caused extensive delays on private railways in the Tokyo area. Services on some sections of the JR Chuo and Ome lines were temporarily halted because tree branches weighed down by the snow were at risk of touching wires along the tracks…
    Snow also accumulated on the ground in Mito, capital of Ibaraki Prefecture, for the first time in November since 1897…
    According to records, the earliest day snow has hit central Tokyo is Nov. 17, in 1900.
    The snow in and around Kanto was caused by a cold air mass, similar to ones seen in mid-winter, hovering over the region as low atmospheric pressure accompanying a front line moved east on the morning of Nov. 24, the agency said…
    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201611240007.html

    23 Nov: Bloomberg: Brian K. Sullivan: Siberian Snow Theory Points to an Early and Cold Winter in U.S.
    For those cursing the unseasonable November chill, there’s an ominous sign up north. It suggests this winter will be long and cold, according to one eminent scientist.
    He’s the father of the “Siberian Snow Theory.” In a nutshell, he argues that the more snow covering the ground in northern Eurasia, the colder we can expect it down below. Sadly, Siberia is looking pretty white already
    Judah Cohen, a renowned MIT climatologist, has been working on this theory for 17 years, despite skepticism from some U.S. government weather experts. Cohen, who figures his theory has been right 75 percent of the time, spies all the makings of an early, cold winter.
    “This year, we have had this very textbook situation,” Cohen said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/siberian-snow-theory-points-to-an-early-and-cold-winter-in-u-s

    61

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Put real Scientists back in charge of NASA,in place of gravytrain propagandists!

    Go ‘the Donald’, and come on Jan 20,2017.

    71

  • #
    Outlier

    Well you have to worry about [snipped] and reformed greens. The zealotry.
    As if retired astronauts would be expected to have serious input – maybe we could ask some sports stars. Perhaps our rocket men might also provide proof of any religious beliefs.
    And the slavish dedications to satellite data as purity when there are multiple platforms with all manner of orbital decay issues and parameters needing – gag – adjustment.
    And as for Malcolm Roberts – golly tin foil hat time. Have some minimum discrimination. I guess Gavin at least wrote Malcolm a letter. Wonder what might happen if Jo ever did an independent construction of the temperature record.

    [Outlier, We do not accept derogatory language aimed at individuals on this site.
    - Can I also suggest that rather than throwing around insults if you indicated where and why you think Malcolm Roberts is in error, you could participate in serious discourse and may learn something.
    - I shouldn't have to point that many astronauts are highly qualified in the hard sciences and engineering and are selected because of their ability to analyse data quickly and accurately.
    - You are clearly not aware that Jo Nova and a team of qualified individuals have been calling for an independent construction of the temperature record for years. What have the BOM got to hide by refusing to show their individual temperature site reconstruction calculations, and the recorded reasons for including and dropping sites from the Australian temperature record, if they are justified, and carried out in compliance with the scientific process they claim to have used? Mod]

    319

    • #
      Vlad the Impaler

      Greetings Outlier:

      I am curious if you have ever looked at the geological record; there is a validated and cited data set of temperature vs. CO2 for the past 750 million years. If there existed some correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and “average” global temperature, it would be apparent there.

      The fact that ‘warmists’ consistently ignore, dispute, or disparage these data suggests to me that they know, intrinsically, that these data disprove their pet belief.

      I suspect that you are basing your beliefs on a few hundred years worth of data, and the problematic ‘models’ of future “climate”. What we see in the geological record is that at all time scales, temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.

      NASA, who hired those scientists (including at least one geologist) and engineers to drive those rickety space ships to the moon and back, once engaged in REAL science and engineering, not politically-motivated advocacy. Maybe they’ll find some more scientists and engineers who can, and will, do real science and engineering, and problem solving, and something besides politics. It is a waste of time, energy, and scarce financial resources, to prop up the CAGW or ‘climate change’ hoax. Just a fraction of the money they have used on ‘climate change’ might have allowed us to have a permanent base on the moon by now, or maybe permitted a manned (or womanned?) landing on Mars, but no, they decided to join the warmunists in their quest for global enslavement.

      I, for one, am ashamed of NASA, NCAR, the UN (and the UNFCCC), and a host of others. They perpetrate a hoax, and for none other than domination over their fellow residents of Planet Earth. Our local newspaper has a column in which they as a question each week, and the first one after the election was, ‘what should P.-E. Trump do first?’. I answered that on Day One, he should abolish the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), get the US out of the UN, get the UN out of the US, and start prosecuting Clinton et al and the Clinton Foundation. That was just Day One; there’s much more that needs to be done to ‘drain the swamp’, the cesspool of D.C., and the fifty other cesspools around the country.

      Hit me back when you have correlation coefficient for Temp vs. CO2 from the 750 million year record. I shall find it interesting.

      Best regards to all,

      Vlad

      161

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        The relationship between CO2 and Temperature over the last 750 million years was found by scientists who believed theory should agree with the data. However, funding the research was a very demanding task. They had to work with the inadequate to do the almost impossible, beg for funds to continue their work, and/or pay for it themselves.

        Poverty!

        The post-modern scientists believed that truth was determined by a consensus qualified scientists. The self selected qualified scientists agreed on the theory, built models of that theory, and used them to produce the data. The matching of theory and data was so much easier that way. Government politicians, being mostly lawyers without a hint of scientific knowledge, were impressed with the scientific consensus and delivered abundant funding to the new scientific consensus for decades.

        Jackpot!

        The only problem was a little thing called a thriving modern technological civilization had to be sacrificed. Thereby allowing the new consensus of scientists and politicians to continue the endless party without having to work for it. As long as the end of the party didn’t happen before they retired, it was OK by them.

        Then in early November 2016, the people who paid the bills and kept things running revolted and called for an end to the party. A outsider non-politician won and the professional ruling class lost.

        Cries of Panic and Cheers of Joy filled the land.

        The outcome is still pending but there is reason to be hopeful.

        Truly, we are living in interesting times.

        90

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        “I answered that on Day One, he should abolish the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), get the US out of the UN, get the UN out of the US, and start prosecuting Clinton et al and the Clinton Foundation. That was just Day One; there’s much more that needs to be done to ‘drain the swamp’, the cesspool of D.C., and the fifty other cesspools around the country.”

        Great comment Vlad.
        Such a proper first day for ‘the Donald’ that would be!
        Could not agree more.

        From an Australian’s point of view, i would be happy if all he did was put the CAGW BS medievalism to the well deserved sword, along with leg irons for its racketeering advocates.

        I wish we had ‘A Donald’ here, instead of ‘weak good for nothings’ masquerading as leaders.

        I suspect and hope that ‘the Donald’ will start ‘a process’ worldwide, beginning with the USA.

        He has my approval, and I am one of many!….A Global Marxist/Totalitarian Cleanup is in order and long overdue.

        70

    • #
      AndyG55

      “when there are multiple platforms with all manner of orbital decay issues and parameters needing – gag – adjustment.”

      Interesting that you don’t seem to have any idea about physics, engineering and measurement.

      As long as you know what is happening with the satellites, there is no problem.

      Its the surface data that is an absolute mess. Barely 50% coverage of land, no idea what quality data they are getting or from where. Suppository adjustments to meet their expectations of warming. Many areas where data has been massively fabricated and mal-adjusted. Sea data which is also adjusted at their whim with invented, unsubstantiated junk-science given as the reason. A monumental farce of anti-science and (naughty word starting with F…. ) from go to woe.

      101

    • #
      AndyG55

      golly tin foil hat time.”

      Do you need that to stop sanity and common sense finding a way into your mind ?

      You wouldn’t what those polluting your anti-science, far-left ideology, now would you.

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      Outlier, I owe you a debt of thanks. I suggested in a post a little while ago that this site was a beacon of hope. Thanks were due to all participants including random trolls who serve so well to illustrate why we value this virtual community so much, why it is so successful and why it is one excellent place to learn. I remain completely open to being persuaded by the science. So, if you’d kindly list, say five (yes, just five!) seminal empirical articles that clinch the deal, that incontestably refute the null hypothesis that anthropogenic warming is not due to human alteration of atmospheric composition in general, and by the putative addition of CO2 in particular.

      Many years ago, when I posed this question to the happy folk at Skeptical Science, I was told to grow up and stop being a school boy. At that point I learned there was a little more complexity to the AGW meme than the weather or climate, simple things you know, such as the obvious ‘climate change’ (UN def.) being an unfalsifiable state unless … you remove every single Human Being from the planet together with their direct and indirect influences on land use and atmospheric composition.

      So, it is with interest that I await your response.

      20

  • #
    pat

    so much fake news in the following, can’t bother to excerpt it:

    23 Nov: Economist: Up in smoke? What will happen if America’s president-elect follows through on pledges to tear up environmental laws
    The rest of the world will figure out a way to stay on course
    “LIKE ice water through the veins.” That is how a UN official, in Marrakesh for the UN climate summit that ended on November 18th, described the effect of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Her trepidation was widely shared at the two-week event—and justified…
    ???But in an interview this week with the New York Times, he seemed to waver…
    All in all, optimists think the environmental damage caused by a one-term Trump administration could be relatively limited…
    http://www.economist.com/news/international/21710811-rest-world-will-figure-out-way-stay-course-what-will-happen-if-americas

    can’t resist posting this one, but do wonder why all the people quoted will continue to be trotted out by the Fake News MSM:

    23 Nov: Breitbart: Jerome Hudson: 32 Times Establishment Media and Pollsters Assured the People of Donald Trump’s Defeat
    (Breitbart London reporter Chris Tomlinson contributed to this report)
    32. The Sydney Morning Herald: “Donald Trump will not win the U.S. election, worse still, he’ll be a sore loser.”
    “On Wednesday, Americans will awake from a nightmare. Donald Trump will not be their president,” wrote Sydney Morning Herald chief foreign correspondent Paul McGeough.
    “In defeat, Trump will have much to get even about,” he continued.
    “Losing spectacularly before the eyes of the nation and the world will be a severe psychological blow, probably prompting a ‘wounded animal’ or ‘cunning rat’ response – or a mix of the two. The fall from would-be leader of the Western world to feather duster will take a considerable adjustment.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/23/32-times-establishment-media-pollsters-assured-people-trumps-defeat/

    80

  • #
    Mardler

    Whilst I hope Trump clobbers all climate junk science, I’d be very careful about suggesting anything other than the status quo.

