So what? Most of this stuff would have happened anyway. This is the big problem with the current debate, too much of it is based on confirmation bias. The real evidence will come not now, but in the coming centuries.

Government agencies are corporations with sovereign immunity.

Well, Earth is going to do that. So we'll have our test case. But what reason is there to expect that we'll see trouble from such a small rise in temperature?

Last I looked, scientific curiosity hasn't gone anywhere. It's still there, should you decide to reach for it. And add me to the list of people who would like to know, beforehand, what happens when we "heat up the planet".

No, a free market requires regulation, but it can self-regulate as well.

This argument doesn't make sense. Corruption happens because governments and their agents have power that they can readily monetize. So it is better to give them more power that they can monetize further? Or perhaps convert to even nobler coin such as establishing a tyranny?

They are by far the biggest, evil bogeymen out there.

You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.

Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.

Because most of the deaths were Ukrainian as reported by Wikipedia's sources. And Ukrainians would have died elsewhere than just in the Ukraine. A lot of people had been moved around during this period.

Second, I find it interesting that considerable argument has been put forth that there was a weather/climate contribution to the Holodomor, but no one can say what this contribution was. Along this vein, I see no evidence that Romania was suffering from this famine despite being right next to the Ukraine. Instead, their cereal production was higher in 1933 (which would have been the peak of the famine) than in 1932, despite a nasty economic depression.

Those "territorial variations" ended up with Ukraine getting much harder than anywhere else.

This is an interesting rationalization. We have here the bald assertions that Russia had to starve Ukrainians in order to have industrial technologies and that there had to be "destruction of peasantry" resulting in "masses of hungry industrial workers" in order to survive WWII.

The US went through trying times too during that part of history, but they didn't have to starve millions of an uppity ethnic group in order to survive those times.

They're encrypted, TDRSS communications is routed through US military infrastructure, and the US military is the primary user of the system. There might not be much secret about the TDRSS system and protocols, but a lot of stuff associated with it is secret (in the sense of (IMHO legitimately) classified as secret).

No, the US, a racist country, doesn't want its stuff stolen by China, another racist country. Given that the US already works with Russia, Japan, and the ESA countries, which are all racist countries, I'm sure something can be arranged. Probably what would happen is that the relatively secret stuff that the US has on the ISS like the communication system (TRDSS) will either be opened up or a few wheels will be reinvented in order to eliminate a good portion of the stuff that China would want to steal.

Moving on, I think the real problem with this concept is how badly the ISS turned out. It's an awful lot of money spent for little outcome. I suspect that the parties involved would both want a bigger and flashier space station than the ISS, would want the US to pay most of the cost, and there would be the same massive inefficiencies, vast cost overruns, and corruption as were present in ISS

Let's not get hasty here. There's a reason I'm a fan of SpaceX, but not of the ULA. Sure, you might be right. But it also might be a way for the ULA getting to compromise SpaceX's competitiveness, at least in Air Force contracts.