A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Protecting yourself



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old June 17th 19, 05:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:48 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.


As for shipping plastic. Pardon me, but do you know the difference
between selling recyclable plastic and flushing it down the rivers?


Interestingly, the market is mostly global and thus the economics are
that it generally goes by ship in some form of containerisation. I
stand to be educated that it is actually clocking up frequent flyer
miles.


Exactly who do you think you're talking to? Yourself? The high and low
temperatures for a day are recorded at National Weather sites. Don't
tell me they vary from your stupid backyard $3 thermometer.


I can see yor problem right there. Your comparative experience and hence
the sum of your knowledge is limited to those. nuff said.
These sites
can be anywhere from hundreds of yards apart to miles to whatever. 60%
of the world wide temperature sites that have US national approval are
in the USA.


So your critizism of these temperature recordings is that they are only
USA centric?


Using recording mercury thermometers means that you have to have a
weatherman there to reset the limits twice a day. There is no
"variation" because the manned national site is the ONLY measurement.


Yep, bananas and dicks have something in common; some of them have
curves, and the point you were trying to make is?


Ads
  #122  
Old June 17th 19, 07:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:29:54 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:48 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.


As for shipping plastic. Pardon me, but do you know the difference
between selling recyclable plastic and flushing it down the rivers?

Interestingly, the market is mostly global and thus the economics are
that it generally goes by ship in some form of containerisation. I
stand to be educated that it is actually clocking up frequent flyer
miles.


Exactly who do you think you're talking to? Yourself? The high and low
temperatures for a day are recorded at National Weather sites. Don't
tell me they vary from your stupid backyard $3 thermometer.


I can see yor problem right there. Your comparative experience and hence
the sum of your knowledge is limited to those. nuff said.
These sites
can be anywhere from hundreds of yards apart to miles to whatever. 60%
of the world wide temperature sites that have US national approval are
in the USA.


So your critizism of these temperature recordings is that they are only
USA centric?


Using recording mercury thermometers means that you have to have a
weatherman there to reset the limits twice a day. There is no
"variation" because the manned national site is the ONLY measurement.


Yep, bananas and dicks have something in common; some of them have
curves, and the point you were trying to make is?



Actually most of the temperatures being quoted are from satellite
readings. NOT local thermometers.

"global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of
the temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on
different satellites over the years."
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #123  
Old June 17th 19, 02:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Protecting yourself

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 7:08:46 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they
have been doing.


Interesting statement as his blog actually says " Dr. Spencer's work
with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite."

I find it strange that he would make that claim on his blog if he had
resigned.

As for Global Warming, his blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.
--

Cheers,

John B.


I didn't say he had that on hid blog. He said that before Congress. Furthermore he is forced to work within the parameters of the data he can get. That shows it to be warming when it isn't.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...04&FORM=VI RE
  #124  
Old June 17th 19, 03:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus
  #125  
Old June 17th 19, 03:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Protecting yourself

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:31:34 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:29:54 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:48 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.


As for shipping plastic. Pardon me, but do you know the difference
between selling recyclable plastic and flushing it down the rivers?

Interestingly, the market is mostly global and thus the economics are
that it generally goes by ship in some form of containerisation. I
stand to be educated that it is actually clocking up frequent flyer
miles.

Exactly who do you think you're talking to? Yourself? The high and low
temperatures for a day are recorded at National Weather sites. Don't
tell me they vary from your stupid backyard $3 thermometer.


I can see yor problem right there. Your comparative experience and hence
the sum of your knowledge is limited to those. nuff said.
These sites
can be anywhere from hundreds of yards apart to miles to whatever. 60%
of the world wide temperature sites that have US national approval are
in the USA.


So your critizism of these temperature recordings is that they are only
USA centric?


Using recording mercury thermometers means that you have to have a
weatherman there to reset the limits twice a day. There is no
"variation" because the manned national site is the ONLY measurement.


Yep, bananas and dicks have something in common; some of them have
curves, and the point you were trying to make is?



Actually most of the temperatures being quoted are from satellite
readings. NOT local thermometers.

"global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of
the temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on
different satellites over the years."
--

Cheers,

John B.