    There are huge interests at work (crony capitalism) against change.

    So, until I actually see it I don’t believe it.

    61

  • #
  • #

    [...] Nova explains how NASA was recruited into the warming PR machine and what can happen when sanity and professionalism return to the organization. BTW I totally endorse Sinc’s views on the waste of money in space. [...]

    21

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Remove funding from NASAs climate research? Be careful of what you wish for.

    The low polar orbit satellites will not last forever. No more satellite Global Mean Temperature data sets such as UAH and RSS. What will Dr Spencer and Dr Christy do?

    That will leave only the surface and RATPAC data sets.

    315

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor Harry, lack of comprehension, as always.

      They are not talking about satellites. Satellites etc will still be part of NASA’s real job.

      They are talking about the people who do the fabrication of the surface data and the climate modellers. You know, the one’s that ignore satellite data.

      183

      • #
        AndyG55

        The removal of Earth climate non-functionaries like Gavin and his modeller fiends from GISS (that’s Goddard Institute of SPACE STUDIES) and getting NASA and all its branches back to actual SPACE STUDIES will be a great plus for NASA, and a great plus for real science.

        The out and out PROPAGANDA can be dispensed with ad some real work can be done.

        Perhaps in another 10-20 years they can get back to actual SPACE !!

        123

        • #
          ROM

          Way back on the 21st of July 1969 in the early morning here in Australia I sat and watched as the “Eagle” Lunar Module touched down on the surface of the Moon.
          Around midday I rounded up my two very young daughters, one was 7 years old, the other 5 years old, my son just a year old so he got an out, and sat them down and made them watch as Neil Armstrong took that “First Small Step for Man” onto a body in space that was not his home planet.

          An event in the history of mankind without parallel and the One FIRST Small Step that can never be repeated ever!
          It was the FIRST!
          It has been done.
          The one and only FIRST step of mankind onto another planetary body ever.
          It was an event without any parallels in history and one which will remain one of mankind’s most remarkable achievements in all of our history, both past and future.

          And it was the America people and American knowhow and American tenacity exemplified through the NASA of the 1960′s that carried mankind to the Moon to create that first “Step”.

          I watched the launches of the Apollo’s mounted on the top of the mighty Saturn rockets. None of those Saturn launches left the launch pad more than two seconds late.

          Today, well would my now grown up grandkids bother to sit down and listen and watch NASA’s GISS Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen rabbit on even for more than a couple of minutes about global warming and climate change or how the world is going to a modelled climate Hell because they have models using homogenised temperature data that show without any doubts allowed that mankind’s CO2 was going to destroy the planet and the sea levels will rise to cover the main arteries of New York city within 15 years unless “we do something”.

          Of course I am assuming that my grown up grandkids actually have heard of NASA and have a very rough idea on what it is supposed to be as an organisation and where it might be located.

          And that merely shows just how far down the tube of public respect and public regard, NASA’s stocks have fallen in a half a century, two generations , as NASA completely lost the reasons and the plot as to why it was ever created by allowing itself as an organisation to be side tracked down a dead end rabbit hole of an earth bound climate science dead end blinkered path that will without a major redirection, lead to its eventual demise as an independent science organisation at any level.

          Sadly there are a lot of people who like Harry TO and Frank and others are themselves so blinkered and blindly rigid and narrow in their intellectual ignorance of human history and the known climate history of our planet and the history of so much of past science that was overturned and reshaped into another version of science that they are now apparently intelectually incapable of ever moving into a recognition that the world and its science is changing, will continue to change and will always have a science at every level that is always changing and that will never be predictable in its outcomes as is the case today with science everywhere..

          And that we as a race and a species have proven over and over again that we a highly adaptable species that has adapted to every situation that Nature has thrown at us over the past couple of millions of years that our species have evolved through.

          70

      • #

        Andy,
        I would appreciate your considered critique of my response to CO2isnotevil@:
        http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/award-winning-peter-boyer-attacks-myron-ebell-but-who-has-an-open-mind-and-who-is-in-denial/#comment-1860251.
        Seems like even the lukewarmers are out to destroy what is left of ‘science’, for some reason!
        All the best! -will-

        42

        • #
          Peter C

          Lots of speculative physical arguments.

          What is lacking is laboratory experimental evidence for the Greenhouse Theory.

          So far (by my count) we have;
          1. Dr Robert Wood’s hot box experiment which was negative for greenhouse warming. Same result obtained by others.
          2. Greenhouse in a bottle demonstrations (Bill Nye and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock). These demonstrations cannot be replicated when performed with proper care and controls.

          If there are other experiments I would be happy to hear about them.

          71

          • #

            Peter C November 25, 2016 at 10:18 am

            “Lots of speculative physical arguments. What is lacking is laboratory experimental evidence for the Greenhouse Theory.”

            Many, many perfidious claim of defined thermal EM power flux exitance outward from some physical mass, at some: “TEMPERATURE” independent of any EM opposing, limiting, ‘radiance’.
            All you have is the inbred ignorance of these arrogant academics!

            71

    • #
      tom0mason

      Don’t worry about it Harry because according to a leading climate researchers we’ve all only got 10 more years and then it’s curtains.

      Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world’s sixth mass extinction.

      Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.

      “It’s locked down, it’s been locked in for a long time – we’re in the midst of our sixth mass extinction,” he told Paul Henry on Thursday.

      But Professor James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University, says people should not use his words more as an excuse to give up.

      While he agrees that climate change is possibly the “biggest issue humanity has ever faced”, he says “giving up is not really helpful”.

      Instead, Prof Renwick says he hopes Prof McPherson’s 10-year claim will encourage people to take action.

      “This is a really big issue and the consequences could be catastrophic,” Prof Renwick says. “Though certainly [humans won’t all die off] in 10 years or even 1000 years.”

      The effects of climate change were first noticed 30 years ago and Prof Renwick says the sooner we get onto working against it, the less there will be to do.

      “I’d love to see [people] take it on board as it is a very serious issue.”

      Prof McPherson’s comments come just days after Climate Change Issues Minister Paula Bennett appointed a 10-strong team to advise the Government on how New Zealand can adapt to climate change.

      But if the visiting professor is right, it could all be a waste of time.

      “I can’t imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years,” he says.

      “We don’t have 10 years. The problem is when I give a number like that, people think it’s going to be business as usual until nine years [and] 364 days.”

      He says part of the reason he’s given up while other scientists fight on is because they’re looking at individual parts, such as methane emissions and the melting ice in the Arctic, instead of the entire picture.

      “We’re heading for a temperature within that span that is at or near the highest temperature experienced on Earth in the last 2 billion years.”

      Instead of trying to fix the climate, Prof McPherson says we should focus on living while we can.

      “I think hope is a horrible idea. Hope is wishful thinking. Hope is a bad idea – let’s abandon that and get on with reality instead. Let’s get on with living instead of wishing for the future that never comes.

      “I encourage people to pursue excellence, to pursue love, to pursue what they love to do. I don’t think these are crazy ideas, actually – and I also encourage people to remain calm because nothing is under control, certainly not under our control anyway.”

      New Zealand has been criticised by the international community for not doing enough to fight climate change – this month being awarded two Fossil of the Day awards at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.

      The awards are for the country’s failure to live up to climate promises and the continued use of “dodgy” carbon credits.

      Amazing what you can see when modeling a virtual world.

      http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change—scientist-2016112408

      83

      • #
        AndyG55

        Paul Homewood puts this under the heading…


        “Loony Of The Day Award”

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/loony-of-the-day-award/

        83

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        tom0mason:

        How could you quote that? Poor old Harry TwinOtter will not sleep tonight. You must have realised how gullible he is to stories of impending doom.

        73

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tomomason.

        Yes, Guy McPherson… well-known climate scientist…

        03

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well, the man said, what the man said, and was thus quoted on this esteemed blog for what he said. It seems that you have a fellow dweeb to keep you company, Harry. Well done.

          31

      • #
        Manfred

        New Zealand has been criticised by the international community for not doing enough to fight climate change – this month being awarded two Fossil of the Day awards at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.

        Criticizing a pimple on a gnats bottom is hardly shattering news, particularly when that pimple generates 60% of its electricity from hydro. It’s an easy ‘hit’ because the delicate little gnat is a fragile eco-globalist and in deep luv and addictive co-dependent relationship with the UN, so any suggestion to the contrary is deeply deeply hurtful.

        20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Harry,

      “Today the guy who Trump appointed to chair the NASA transition team said “there was no need for NASA to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.”He went on to say “We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” and “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.”

      Dr Spencer and Dr Christy don’t fall into that category.

      92

      • #
      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tom0mason.

        I do not know if you are intentionally missing the point, or are just stupid.

        02

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Neither Harry. It is tomomason just being subtle. It is something you will learn to appreciate, as you get older.

          41

      • #
        ROM

        The true imbecility and utter egoistical self centredness of so much of climate alarmist science is almost beyond believing.
        And it is all based on pure unadulterated ignorance of the world outside of Academia’s bubble existence inside of its salubrious ivory tower.

        What the Guy McPhersons of this world are too damn arrogant and insulated to see is that they just walk into supermarket somewhere and pick and choose up and down the shelves what they wish to eat today or tomorrow out of the incredible array of fresh food and food stuffs on display.

        The true saviours of the world of today are the plant breeders and plant scientists working quietly unseen and completely unheralded in the research farms and laboratories and fields of new varieties of food grains and animals and horticulture and vegetables around the world in early every nation in a vast and silent network of co-operating food production researchers .

        Compared to these Ag science guys and gals the climate alarmists scientists come in a very bad last in the order of importance to the world but they get 90% of the financé.
        Or at least they have up to this point which will likely change dramatically within the near future with the appearance of Trump on the scene.

        The climate scientist Mc Phersons of this world would find their true importance to mankind when one day they walk into their supermarket and the food is simply not there on the shelves .
        Nor will it be there tomorrow or for the months following
        And that possibility is not far from being a real situation and humanity’s major disaster.

        As an example only; A new and devastating race of stem rust appeared a few years ago in East Africa, first identified in Uganda hence the designation UG99.

        Nearly all the stem rust genetic resistance incorporated into the world’s wheat genomes over the last 80 or so years were shown to be susceptible to this new race of rust .

        UG99 had the potential to wipe out the global wheat crop which amounts to close to two billion tonnes of wheat being produced and consumed world wide every year.

        UG99 is continuing to mutate as the global crop breeders and geneticists in the world’s grain research institutes race to keep on finding new sources of genetic resistance in the wild Wheat genotypes that originated in Central Asia and from which our modern wheats have been bred from.

        If UG99 or some other of the innumerable fungus type diseases mutates into race for which no genetic resistance can be found and bred rapidly into the crop varieties then as the wind borne rust race leaves wheat crops devastated across the world , without wheat there is no bread, noodles, bread type products, starches of an infinite variety found in food stuffs of every type, fillers for innumerable types of containerised and preserved food products, some fillers in pharmaceutical products, much of the livestock feed for such as pigs, lamb, cattle chickens and etc in the live stock feed lots and animal producing facilities.

        If that occurs and it has a far greater chance of occurring than any supposed disaster from any claimed catastrophic climate change, the Climate alarmists of this world would find out very, very rapidly just how far down the scale of importance to the human race they actually are.
        And they would be treated and regarded accordingly for misleading the citizenry so badly and so deliberately in the effort to shore up their own egoistical importance ;

        Climate alarmists in fact would likely become the pariahs of humanity if such a scenario I had outlined above ever came to pass which it still has a very possible chance of doing so sometime into mankind’s future.

        And my background for this ; 28 years as a Trustee for the land on which one of Australia’s largest grain research and variety breeding centres is built.
        I met many of the world’s leading grain breeders and researchers and attended many scientific seminars on grain breeding and genetics in those 28 years

        41

  • #
    Bartender UK

    Have faith in Trump, he will make science strong again, he will make science proud again, he will make science sound again and he will make science great again. Whose better to make these pledges than President elect Donald Trump.

    91

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    I am hoping that NASA will return to Science and Space exploration very soon :D

    and looking forward to the AGW funeral being scheduled very soon

    91

  • #
    ianl8888

    This thread seems to have gone somewhat viral – references all over the quality websites.

    As expected from years of experience, one line of resistance has arisen that I’ve seen countless times. “Space exploration is a total waste of money. There are many more worthy things to spend the money on. What value is there in exploring Mars … etc etc”

    Well, as a geologist, I found the advent of the little rover robots on the Mars surface about 15 years ago as the most exciting thing done by homo sapiens in my lifetime (embarrassingly long now). When Rover 2 bounced into an impact crater on landing, unzipped itself, deployed all its’ little arms and panels and cameras – and there, staring at it from the opposite crater wall was a low cliffline of sedimentary rock layers (needed WATER to form) – just absolutely flabbergasted !! An interplanetary hole-in-one !!

    And who are these people who don’t find that way beyond exciting and want the funding for other stuff ? A lot of them are effete, dandified economists shaking their lace cuffs at each other from 10 paces, arguing endlessly over Says Law vs Keynesian waste. I cannot think of a more useless area to spend funds on than a sterile, impossible to verify, never-ending, pointless scrimmage. Why, it reminds me of consensus “climate science”.

    NASA was brilliant at planetary exploration. Obama hated that area of human endeavour. Well, Obama has had his day and the planets are still there. Let the Renaissance bloom again.

    120

    • #
      Annie

      I still have copies of my newspaper (as it was at that time) with the pictures of the first Moon landing. People forget that mankind has an instinct to explore. It was very exciting. I was also thrilled to see the first flight of the British prototype Concorde with its accompanying Canberra. Although poor Concorde no longer flies, I’m told its technology has filtered through to subsequent Airbuses. (I LOVE the A380). The point of this being that pushing the bounderies of space and technology produces many other benefits for mankind.

      40

    • #
      Mike

      “Space exploration is a total waste of money. There are many more worthy things to spend the money on. What value is there in exploring Mars … etc etc”

      The discovery in 2007 of a new economic scientific experiment was the most highly advanced digital money printing experiment ever attempted in this solar system and proved once and for ever more that money is infinite, like many other attributes which create the human condition and make it easy to exploit.

      If for an example a mortgage or thousands of mortgages go bust, or if money is printed to bail out an entire country, it is not harmful at all to the banks who create money as debt out of thin air, not harmful at all.

      The idea that by borrowing money it is somehow “wasted” or that something however trite can be a “waste of money” in an environment/solar system where money printing is infinite and created with ease is backward thinking old school economics….

      Welcome to the economic space age.

      21

      • #
        Mike

        Trump understands the economic astrophysics of money printing and will get the most out of the new and highly advanced quantitative easing money printing technology invented by the greatest banking minds currently in our solar system.

        20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I wonder exactly what Trump will do about both NASA and NOAA.

    Being a fan of less government and with private enterprize now getting into space flight I think the job NASA once did has been co opted by those with a commercial interest. And to be honest I’m not a fan of manned missions. We went to the moon, proved it could be done but then abandoned that effort because it was expensive. The discontinuance of that program was unpopular with many for various reasons but looking back on it, that decision was a sound one.

    A manned mission to Mars presents rather extreme risk to the astronauts. And in return what do we get? More information about Mars is of curiosity value and interest, which I admit is strong but there is nothing of tangible value to be gained from it that can justify the cost and the risk. The place will be impossible to colonize and the slightest failure of the technology you depend on during the trip there or to live there can kill you. And rescue is impossible. We nearly lost Apollo 13 and have already lost astronauts in 2 shuttle disasters which proves my point. I would not be unhappy if NASA disappeared for good. This is a simple matter of getting something useful from the huge expenditure required for even orbital space travel. Satisfying our curiosity about what’s out there somewhere is tempting but has no certain payback for the money and the risk involved. And no matter how good, how reliable, how bulletproof our technology gets there is still the human factor which remains what it has been since the dawn of humans, subject to errors, subject to ignoring clear signs of danger, and perhaps the largest risk factor of all. And then there is the flock of geese that took down one of the most technologically advanced airplanes in existence, notwithstanding that there was one of the best possible pilots in command at the time and no human error was involved.

    I was a supporter of the space shuttle program only because it could support good military objectives. But the shuttle is gone and the military is getting along quite well with a much scaled back expenditure. I like that.

    I will also admit that the lunar project spawned a lot of research from which we still benefit to this day. But that research would have happened anyway even if slower to get started. And it continues apace today using private money simply because there is some payback for the effort. Consider the complex electronics in your automobile. That field alone has seen so many advances simply because there’s a competitive advantage in doing the research, that a whole unique bus system was invented just to let the various “boxes” hiding under your instrument panel and elsewhere around you car, communicate with each other — an automotive Internet that most drivers don’t realize, don’t even have a way to realize is even there.

    In medicine it’s the same, from MRI scanning to heart pacemakers. But again, there is direct benefit to everyone and the simple profit motive prompts companies to do the research.

    Are we any better off today because of the international space station? I don’t know the answer to that since they do research there that cannot be done on the surface. But I suspect any real benefit is marginal at best. If you have a counter argument, let me know.

    NOAA once had a useful job to do and it should be reminded in very stern terms that it better get back to that job and stop trying to save the planet, stop trying to save those in power, do only what’s useful to the people who pay the bills, the United States taxpayers, who, after all, are the people they work for.

    No matter how prosperous we become as nations, the top priority for spending our money belongs to the person who earned that money. Everything else needs some worthwhile payback. In the end, taxation ends up destroying wealth most of the time. And I think that’s a bad thing.

    I suspect I’ll be unpopular for this. That’s OK. I’m not trying to run things. I’m just stating my conclusions after watching what has happened over many years. Maybe you can change my mind if you make a good counter argument.

    61

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      You make excellent points and a very good argument, Roy.
      If I am not mistaken, the challenge issued by Kennedy to put men on teh moon was the impetus the USA needed to win the cold war, by developing superior technology.
      In the world of investments, the concept of “sector rotation” is often used as a guide, since every sector has its day in the sun and when the sun sets on that sector it is time to move on. I think the same concept can be applied to desire to travel to other planets. At the moment there are far more important problems to solve down here on Terra Firma.

      However, as I read through your post, I couldn’t help but think of courageous Europeans, some of whom were explorers and some settlers, and the thoughts they might have had in contemplation of the search for, and habitation in the New World. Wouldn’t they have questioned the considerable risk, the enormous expense, and the lack of any clear benefit in colonising such a far flung land as the Americas?

      As for the NOAA, what is it about the oceans and atmosphere that require “administration” anyhow?

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Rod,

        Excellent point about the risk of travel by sea. And I think the expectation of what would be gained in return for the dangerous trip was personal, for instance the expedition that landed at Plymouth wanted religious freedom. Or rather the freedom to set up their own religious beliefs which they could then force on the members of the colony instead of having to conform to the Church of England back home, which is what I finally realized from reading the history of the Massachusetts colony. Others may read it differently but one way or the other, I think the motivation was personal. It was also pretty well known how to build and operate ships on the high seas by then.