The temperature datasets going back to 1880 are entirely ground based national weather stations using mercury thermometers that have automatic setting high and low temperature readings. The Satellite data is only available since 1978 and at this point their records are insufficient to reach any conclusions as to any climate variations. 40 years is FAR too short a time to reflect data on climate.

I'm still waiting on some sort of explanations on how actual datasets on temperatures have "variability".

We have these things called "microclimates" such as there are a 20 degree temperature variations around the bay area which comprises a sea shore with very cold sea water (though the temperature changes cyclically depending on El Nino or La Nina events), around the bay with a large body of water that regulates the temperature of most of the major bay area cities and the "inland" which includes places like Santa Rosa, Fairfield, Concord, Livermore and Gilroy. These areas are far enough away from the moderating effects of the bay that they are hotter.

Yet we simply average these temperatures over the area vs the temperature and this is backed up with the satellite data so that we know that we are achieving the proper averaging techniques.

In the bay area we are have good temperature records. LA is another story and they now require the satellite data because the National Weather Stations are often mishandled. They even had a picture of one of the stations directly in the path of the exhaust from a building air conditioner.

Weather predicting is a science and climate "science" is predicting long term variations in the weather conditions. The problem is that a man sitting in an office and using the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycle information is as accurate as any other way of predicting "climate" whereas they have been attempting for three decades to use computer models and these models have been total failures.

If you want to discuss the finer details I can do that. But CO2 has no effect and we have known that since a 1915 paper by the forerunner of NOAA. The ONLY thing that has effects are the applied emissions by the Sun which are controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycles which if memory serves both can in general change the applied radiation by only a half percent - and the density of the atmosphere which is fixed.

The long and the short is that there is no and cannot be any man-made climate change. What's more the climate appears to have passed its peak Interglacial Period temperature and is on the way down. This is also suggested by the Ice Core research by the Russians at Vostok, Antarctica, Siberia, Russia and the American papers from Alaska.
  #126  
Old June 17th 19, 03:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:17:25 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them....)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud. He could not do that in the US since we have Freedom of Speech.

Surprised that the Canadian courts accepted Mann's suit he asked for a delayed case to prepare. Dr. Ball's defense agreed on the grounds that Dr. Mann supply the actual data set that he used to generate the Hockey Stick Curve.. Well, Dr. Mann certainly wasn't about to do that because he had cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) which together would have shown the present climate variations to be of minor consequence and nothing more than normal climactic variability.

Furthermore, Dr. Ball had been supplied with the emails between the Mann team in which they said that since the measured temperatures were not meeting the predictions by the model that they had to change the temperatures and not the model. In an earlier case Dr. Mann had excused himself by saying that he was not part of that email group and threw his team under the bus.

In any case, since Dr. Mann refused to supply his temperature records he lost the case and the legal expenses of the case are said to be $10 Million which is FAR beyond the capacity of Dr. Mann.

I should note that in an earlier lawsuit in the USA Mann also refused to provide his temperature records but the US courts ruled that as private property and that Dr. Mann did not need to actually show his research. Isn't that a kick in the head?

So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely destroyed.

  #127  
Old June 17th 19, 04:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:57:09 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:17:25 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud. He could not do that in the US since we have Freedom of Speech..

Surprised that the Canadian courts accepted Mann's suit he asked for a delayed case to prepare. Dr. Ball's defense agreed on the grounds that Dr. Mann supply the actual data set that he used to generate the Hockey Stick Curve. Well, Dr. Mann certainly wasn't about to do that because he had cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) which together would have shown the present climate variations to be of minor consequence and nothing more than normal climactic variability.

Furthermore, Dr. Ball had been supplied with the emails between the Mann team in which they said that since the measured temperatures were not meeting the predictions by the model that they had to change the temperatures and not the model. In an earlier case Dr. Mann had excused himself by saying that he was not part of that email group and threw his team under the bus.

In any case, since Dr. Mann refused to supply his temperature records he lost the case and the legal expenses of the case are said to be $10 Million which is FAR beyond the capacity of Dr. Mann.

I should note that in an earlier lawsuit in the USA Mann also refused to provide his temperature records but the US courts ruled that as private property and that Dr. Mann did not need to actually show his research. Isn't that a kick in the head?

So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely destroyed.