        Back to the point, I anticipated some comment of this sort and I have a simple answer. Yes, humans have manage to travel all over this planet and settle in not only the more hospitable climates but also the most extreme you can find, both hot and cold. But they never faced the problem of suddenly finding themselves with no air to breathe, a problem that space exploration presents — in spades.

        I’ve been an avid science fiction fan since I was a teenager. I found Robert Heinlein particularly compelling and I read everything he wrote for a long time until he began to get metaphysical. But I digress. In his second or third novel aimed at the teenage audience, Space Cadet, he recounts the accidental finding of a long lost ship on one of the moons of Jupiter or one of its giant neighbors by another mission. Upon investigation it turns out that a small piece of rock, the kind that we know floats around out there and moves very fast, had entered the airlock through the open outer door and then gone on in through the closed and sealed inner door, very rapidly depriving everyone aboard of air to breathe. After all, air is not very dense and it can go out through even a centimeter or so diameter hole very fast. I don’t remember the fate of the couple of men who were suited up and protected from that incident. But I have always remembered how easy it would be in reality to be suddenly deprived of air with nothing you could do about it in time to save yourself. Space Cadet was fiction. But the problem Heinlein wrote about is very real. I don’t know what the probability of it is but see the next paragraph.

        I’m a reader of stuff to do with space although I haven’t been following things as much recently as I once did. And I remember seeing an absolutely frightening statistic. There are hundreds if not several thousand loose nuts, bolts, tools and other things in orbit that have gotten loose because of an astronaut’s clumsiness simply from the difficulty of working in space suits with those heavy gloves on, that now must be tracked each by each and taken into account by everything else in orbit and by every new launch. To me this is nothing short of incentive not to go into space ourselves but to send unmanned satellites and probes.

        Think about it a minute, lost at sea, even in the worst of circumstances you might still have some hope. But suddenly deprived of air you have no chance at all. And I don’t think it’s a pleasant death nor is it an unreasonable fear.

        The failure of something you depend on and cannot repair in time or replace is equally frightening. And I don’t think that’s an unrealistic fear either. So far, nothing humans have invented can be relied on to run continuously for years without breaking down. Even though statistically they may be very reliable the statistic tells you nothing about what will happen to one individual device or system.

        We have no way of knowing how many hapless sailors in the distant past have suddenly found themselves in a life or death struggle with the elements. But the number must be substantial. And I wonder why we want to go on in the face of an even more disastrous single event that can kill everyone, probably in as little as seconds. In space you are very vulnerable, also on Mars.

        About NOAA, they are the parent organization of the National Weather Service, which by the way, does a good job, especially considering the difficulty of predicting the weather even a few days ahead. And when I flew I could count on good accurate forecasts for the same day as my proposed flight. Also, the NWS has not bought into the climate change scare, yet anyway. I could go for the reduction of overhead that would come from elimination of NOAA unless they do something else that’s really useful. And I confess that I’m not a follower of what all NOAA does.

        30

      • #
        RAH

        The engineering technologies and knowledge that were developed for or from the space program and have been adapted for use in the private sector to benefit mankind is much more vast and is effecting the our lives in ways that most people don’t realize. Did you know that CVD and PVD technology developed for the Atlas V rocket nozzles has been used in many high temperature applications used in industry today. That’s just a tiny portion of a vast array of developments applied in the civilian sector that improves our lives in ways most people don’t know about. I happen to know about that particular aspect because I did business with the man that developed it while working for NASA. I was using it for providing abrasion resistant coatings for use in the fuel systems at coal fired power plants. But it’s used in oil fracking pipelines and mining also.

        But beside that fact the arguments about if it was and is all worth it are short sighted IMO. Because in the end, we humans are going to have to leave this planet to survive as a species if we can keep from being destroyed or from destroying ourselves long enough. There are finite resources here and we will have to migrate off this planet just as those that came before us had to migrate from one place to another on this earth to survive.

        00

    • #
      ianl8888

      Satisfying our curiosity about what’s out there somewhere is tempting but has no certain payback for the money and the risk involved

      And there it is, as predicted in the comment above yours.

      Satisfying curiosity (as you effetely call it) is a prime drive in homo sapiens, built into the DNA as a survival mechanism. The payback is the factual knowledge gained. Risk, loss and damage cannot be avoided but can be minimised.

      I’m always a little leery of people with no robust interest in frontier exploration. Popularity isn’t the key issue of course, more a red blood cell count, as it were. Now please, don’t go using Trekkie quotes as low-level sarcasm (to boldly go blah and blah); real exploration is truly exciting.

      50

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        I agree.
        We are explorers by nature.
        It is why we are the dominant species on the planet.

        If we are not going to reach out, then what good is our existence?

        Yes, exploration of space is dangerous, but so is life.

        I says : Throw caution to the wind,and let’s go!

        I’m not for hiding under a rock somewhere, and calling that life.

        Eventual expansion and colonization into space is our destiny for survival as a species and must come, or we are dust.

        Such a positive future however seems distant with present idiot policies/beliefs of CAGW for example, with a global cost of 4,000 million USD per day(1.5 trillion per year) being squandered.

        Even space travel is cheap in comparison to such global insanity and criminal enterprising.

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Star Trek is strictly for fun. But that’s the limit of its usefulness. It exists only on the screen of your TV or movie theater. You can enjoy it but you need to leave it there when the show ends and come back to reality.

        It’s claim to be based on science is so loose that I would never have made such a claim myself. But I have enjoyed being able to go through all the various series from the original 1968 Captain Kirk series to Enterprise, the last one to be produced. Netflix has them all and we’re now in the middle of the first season of Enterprise and having a ball. But you never heard me say anything based on Star Trek to justify reality or to shoot it down.

        Next are the various big screen movies of which Netflix also has a selection.

        30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          You make a strong argument with,

          Satisfying curiosity (as you effetely call it) is a prime drive in homo sapiens, built into the DNA as a survival mechanism. The payback is the factual knowledge gained. Risk, loss and damage cannot be avoided but can be minimised.

          Now answer me these questions. And I’m not trying to trick you, I want your honest opinion.

          Would you be better or worse off today if we had not gone to the moon. Would you be more or less secure as far as safety, health or any other measure of value in your life that counts?

          Why?

          30

    • #
      Vlad the Impaler

      Greetings to you, Roy:

      I agree with you in principle about many of your statements, but honestly, I think we need to be engaged in human-mission planetary exploration.

      You make a good point: we might lose whoever agrees to go to Mars. That being said, I would gladly volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb on that mission. I’m fairly old anyway, and my days are numbered. I have the geology background to do some useful science, so as candidates go, you may have the perfect explorer right here. As above, responding to “Outlier”, if we had spent on science just part of what we spent on climate, we might already have our Moon base, and have sent (and retrieved) those intrepid explorers to Mars already.

      NASA, if you’re listening, Jo and her mods have my e-mail. I’m ready, willing, and able, and if I do not make it back, I think it will be OK.

      Happy Thanksgiving, Roy,

      Vlad

      70

      • #

        Vlad the Impaler November 25, 2016 at 8:35 am

        “Greetings to you, Roy: I agree with you in principle about many of your statements, but honestly, I think we need to be engaged in human-mission planetary exploration.”

        Agreed as some social endeavor! Actually the physical acceleration, deceleration, of bags of earthling excrement, to some remote location is the epitome of arrogant academic ignorance!

        22

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Vlad,

        You’re point that we might lose whoever attempts the Mars expedition but you’re personally willing to accept that risk anyway isn’t really a justification for making the trip. I will however, grant you that on the spot expertise in geology might prove useful in learning more of the history of Mars. I’ll applaud your willingness to take the risk as well. But with so much left to discover right here on Earth I wonder if Mars is a sufficiently high enough priority. And I don’t know for sure and can only apply my own criteria to evaluate that and try to answer it.

        We are getting surprising information about Mars from the small and very cheap spacecraft we’ve sent there compared to the cost of a manned mission.

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …if we had spent on science just part of what we spent on climate, we might already have our Moon base, and have sent (and retrieved) those intrepid explorers to Mars already.

        Since I have nothing but the lunar program by which to judge and there is no serious plan for either a moon base or a manned trip to Mars I have no way to evaluate the accuracy of what you say. I can easily see that the moon base would be a number of orders of magnitude less expensive than just one round trip to Mars if we wanted to get our astronauts back in one piece.

        I know that there is a lot of thinking about a mission to Mars going on. But as far as I can tell it’s mostly thinking and not much doing.

        We have not even sent a manned mission into a very high elliptical orbit that would require them to survive for the 6 month minimum time enroute to Mars entirely self contained for all that time and would automatically return them to the vicinity of home again so we could retrieve them safely. Like the first Apollo mission that went all the way to the moon, if they got into trouble they would have no quick return path and no practical hope of rescue. We have no idea what the demands of 6 months of complete reliance on only what you take with you would do to such a mission. And then there is the requirement to live on Mars, again, entirely self contained until your window of minimum time to return to Earth comes around. And then another 6 months enroute back to Earth.

        I’m therefore unable to evaluate whether the money so far spent on climate change could accomplish a moon base and a successful expedition to Mars. The best thinking I have seen involves sending unmanned supply ships to Mars ahead of the astronauts, some of which would do complex preparation for their arrival. And that’s multiple very complex missions to pull off successfully. And probably years of such flights, not even taking into account the time to develop the technology and prove that it works.

        When I was a teenager I thought nothing could be more glamorous and desirable than to serve aboard one of those WWII fleet submarines. Then when In Hawaii many years later I had the opportunity to tour such a submarine, the Bowfin, which is on display at Pearl Harbor for the public to go throug. The reality of what life aboard one of those boats hit me the minute I went down the forward hatch into the torpedo room. Seeing the cramped quarters, the sharing a bunk with as many as two other sailors, the working in enclosed spaces so small that I would never tolerate such living and working conditions now, has forever colored my perception of what a Mars mission would be like.