I keep wondering why you waste your time posting your irrefutable proofs against
climate change in a bicycle technical group.

Shouldn't you be giving speeches at the gatherings where they show photos of
glaciers in 2018 vs. 1930, where the glaciers are so much smaller? Ask them why
they are doctoring the photos!

Shouldn't you be talking to government officials in low-lying cities, who have
been claiming that they are seeing far more floods? Ask them why they're staging
these floods!

Shouldn't you be addressing farmers who claim "last frost" dates are creeping
earlier and earlier? Ask them why they are digging back into old records (some
going back over 100 years) and forging them!

Shouldn't you be talking to the CEOs of shipping companies, plus the military,
who are wasting tons of money planning for new trans-arctic shipping routes?
Tell them they're wasting stockholders money and taxpayer money!

Heck, there are even people on Mt. Everest that are in on the scam. They've got
news articles about the melting glaciers exposing old corpses. It's obviously
done just for drama, to add to the piles of misinformation. Get them to stop!

This climate change conspiracy has infected governments all around the world.
There must be thousands of scientists producing "measurements" and "data" that
purport to support the meme. You're not going to stop this by posting here.
Get out there and share your wisdom! Fox News needs you!

- Frank Krygowski
  #128  
Old June 17th 19, 04:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:57:09 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:17:25 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud. He could not do that in the US since we have Freedom of Speech..


WTF? Sure he could sue in the USA assuming a US court had jurisdiction over the defendant. There is no Constitutional protection for defamation, although the elements and burdens are different when the plaintiff is a public figure.

The problem is that calling someone a fraud, depending on context, is not defamation. It is non-actionable opinion, or the claim fails because plaintiff has not suffered special harm -- or whatever other elements the Canadian courts have added to the common law claim.

The Canadian suit failed because the comments by Mr. Ball were so lunatic that nobody could take them seriously. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...s-to-be-libel/ Mann's serious failing was suing on such a dopey claim. The court did not weigh-in on the existence of global warming.


-- Jay Beattie.





  #129  
Old June 17th 19, 05:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Protecting yourself

Franki-boy sneers and jeers because he has no answers to the facts that, on the available evidence, there is no manmade global warming. But that is par for the course with Franki-boy.

Far more interesting is his first question to Tom:
I keep wondering why you waste your time posting your irrefutable proofs against
climate change in a bicycle technical group.


That's an admission that Franki-boy sees a belief among bicyclists in manmade global warming as a political or religious matter, in either case driven by faith rather than science.

If you agree, Krygowski, answer my enumerated questions that you also quote..

Andre Jute
And they let this ****** Krygowski loose as a teacher of unformed minds!

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:34:50 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:57:09 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:17:25 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.

Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud. He could not do that in the US since we have Freedom of Speech.

Surprised that the Canadian courts accepted Mann's suit he asked for a delayed case to prepare. Dr. Ball's defense agreed on the grounds that Dr. Mann supply the actual data set that he used to generate the Hockey Stick Curve. Well, Dr. Mann certainly wasn't about to do that because he had cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) which together would have shown the present climate variations to be of minor consequence and nothing more than normal climactic variability.

Furthermore, Dr. Ball had been supplied with the emails between the Mann team in which they said that since the measured temperatures were not meeting the predictions by the model that they had to change the temperatures and not the model. In an earlier case Dr. Mann had excused himself by saying that he was not part of that email group and threw his team under the bus..

In any case, since Dr. Mann refused to supply his temperature records he lost the case and the legal expenses of the case are said to be $10 Million which is FAR beyond the capacity of Dr. Mann.

I should note that in an earlier lawsuit in the USA Mann also refused to provide his temperature records but the US courts ruled that as private property and that Dr. Mann did not need to actually show his research. Isn't that a kick in the head?

So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely destroyed.


I keep wondering why you waste your time posting your irrefutable proofs against
climate change in a bicycle technical group.

Shouldn't you be giving speeches at the gatherings where they show photos of
glaciers in 2018 vs. 1930, where the glaciers are so much smaller? Ask them why
they are doctoring the photos!

Shouldn't you be talking to government officials in low-lying cities, who have
been claiming that they are seeing far more floods? Ask them why they're staging
these floods!