        There will be no Star Trek style ships with spacious quarters and a bridge that would be the envy of any ship’s captain. Small, light construction and a life of constant watchfulness and discipline will the the order of the day for years at a time. How long can the human being maintain that without a break? You tell me if you can.

        30

        • #
          AndyG55

          constant watchfulness and discipline will be the order of the day for years at a time. How long can the human being maintain that without a break?

          You tell me if you can.

          How about 5 minutes? :-)

          21

        • #
          Manfred

          There will be no Star Trek style ships with spacious quarters and a bridge that would be the envy of any ship’s captain. — Roy Hogue

          Kelvin, Lord William Thomson (1824-1907) stated,
          “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning…I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.”

          Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”

          Just sayin’ Roy ;-)

          20

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            Kelvin was a pompous ass..Smart but full of it. Opposite attitude to Albert E.

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Manfred,

            I never said that space flight as far as Mars or beyond would be impossible. I just said it would be extremely expensive and dangerous.

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Just sayin’ Roy

            Manfred,

            Thinking about what you said and being a guy who likes to dream about things, I can picture large spaceships for travel to the planets, maybe even the stars. But for the same reason the largest of airliners, the 747, is still cramped seating and has restrooms you can hardly move in, the weight of the ship will count heavily in the design. Fuel consumption is directly a function of just two things outside the atmosphere, gravity and mass of the ship. And fuel will always be a limiting factor. You cannot do anything about gravity, it is what it is. But you can reduce the problem it represents by being as lightweight as possible. And the smaller mass will translate directly into greater range or speed with the same fuel consumption. Take your pick of which is the more important but one of them will be a big consideration, if not both.

            When you build a ship, no matter what it is, you’re building something that needs to pay you back for the effort and expense. The maximum payload for you buck is what you have to design for. And that will mean small internal spaces for crew with maximum space for fuel, cargo and supplies needed enroute and light construction, whether an airliner or spaceship.

            I know you know these things but I think it worth the emphasis — all the space travel we have done so far has never been able to provide for what I would call decent crew privacy or individual living spaces and you work right where you live. No claustrophobics need apply. I can’t see this changing very much. The weight problem is so severe that of the original 363 foot tall Saturn V rocket with the 3 astronauts sitting at the top that launched from Cape Canaveral, all of it was abandoned during the mission with only the capsule containing the crew ever returning to Earth, a tiny fraction of the original mass. At every stage of the flight, when something was no longer useful it was left behind so fuel didn’t need to be spent on carrying it along. I don’t now how you can beat this problem except with a similar strategy.

            And now I suspect I’ve beaten this subject to death, so no more. :-)

            00

            • #
              Lionell Griffith

              It has been said and, based upon personal experience I tend to agree with it, science and technology advances one funeral at a time. The old establishment tends to hold on to their “proven” theories and prevent the new “unproven” theories to be tested or published.

              Given enough of the right kind of funerals, the advance of science could be quite surprising. Beyond the violation of the three laws of thermodynamics being impossible, I am unwilling to say what can or cannot be accomplished. However, context rules. If the continuance of government control of everything increases, nothing much can be accomplished no matter how many funerals.

              If the government had not confiscated the wealth to fund the man on the moon project, ON PRINCIPLE, and left the economy alone, we could well be traveling to the stars rather than just wishing to do so. The trip would likely be paid for by advertising rather than our current theft by proxy system.

              PS: I view any taking of wealth from those who create it beyond funding the police to protect us from crime within, the military to protect us from aggression without, and a judiciary to provide a path of non-violent redress of grievances as confiscatory.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Lionell,

                You drive a hard demanding bargain with reality. And possibly you’re right, except that travel to the stars is going to have some harsh realities to deal with, far worse than going to Mars. It’s hundreds of years to reach even the nearest of them and if you could go faster, you begin to bump into relativity (I know you know the paradox of the twins). And how much energy will it take from some power source to get even a small ship to anything even close to the speed of light? I can see it easily requiring conversion of the entire mass of your ship to kinetic energy to do that job. Do you see solutions to these problems anywhere on the horizon?

                I confess that I do not.

                To the planets we may someday go. But the stars remain a very elusive dream at the very best and a practical impossibility at worst.

                00

              • #
                Lionell Griffith

                I don’t know the solutions to the problems you ask to be solved.

                I do know the solution to unleashing the innovative ability of a nation to be able to accomplish the thought to be impossible. Stick to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and get the government out of the business of science, technology, and engineering. Then if the problems can be solved they will be solved when and if it is necessary for them to be solved.

                Consider the technology and economy of 1776 as compared to the technology and economy of 1876. A backwater rebelling 13 colonies turning itself into the largest most productive transcontinental economy that ever existed. This with an incomplete implementation of the promise of protected and respected individual rights.

                I ask you, what if there was a full implementation of individual liberty and all that implies? The rate of advance would be unimaginable. After all, not everything has been thought of nor attempted.

                All it takes is time, resources, brilliance and the freedom to try for anything that is possible to be made real. The only thing I am willing to say is impossible is violation of the three laws of thermodynamics. Beyond that, the field of innovation is wide open.

                00

        • #
          Vlad the Impaler

          I appreciate your reasoned response more than you shall ever know, Roy.

          Agreed; the logistics of manned missions (even to Mars) are a nightmare at best, and impossible, at the worst. The planning, the pre-missions (pre-positioning of supplies and material) will take a decade or more, and even then, I do not think you can even hope for 50/50 odds on successful return (i.e., the astronauts returning alive, with samples, etc.).

          But I do believe that we have the technology (build the ship in orbit, launch from orbit, return to an orbital platform designed for re-entry), the knowledge, and even the spirit of exploration to undertake such a mission. What we lack is the direction, and with mis-directed finances into CAGW ‘black-holes’, there is, realistically, no way to accomplish the goal.

          Kennedy set out the direction: send, land, and return a man safely. Start today, and perhaps my grandchildren will witness the first live television transmissions from the Martian surface.

          My offer stands to anyone who will send me; Newton and Kepler worked out the mechanics of the Hohmann Transfer Ellipse. All I have to do is go ‘along for the ride!’

          Regards to you Roy,

          Vlad

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Vlad,

            I agree that we have the technology to build the ship required to go to Mars. And what we don’t know at present can be worked out by good old fashioned research and development that we also know very well how to do. All we would need is to make a serious commitment to doing it. I wish you luck in getting aboard such a mission. And that’s not sarcasm. If you have a dream then you want to accomplish it, make it reality.

            I still have that teenager’s itch to serve aboard one of those submarines, even in spit of knowing how bad the living and working conditions were. But they’re just museum relics now, kept around for their historical interest. The other thing I’d love to do is spend some time in the engineer’s seat of a steam locomotive and drive the train. Like a little kid I would love to blow that steam whistle a few times. And steam locomotives are an endangered species since the 1950s. You only find one that’s operational where they can attract tourists to ride the train for a little adventure.

            10

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Perhaps Roy and I regard a mission to Mars in the following way:

            COST/BENERFIT ANALYSIS
            Cost: Undeniably humungous
            Benefit: Next to nothing

            Now Vlad and Bob might be able to define some benefit beyond the thrill of exploration.
            But the way I see it, and I think Roy sees it the same way, expenditures should be prioritised in accordance with the net present value.
            There are a great many expenditures with a greater net present value. Debt elimination is one of them.

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Hohmann Transfer Ellipse

            Vlad,

            Just reread your comment and realized that the last time I saw the name Hohmann was in a Heinlein novel. Most Sci Fi writers don’t seem to realize that in space you are always in an orbit around something and ignore gravity completely. Yet gravity is everywhere.

            10

    • #
      bobl

      Roy,
      I would disagree, the moon missions galvanised all Americans and gave them a sense of purpose the result was pretty much a golden age for the USA (Other than the cold war). The benefits of that alone probably outweigh the disadvantages. I disagree that we couldn’t colonise mars there are plenty of oxides or silicates/carbonates there to generate oxygen and water given a couple of nuke power stations, the only thing left to do after is to dig an underground city with airlocks to the surface.

      Everyone thinks surface structures – but Cooper Pedy is probably a better model, as the mines progress we move into the tunnels they leave behind. The planetary crust insulates the environment from the harsh surface just like in Cooper Pedy.

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The moon mission did indeed give us all a sense of purpose and probably just when we needed it the most. But that sense of purpose wore off after a while, with the last lunar mission, Apollo 17 drawing only a ghost of the initial enthusiasm.

        I’ll admit that we need a sense of shared, of common purpose right now more than we need anything else. But now it needs to be a purpose to restore what has gone wrong in my beautiful, exciting, inspiring country; the one sung about in, America the Beautiful, “Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain…”; the one sung about in the national anthem as, “…the home of the free and the brave.”; the one defined by its constitution as a place of freedom, equal opportunity, equal justice and the right to vote for those who govern us without fear of election fraud or cheating; a county without fear of discrimination by unscrupulous politicians and judges, both of which we have had more than our fill of; and to be free of anyone or anything else that tries to divide us instead of unite us.

        I live here every day Bob. And there is a fracture among and between all sorts of factions that is literally destroying us. It’s palpable. Moreover, it’s quite obviously being driven by an agenda that hates the very concept upon which this country was founded and on which we took it for granted that it was firmly anchored, so firmly anchored we thought it could never be dislodged, only to find out that it could be tossed aside like so much trash by so many millions that it threatens us with changes so dramatic I never thought they could happen until recently. If you wonder why Trump was so popular, that’s why.

        Mars pales by comparison as something we need to pay attention to.

        I didn’t start out to end with such an impassioned plea. But I can’t ignore how I fell in my gut. It’s bad enough to be hated for doing something wrong, something that can be fixed or at least avoided in the future. I can even understand being hated by other countries for out collective success. But it’s even worse to be hated by your fellow countrymen because of your personal success. And yes, even Obama hates my success, such as it is. You can bank on that.