Shouldn't you be addressing farmers who claim "last frost" dates are creeping
earlier and earlier? Ask them why they are digging back into old records (some
going back over 100 years) and forging them!

Shouldn't you be talking to the CEOs of shipping companies, plus the military,
who are wasting tons of money planning for new trans-arctic shipping routes?
Tell them they're wasting stockholders money and taxpayer money!

Heck, there are even people on Mt. Everest that are in on the scam. They've got
news articles about the melting glaciers exposing old corpses. It's obviously
done just for drama, to add to the piles of misinformation. Get them to stop!

This climate change conspiracy has infected governments all around the world.
There must be thousands of scientists producing "measurements" and "data" that
purport to support the meme. You're not going to stop this by posting here.
Get out there and share your wisdom! Fox News needs you!

- Frank Krygowski

  #130  
Old June 17th 19, 05:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 5:03:08 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
Franki-boy sneers and jeers because he has no answers to the facts that, on the available evidence, there is no manmade global warming. But that is par for the course with Franki-boy.

Far more interesting is his first question to Tom:
I keep wondering why you waste your time posting your irrefutable proofs against
climate change in a bicycle technical group.


That's an admission that Franki-boy sees a belief among bicyclists in manmade global warming as a political or religious matter, in either case driven by faith rather than science.

If you agree, Krygowski, answer my enumerated questions that you also quote.

Andre Jute
And they let this ****** Krygowski loose as a teacher of unformed minds!


On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:34:50 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:57:09 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:17:25 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.

Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland.

The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.
2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.
3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural.
4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?
5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...)
6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts.

Andre Jute
Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus

Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud. He could not do that in the US since we have Freedom of Speech.

Surprised that the Canadian courts accepted Mann's suit he asked for a delayed case to prepare. Dr. Ball's defense agreed on the grounds that Dr.. Mann supply the actual data set that he used to generate the Hockey Stick Curve. Well, Dr. Mann certainly wasn't about to do that because he had cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) which together would have shown the present climate variations to be of minor consequence and nothing more than normal climactic variability.

Furthermore, Dr. Ball had been supplied with the emails between the Mann team in which they said that since the measured temperatures were not meeting the predictions by the model that they had to change the temperatures and not the model. In an earlier case Dr. Mann had excused himself by saying that he was not part of that email group and threw his team under the bus.

In any case, since Dr. Mann refused to supply his temperature records he lost the case and the legal expenses of the case are said to be $10 Million which is FAR beyond the capacity of Dr. Mann.

I should note that in an earlier lawsuit in the USA Mann also refused to provide his temperature records but the US courts ruled that as private property and that Dr. Mann did not need to actually show his research. Isn't that a kick in the head?

So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely destroyed.


I keep wondering why you waste your time posting your irrefutable proofs against
climate change in a bicycle technical group.

Shouldn't you be giving speeches at the gatherings where they show photos of
glaciers in 2018 vs. 1930, where the glaciers are so much smaller? Ask them why
they are doctoring the photos!

Shouldn't you be talking to government officials in low-lying cities, who have
been claiming that they are seeing far more floods? Ask them why they're staging
these floods!

Shouldn't you be addressing farmers who claim "last frost" dates are creeping
earlier and earlier? Ask them why they are digging back into old records (some
going back over 100 years) and forging them!

Shouldn't you be talking to the CEOs of shipping companies, plus the military,
who are wasting tons of money planning for new trans-arctic shipping routes?
Tell them they're wasting stockholders money and taxpayer money!

Heck, there are even people on Mt. Everest that are in on the scam. They've got
news articles about the melting glaciers exposing old corpses. It's obviously
done just for drama, to add to the piles of misinformation. Get them to stop!

This climate change conspiracy has infected governments all around the world.
There must be thousands of scientists producing "measurements" and "data" that
purport to support the meme. You're not going to stop this by posting here.
Get out there and share your wisdom! Fox News needs you!

- Frank Krygowski


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Protecting the head ... Nick Kew UK 24 December 30th 06 11:19 AM
Protecting my shins pkplonker Unicycling 8 November 19th 06 11:02 AM
Protecting your saddle? firisfirefly Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:43 AM
Protecting your saddle? mornish Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:40 AM
Protecting your saddle? Jerrick Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.