        So there it is, the stark reality.

        30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And just a note here. The Boy Scouts of America is as reviled as ny organization in this country because it has standards it wants to live up to, yet that site was at the top of my list of hits when I went looking for the lyrics for both America the Beautiful and the national anthem.

          They have had but one objective for over 100 years, to prepare young men to be good citizens, accomplishers and to be leaders. If there is any fault in that I cannot see it.

          40

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Roy
          We have a great deal in common, you and I.
          I have also been involved in Scouting for a large swath of my life, much of it as Beaver Leader, then Cub Leader, Scout Leader, Scouter training, in Canada and New Zealand.
          I share your lament for the diversion that occurred in your country’s path toward to future, perhaps in the 1960′s.

          When I was a farm boy I our farm was a scant 30 miles or so north of North Dakota. In those days the folk in Manitoba and North Dakota shared a love of the land, and a particular reverence for “being ones’s own boss”. I think people on either side of the border were genuinely honest, God-fearing folk. My parents would make a sort of Safari down to Grand Forks or Minneapolis about twice a year, to load up on those things that were so much less expensive there. Purchases of clothes, sheets, pillow cases, and tools for the farm were the main things on the shopping list. But I suppose the main reason for the journey was simply a short holiday away from the farm for a few days, and to enjoy the entertainment. Then of course there was the thrill of sneaking stuff past Customs without paying the duty! Then in the summer the roads were filled with Americans coming North to fish, hunt, or buy Canadian bacon!
          While on the North side of the border we felt our school system was superior, and our sense of geography, the United States of America held a certain awe at the power and majesty of the country, and the pride of the people.
          In my opinion, the change occurred at the outset of the Vietnam War, when hundreds of draft dodgers swarmed across the border generally illegally. In a short time the USA seemed to be the sort of place one didn’t want to visit. In 1969 I took up residence in Ontario, across the St Clair river from Port Huron, Michigan. While the booze was cheap and the girls were plentiful, it was a place I didn’t feel quite comfortable.
          It’s too bad that the two of can’t sit down and remeniss, and tell one another stories about airplanes and all sorts of stuff. I suppose I should be thankful that we can communicate on Jo’s blog.

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Rod,

            I think you’re right about when at least the greatest part of the change in attitude began. It was Vietnam heating up that got the attention of the objectors to a just cause.

            The Boy Scouts are reviled for their being a male only organization and for other reasons that if I mention them will probably get me into moderation I expect. AND IT’S ALL FOR THE SAKE OF MINDLESS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Today’s attitudes about things do not teach responsibility, good citizenship or leadership for the most part. Maybe that’s too extreme, certainly some do but it’s harder to find. Emphasis these days is on sports and almost anything else than the Boy Scout’s mission.

            And yes, I’d like to sit down not only with you but some others as well and just throw the bull about whatever comes to mind. But distance prevents that so this is the next best thing. I’ve met many fine people on this blog from all around the world.

            30

        • #
          bobl

          I take your point but the loss of enthusiasm for the moon was only because NASA stopped progressing, they didn’t move to a moon base, they didn’t target mars, they didn’t look to the stars. This is what people need; a common sense of purpose. It’s so important, a renaissance in space exploration could capture the people’s imaginations again I think.

          A Mars colony is in my opinion critical, this earth could be struck by an asteroid pretty much any time, and there might not be much left, at least a mars colony would provide a DNA bank to repopulate the earth after something like that.

          I too share your pain at the progressive weakening of our moral fibre, under the constant onslaught of newly found rights of snowflakes. That toughness that defines a nation in its youth that is slowly being replaced by petals that have no idea that hardship is more than having a broken iPhone screen. That honest realism that is slowly being eroded by drug induced fantasy and progressive snowflake doctrine (witness the passing of permissive drug use policies in many US states) huxleys SOMA of the masses (Brave New World – 1931). I personally like the idea that Men and Women are equal BUT DIFFERENT while all we ever hear is that boys and girls need to be treated the same, some monosex robot. This has been catastrophic for boys in the west who have been forced to become feminised by state policies – witness the rage when Trump acts like a boy in a bus among other boys 20 years ago.

          I too want my country back.

          30

          • #
            Annie

            We Brexiteers feel likewise. It seems we have all been much saddened by the deterioration in the ethos and morals of our respective countries. I hope that the stirrings we are seeing come to fruition.

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Bob,

            OK! I’ll grant you that NASA didn’t go on to a moon base or any other such project. And taking on something that extended what they were already doing would certainly have kept the interest higher. But that happened because the politicians make the decisions that tell NASA what to do. But I will disagree about what we need right now. And we can agree to disagree without any finger pointing, name calling or worse. And that’s the beauty of the forum Joanne Nova provides. We can discuss our personal opinions, explain them and read the opinions of others and maybe you’ll have managed to change my mind at some future point with an argument you made here in the last two days.

            I still do have that teenager’s interest in space flight, just as I still have that itch to serve aboard one of those submarines. So who knows for sure what I’ll think next year of in five years…? But right now we need to get behind fixing what’s broken in America. If we don’t I fear we’ll never recover and get back the country we’re supposed to be.

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Moderators, help. Something went wrong and I could not see the first post at #45.4.1.3.2 and trying to submit it again got me a message that it was a duplicate. So I added a sentence and submitted it and now both versions of the comment are visible. Please delete the first one and leave the second.

              [Saw this comment come up. Fixed it.] AZ

              00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      All climate matters should have been handled by NOAA, that’s their job, NOT NASA, they should remain above the atmosphere except for those on other planets!

      00

  • #
    Ross

    Is this talk of removal of funding why Jill Stein ( USA Green Party candidate) is desperately trying to crowd fund money to pay for a recount in 3 states ?

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    What Obama did to NASA ‘Space Administration’, no the weather has strong parallels in what Labor did to the CSIRO. Neither has any place in the weather.

    Why would the CSIRO employ 350 full time ‘Climate’ scientists and support staff when there is already this number in the Bureau of Meteorology? That is a huge number. What exactly was the reason say $100+million was spent in research into proving, even justifying “Global Warming” alarmism and its nebulous nephew “Climate Change”? Was it simply because the minister had control of the CSIRO? They even had to setup another body, a steering committee to interface between the CSIRO and the BOM?

    Now the CSIRO as supposedly looking for ‘solutions’ to a problem they could not positively identify or separate from natural variation in at least 4,000 many years of scientific study? What ‘solutions’ are they working on now, a better type of windmill? Close the CSIRO. Aimless spending on non problems is not why a billion dollars a year of public money is raised from the working people of Australia. Or are they all at permanent morning tea, a failed scientists retirement home with 14% superannuation?

    50

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      In case you have forgotten the date the Hawke government hijacked the CSIRO, it was December 1986.

      The first proof of their motive was a full front page headline: “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases”. I knew instantly this was a monstrous lie, but so little research had been done that it was impossible to refute it. This lie stood for years, and was taught in our schools and academies. Note where agriculture, including cows, ranks today on the scale of “emissions”.

      Why were “cows” targeted? Because the agricultural sector was the last sector of the Australian economy still dominated by small business free enterprise. Since that time the number of small business capitalists in Australian farming has been halved. Half way home for the Marxists.

      The biggest worry about that is that the National Farmers’ Federation, applying education gained in Whitlam’s academies, has been a key driver of the policies which brought this about. The NFF is an elitist organisation of limited intellectual capacity. They put half their clients out of business, with more following daily, and still claim to have done a good job.

      20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Trump reported that since Bush left the US has closed 70,000 factories. We lost our small factories in the 1970s as Hawke’s ACTU busted any firm that tried to innovate, extorted advance payment of projected benefits from unionised workplaces. This advance payment was projected by the system onto smaller businesses which were not able to stay in business as a result.

        It was particularly galling then to hear Hawke later as Prime Minister telling us that Australia had to become the clever country. Before he took over the ACTU in 1969 Australia was a remarkably clever country.

        20

  • #
    GrandMax

    It’s not good enough for Trump to simply pull the plug on GISS. To do so would reinforce the Left’s message that he is extreme and ignorant. This would be counter-productive. The public should be given examples of data tampering with clear evidence backed up by pertinent statements from reputable scientists. The public should be acquainted with the fact that GISS refused to use NASA’s own satellite data for its base temperatures. This refusal to use the best available technology (NASA’s own) is startling and damning evidence in its own right.

    Our own Q&A should be made to broadcast an unequivocal retraction of its program featuring Brian Cox ridiculing Senator Malcolm Roberts, backed up, as usual, by the ring-master of the Q&A Coliseum and its baying audience. Such a retraction should be given sufficient time on-air to fully refute all Brian Cox’s inane statements. Perhaps Joanne Nova and Tony Heller could assist Malcolm Roberts with large prepared charts.

    71

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Q&BS should be defunded along with the entire ABC(Marxist Conglomerate)!

      Brian Cox is in the employ of the Leftoid BBC!
      He would be obligated to flog BBC CAGW BS agenda or no more documentaries for him.

      There he was holding up a well known fudged graph while ignoring 2 sat data sets.
      And he calls this science, with the wall to wall leftoids(the loaded audience)cheering this pretender!

      A while back on this very same idiot show he was defending the spectacularly wrong climate models.

      He is just another leftoid clown and BBC puppet.

      Why dosen’t Leftoid Pontificator Jones have a one to one on his rigged show Q&BS with say,Lindzen or Ball?

      Or better still,just defund the entire ABC….let its advocates find 1200 million per year for such a bloated biased organisation.

      Instead of the Marxist way….making everybody pay for what only a few kookoos want!

      30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      It may not be enough, but it is a very big step in the right direction.

      10

  • #
    Michael P

    Aside from re-focusing NAsa,Trump needs to put a very definite end to Obana end-run around Congress with Executive Orders. First he needs to cancel all of them. Then he needs to put measures in place to ensure that it can’t happen again,with things such as the REINS act,which stands for Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. In short it would require any Executive order,in excess of a certain amount,to come before Congress to be voted on,before being enacted. More details on here https://cei.org/blog/counteracting-midnight-rush-regulations

    60

  • #
    pat

    o/t but worth a read:

    26 Nov: Economist: Is Australia letting firms pump natural gas too cheaply?
    A gas-extraction tax is bringing in less revenue than expected
    At one point Chevron, the company running Gorgon, promised the government so much revenue that it would be able to lower personal income taxes. As recently as March the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, hailed “the golden age of gas” and forecast that Gorgon alone would add a total of A$440bn to the economy. Yet the Treasury says that revenue from the petroleum resources rent tax (PRRT), through which energy firms pay the federal government for the right to extract oil and gas, is forecast to fall from A$1.2bn in the fiscal year that ended in mid-2015 to A$800m in 2020—even as the volume of exports soars.
    That is down to the remarkably generous design of the tax. Unlike most royalty regimes, it is not levied at a flat rate on the volume of gas extracted. Instead, it is linked to the project’s profits. Companies are allowed to recoup their exploration and construction costs, which tend to be huge for LNG projects, before any tax is payable. These deductions can be carried forward indefinitely, potentially delaying the Treasury’s payday for decades…READ ALL
    http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21710851-gas-extraction-tax-bringing-less-revenue-expected-australia-letting-firms-pump

    30

    • #
      bobl

      The Feds are entitled to nothing as the minerals belong to the States…. Sheeze does noone know the constitution!

      The federal government needs to get serious about challenging the greenies to get in control of the budget. If it were me I’d start threatening the lifeblood of the greens. That is, block this in the senate and we’ll instead defund and reclassify greenpiss, Oxfam, WWF and Planet Ark as a political organisations and businesses to get our funding. Pass that or we’ll have a chat with the Japanese about free for all whaling in Australian territory under a contract to get funding from the Japanese whalers. Pass this other thing or the AG will start asking interesting questions about Union Political donations and Legal people associated with money laundering scams in the 90′s.

      This is how the left approaches it – perhaps they need a taste of their own medicine.

      60

  • #
    pat

    whoa!!! ***”ecologists” hope?

    24 Nov: Reuters: EU requires pension funds to assess climate change risks
    By Francesco Guarascio
    EU pension funds will have to include environmental risks in their investment strategies, under a law passed on Thursday, that ***ecologists hope will encourage money to flow out of fossil fuels and into greener sectors.
    A large majority in the European Parliament backed the law that requires managers of retirement funds to take into account the “environmental, social and governance risks” of their investments.
    The vote confirms a deal already reached with EU governments so its final approval is now a formality…
    Finance ministers have discussed the possibility of carbon stress tests for financial firms.
    Under the new law, the potential negative effects of climate change or political factors on retirement funds will get the same level of attention as liquidity, operational or asset risks.
    “This is a big success for the promotion of investments in sustainable products,” German Greens lawmaker Sven Giegold said, adding that the law “paves the way for the introduction of fossil divestment by European pension funds”…
    The pensions industry holds in Europe assets for a value of about 3 trillion euros ($3.17 trillion) on behalf of around 75 million people.
    Conservation group WWF said: “This vote represents a landmark moment for responsible investment in Europe.”
    “It represents the strongest and clearest requirement on such an issue yet seen in any EU text.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-finance-climatechange-idUSKBN13J1SV

    20

    • #
      Manfred

      This is unadulterated UNEP Divestment strategy, pure top down eco-diktat — Mobilizing financial markets to drive economic decarbonization

      Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary general, told delegates at a climate change summit in Copenhagen that big investors such as insurers and pension funds should cut their investments and focus on renewable energy sources instead.

      The UNEP have been drilling away at this for sometime — Global Divestment Conference in Paris: The UNEP Inquiry Highlights Opportunities for a Sustainable Financial System.

      These kind of edicts are precisely why Brexit gained traction and then won the day. It is well past the time that the Right populist resurgence in Europe rapidly disposes of this UN dogma and those who peddle it.

      40

      • #
        diogenese2

        Another way of putting this is that by raiding pension funds for this profitless investment, then subsidies from the treasury can be cut for capital costs just as they are for operating costs by way of the various renewable obligations and guaranteed prices which fall upon the consumer.
        Thus renewables become “competitive and subsidy free”!

        00

  • #
    pat

    rural folks should love this:

    25 Nov: The West: PM backs plan to charge road users for every kilometre they drive
    by Phoebe Wearne, Canberra
    Road users could be charged for every kilometre they drive within 15 years under a Turnbull Government-backed plan to replace Australia’s “inefficient” fuel tax.
    The Government has commissioned a study into the benefits of cost-reflective road pricing for all vehicles, questioning the fairness of the existing system amid ***growing popularity of electric vehicles.
    But trucks would be hit first, with a heavy vehicle road-charge flagged for within five years…
    “If you’re driving a 10-year-old Commodore, you’re paying through the fuel excise system the equivalent of 4.5¢ a kilometre, if you’re driving a Prius it’s about 1.5¢ a kilometre, if you’re driving a completely electric Tesla you’re not paying anything,” Mr Fletcher said.
    The RAC and other motoring groups have long backed a road-user charge to replace the fuel excise and vehicle registration fees.
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/33317734/turnbull-backs-plan-to-charge-road-users-for-every-km-they-drive/

    Peter Beattie – is it time to resurrect your Qld Smart State slogan? time will tell:

    25 Nov: ABC: Ellie Sibson: Ipswich motorists to be recruited in largest trial of smart cars on Queensland roads
    The State Government has chosen Ipswich, west of Brisbane, as the test site where 500 motorists will be recruited for the project.
    Their cars will be retrofitted with cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS), which provide safety warnings to the driver.
    Main Roads Minister Mark Bailey said the devices would alert motorists to a range of conditions.
    “Let’s say there’s a red light runner coming through from another direction, it may well give you that sort of a warning, or pedestrians coming out in front of you,” he said.
    “These cars will be highly intelligent, receiving and picking up data and giving that to you as a driver, so you’re in control.”…
    The Queensland Government is partnering with German multinational Bosch to test the company’s multi-million-dollar self-driving vehicle, which is the first of its kind to be developed in Australia.
    The Bosch car is designed to navigate roads with or without driver input…
    On road testing begins in 2019.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-24/ipswich-motorists-to-be-recruited-for-smart-car-trial/8056004

    10

  • #

    the engineer had feelings a long time ago…

    You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

    My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

    And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

    I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

    20

  • #
    pat

    anti-democratic forces still conspiring to reverse Brexit:

    24 Nov: UK Express: Katie Mansfield: Furious Leave voters to boycott Virgin as Branson ‘funds Brexit blocking group’
    Angry Leave voters said they would never buy Virgin again after it emerged Sir Richard’s Virgin Group is offering to finance a secret Blairite campaign to keep Britain in the EU.
    A leaked email revealed the founder and president of the Virgin Group has already offered at least £25,000 to the anti-Brexit group but Sir Richard’s team insists no payment has been made.
    The secret bid to block Brexit by Blairite former Cabinet ministers has been met with outrage as a range of major business and communications organisations step forward to back the group, with leading PR firm Freuds advising on the group’s marketing…
    The Brexit-block group has funding or more than £1 million in pledged donations, according to the report, and is backed by Blairite former ministers John Hutton and Douglas Alexander, and former Tory health secretary Stephen Dorrell.
    Former deputy PM Nick Clegg, leading Labour Remain campaigner Chuka Umunna, and celebrities, such as Bob Geldof, are believed been in contact with the group, according to the report…
    A memo written by ex-health secretary Alan Milburn, a key ally of former prime minister Tony Blair, says: “We have been beavering away over the last few months to get a Europe campaign up and running. I’m pleased to say that substantial progress has been made…
    “Virgin … are keen to help. Since we last spoke [they] have offered a further £25k, plus bigger office space, help with legal advice and a possible secondment…
    A Virgin spokesman said: “Since the EU referendum, Virgin has not made any payments to any Brexit campaign or organisation”…”Virgin is interested in engaging with different organisations to understand the impact Brexit will have on the UK.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/736027/richard-branson-brexit-boycott-virgin

    40

  • #
    pat

    anti-democratic forces still conspiring to reverse the US election:

    how very differently ABC would be handling this story, if it were Trump questioning the results! not to mention Stein tweeting prior to the election that Clinton was more dangerous than Trump!

    25 Nov: ABC: Emily Sakzewski: Jill Stein raises $3.5m for recount in US election battleground states
    The campaign, headed by the Green Party’s presidential candidate Jill Stein, aimed to raise enough money for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania…
    Concerns about election voting machines had been raised after an article in New York Magazine reported that a group of computer scientists and election lawyers approached the Hillary Clinton campaign with ***evidence suggesting the election might have been hacked.
    In the article, the group claimed to have ***found data showing the results had been “manipulated or hacked” in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where Mrs Clinton had lost by a narrow margin.
    ***The report quickly gained traction in US media…
    However, statistical analysis website FiveThirtyEight, run by stats guru Nate Silver, claimed to debunk the New York Magazine’s report.
    Silver said his own analysis showed “no apparent correlation between voting method and outcome” and that demographics, not hacking, explained the election results…
    The hacking reports have created widespread concern and enough mistrust in the US voting system that Dr Stein’s campaign was able to raise the necessary funds in such a short timeframe…
    Mr Cobb said unused money raised would go towards “election integrity efforts”.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/jill-stein-reaches-target-to-recount-in-us-election-swing-states/8056140

    as ABC doesn’t link to ***”stats guru” Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight article, here it is:

    ABC, what ***evidence?

    23 Nov: FiveThirtyEight: Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results
    By Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur
    The New York article reports that a group that includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman presented findings last week about Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to top Clinton campaign officials to try to persuade them to call for a recount. Exactly what those findings were isn’t clear. The New York article includes just one example, a finding that Clinton did worse in counties in Wisconsin that used electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots…
    It’s not clear what data the group was using to call for a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania, or if it was looking at data at all: It could have chosen those states because they were the ones besides Wisconsin that Trump won with the smallest margins. ***Bonifaz, Halderman and the Clinton campaign officials mentioned in the article didn’t respond to requests for comment or more detail about the study.
    But in a Medium post on Wednesday, Halderman said the New York article ***“includes some incorrect numbers” and misrepresented his argument for recounts. He laid out an argument based ***not on any specific suspicious vote counts but on evidence that voting machines ***could be hacked, and that using paper ballots as a reference point could help determine if there were hacks…
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

    10

  • #
    pat

    now the interesting stuff, but keep in mind Clinton would have to win all three States in question to overturn Trump.

    ***comment #49 by scooby321 includes the full text of the RedditTheDonald Soros money theory referenced at end of excerpts below, to save u clicking on the other link provided:

    25 Nov: Freerepublic: Tweet Frank Luntz: Jill Stein now wants 6-7 million for a recount she says may not happen
    First Stein wanted one million.
    Then she wanted 2.5 million.
    Then she wanted 4.5 million.
    Now it’s 6-7 million, for a recount her website explicitly states it does not guarantee…

    from comments:
    #19 by Trump20162020; lafroste:
    Check out what Freeper Lafroste has found:
    THREAD: I Stumbled onto Something Very Strange (vanity)…(LINK TO THREAD FOR FULL DETAILS)
    includes:
    I first logged onto JS’s donation website at 3:44 PM EST this afternoon. I finally got my sampling sh%t together by 4:00 PM and took readings every 5 minutes until 4:30. These are the results I got:
    Time, reading ($), delta $, Delta time (min), rate of change ($/min)
    3:44, $3990,481.84, NA, NA
    3:53, 4,012,481.85, $21,634.01, 9 min, $2,403.78
    3:55, 4018,237.85, $6,122.00, 2 min, $3,061.00
    4:00, 4,027,407.69, $9,169.84 , 5 min, $1,833.97
    4:05, $4,036,133.64, 5 min, $8,725.95, $1,745.19
    4:10, $4,044,530.03, 5 min, $8,396.39, $1,679.28
    4:15, $4,052,919.66, 5 min, $8,389.63, $1,677.93
    4:20, $4,058,634.66, 5 min, $5,715.00, $1,143.00
    4:25, $4,065,474.09, 5 min, $6,839.43, $1,367.89
    4:30, $4,073,973.09, 5 min, $8,499.00, $1,699.80 .
    As you can see, the data is remarkably consistent. If this pattern holds, the website should hit its funding goal of $4.5 million about 8:30 PM EST tonight. Also, if you back calculate to the zero dollar point, this funding effort began about 36 hours ago, which if I am not mistaken, is very close to the truth.
    These are NOT spontaneous contributions. This is a BOT programmed to make contributions at a set pace while minutely varying minute to minute rates to obscure. But these guys are not very bright, it seems.
    Whose BOT is it? What account is it donating from? This stinks to high heaven…
    COMMENT: Update: at 6:14 PM I took a quick measurement. Funding continues a pace averaging $1,909/min. I used to own watches that weren’t that accurate…
    COMMENT: And odd amounts, not whole dollars. Almost like the donations were coming in from a different currency, and the amounts reported were the USD equivalents…
    ***COMMENT: Reddit sub the_Donald user claims Soros bot is funding Steins challenge at $160k per hour. https://i.sli.mg/oZ0cE6.png
    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3498154/posts?q=1&;page=1

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    NASA should concentrate on the space elevator, the wags would call it Trump’s Tower.

    http://www.davidreneke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Thoth.jpg

    The carbon nanotube (Japanese concept) is no longer the fancy front runner for the construction.

    00

  • #
    pat

    GIVE THANKS INDEED, even if some of the excuses seem weak or insincere. nonetheless, cannot imagine anyone from theirABC admitting to any failings:

    MULTIPLE AUDIOS: 24 Nov: Breitbart: Matthew Boyle: Happy Thanksgiving: Media Finally Admit Credibility Problem, Face Industry-Wide Trust Crisis
    “I think one of the things that is going to get talked about is this predictive modeling and how helpful it is or not,” Jeremy Peters, a New York Times reporter, told Breitbart News Daily for the Thanksgiving radio special on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 on Thursday morning.
    “Remember, all of these models—New York Times included—had Trump at 80 or 90 percent chance of losing. So what we don’t do a good enough job of is explaining to people exactly what those are. Those models are saying that if the election was held at this moment in time, this person has an 80 percent chance of winning. That’s not how they’re marketed to our readers,” Peters said. “That’s not how readers understand them, however. We don’t do a good enough job of saying that this does not say that Hillary Clinton has a 90 percent chance of winning. How useful those are, if we do really explain to people that, I don’t like predicting things. I don’t know. That’s something that journalistic organizations all across the country have to reassess. And I think that gets into a larger question of ultimately what our jobs are as journalists. Do we try to explain things to readers? Do we try to explain to them, for example, the Trump phenomenon that a lot of us missed, that a lot of people openly scorned and scoffed at and ignored? Do we explain what the roots are of that politically? Or do we just try to give people horse race journalism and just tell them, ‘Okay, here’s who’s going to win, here’s who’s up, here’s who’s down’? There’s a place for both of those types of journalism, but I think we really need to reevaluate the second horse-race aspect of it a lot more closely, given how bad the calls were this time.”…
    LISTEN TO NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER JEREMY PETERS ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY:
    Jonathan Swan, a reporter for the Hill newspaper, told Breitbart News Daily that the inherent flaws in the media industry are “so deep.” ETC…
    Joshua Green, a columnist for Bloomberg Businessweek, told Breitbart News Daily that there are a “number of concurrent crises” going on in the institution of the Fourth Estate…
    Green points to the meeting Trump had with television executives earlier this week, including CNN’s Jeff Zucker—whom Trump dressed down in the meeting—as another example of it. Green said that “all the TV people thought [it was] a ‘bury the hatchet’ reset moment.”
    “Instead, Trump reportedly went after them for all sorts of real and perceived offenses,” Green said. “It left everybody angry and kind of upset. This just isn’t something that we in the press are used to dealing with from any other candidate before this. So we’re all just kind of trying to work and find a way forward.” ETC…

    On Tuesday’s program this week, the Washington Post’s Robert Costa also admitted the media have a problem.
    “There are so many factors,” Costa replied when asked about what the legacy media outlets missed this election cycle. “But I think it starts with, you have to listen to voters, and you have to have an open mind when you listen to voters.” …
    Breitbart News invited Brian Stelter, the host of CNN program Reliable Sources, to discuss the media industry from a CNN perspective. But according to CNN spokeswoman Emily Kuhn, Stelter was unable to come on the program. Stelter has been invited on nearly every week for months and continues to refuse to discuss CNN’s credibility problems or the credibility problems the media as a whole are facing. ETC…PLUS MORE
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/24/happy-thanksgiving-media-admit-credibility-problem/

    10

  • #
  • #
    pat

    WaPo’s admission that media has a problem was definitely insincere … they are still peddling totally FAKE NEWS! incredible:

    25 Nov: WaPo: Craig Timburg: Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
    The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
    Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers…
    There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

    comment at freerepublic: “they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers.” Did they also include some fake news?

    10

  • #
    pat

    is this satire? apparently not. just more Fake News, it seems:

    24 Nov: Newsbusters: P.J. Gladnick: Rolling Stone Reveals How ‘Sex Workers’ Are Opposing Trump
    Rolling Stone has a new article (LINK) about how “sex workers” are supposedly so outraged about the election of Donald Trump that they are now actively working to oppose him. Is that for real? The magazine hasn’t exactly had a very good track record on sex related stories after that discredited article about a certain rape on campus has proven.
    However, even if the article by Mary Emily O’Hara is not true, I have to give her credit for fictitious comedy writing starting with a social worker named Erin who moonlights as an “escort.”…READ ON
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/11/24/rolling-stone-reveals-how-sex-workers-are-opposing-trump

    00

  • #
    pat

    subscription required, but doubt there’s anything more in the piece worth knowing:

    24 Nov: WSJ: Donald Trump’s Environmental Reset
    Republicans look to liberate U.S. energy from destructive green regulations.
    By Kimberley A. Strassel
    Anti-Trump protests continue to swell across the country, but what best sums up the president-elect’s challenge was a Monday night tantrum barely noticed by the press. Climate activists in Washington, D.C., waited until dark, then beamed huge images onto the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency. Their demand? That Donald Trump pick someone other than Myron Ebell to lead the EPA…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-environmental-reset-1480023333

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    When (Kiwi) Pickering ran JPL they used to do useful stuff like send probes to the planets..

    30

  • #
  • #

    If Trump blowtorches the fascist Paris Agreement, I will personally name my first born son Donald, with his middle name being Trump. I might even call my second son Nigel, middle name Farage.

    I do hope that if and when he blowtorches it, that AUSTRALIA does *EXACTLY* as we did with the Kyoto Protocol, by removing ourselves officially from the Agreement … but this of course would require Malcolm “Goldman Sachs” Turnbull to be ousted, and for the next leader (maybe Abbott?) to survive the slings and arrows of the ABC and the entire MSM other than The Australian newspaper maybe.

    Gosh I hate these left-wing anarchists that have deliberately shackled western economies and democracy, by turning the universities into breeding grounds for hyper-emotional, brainless, good for nothing parrots that have never had an original thought pop into their own brain: “Professor Marxist MUST be right! My exam marks depend on it!” … nothing better than repeating and repeating failed ideologies to get into a University faculty these days.

    01