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
  #131  
Old June 17th 19, 05:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,132
Default Protecting yourself

Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
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


Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
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.


Jay replies:
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.


This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:41:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
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.

Ads
  #132  
Old June 17th 19, 06:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,982
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
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


Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
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.


Jay replies:
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.


This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes



Hardly. https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...take-seriously The prior link talked about the US claim in the last paragraph. This is the Canadian suit. All these claims against climate deniers are dismissed for the same reason -- they're too stupid to take seriously. Show me one where they get to the merits of the science.

You generally can't defame someone with lunatic ranting, which is a good thing for this NG.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #133  
Old June 17th 19, 06:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,432
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/15/2019 1:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:58:26 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11:40:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:36 AM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:27:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:37:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But, said my friend, money made by recycling was not taxed.
(Californians may want to chime in on whether that was true - for me,
it's just hearsay.) So the guy spent all his time bicycling around,
collecting roadside aluminum cans to supplement his income.

I don't know, and could not find anything definitive with Google.
However, the continuing decline in the number of recycling centers in
California seems to indicate that recycling is NOT a thriving business.

It all depends on what industry will pay for the collected goods./rubbish.

In my youth, t was rofitble for various community groups to hold paper
drives, bottle recycling, etc. Now it isn't worth the effort. it costs
far more in fuel then you'll ever get for the product.

The major changes of the massive production of raw materias like
newsprint, lastic nurdles,etc couple with rock bottom international
shipping prices.

I've wondered about the overall energy balance of recycling efforts. On
one hand, recycling aluminum uses far less energy (and must certainly
cost less) than refining new aluminum from ore.

At the other extreme, driving your SUV five miles to drop a PET bottle
in a bin is probably a net loss. Most overall recycling processes must
fall between those extremes, but I wonder where the break even point is.

BTW, thanks for the new vocabulary word. I used to be an engineer in a
plastic processing factory, but I never heard the word "nurdle." We
called them pellets.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your household garbage?


Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the
stuff we recycle has little monetary value.

My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel
and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are
low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss.

I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by
dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main
township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that
there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped.

Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing
machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin
film.


Up here our plastic shopping bags go into the Paper Recycling bins.


Exactly the problem. That mix goes through a hand-sort, as
does my local recycling facility which takes cardboard,
paper, aluminum and plastic into one stream for expensive
hand-sort. Electronics is it's own category as is glass.

Glass BTW is recycled efficiently compared to most material.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #134  
Old June 17th 19, 06:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:41:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.


Thanks for the legal explanation but that isn't the case I was talking about specifically: http://principia-scientific.org/brea...ey-stick-mann/

I don't have access to the court findings but many sites have followed almost the same story as that above.

But we actually DO have Dr. Mann's hokey stick curve with dates on it and we can plainly see no Medieval Warm Period nor Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) which would dwarf his hockey stick and make his claims ludicrous.

Here is the present NASA claim of global warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...re_Anomaly.svg

Mow looking at that curve you will note that the majority of "warming" occurs from 1980 onwards. Well, that is when we have satellite data that says an entirely different story: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...ay_2019_v6.jpg

It is also very important to know that the bulk of that "warming" shown from the satellites is in the Arctic and Antarctic. And this is a change from -40 degrees C to -38 degrees C - in other words, this "warming" has absolutely no effect on the ice sheets of the area in which this "warming" is reported. The ice sheets are not in the least effected by temperatures of "cold enough to freeze your eyeballs in your head" to "freeze your toes solid so that they fall off".

The people that started this entire thing were the environmentalist movement and although the top levels didn't mention it in public they would often speak of it in their meetings - there are too many humans on this planet and we have to come up with a method of reducing that population. The limiting of energy by proclaiming CO2 a "pollutant" was the plan. Do you realize what would happen in China or India if you cut down on energy use the majority of which is used to grow food and heat structures? This is mass murder on a global scale and this is the clear headed plan of the environmentalist leadership.
  #135  
Old June 17th 19, 06:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
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


Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
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.


Jay replies:
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.


This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:41:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
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.


I think that you're getting too upset with Jay. I don't think that Jay cares one way or the other about the theory of AGW and is only citing the most easily found cases which turn out not to be the ones we're talking about.
  #136  
Old June 17th 19, 06:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,432
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), 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.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their
worthless computer models.


You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes.


Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are
rising.

But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies
https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html
https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/



What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play
along with someone's pet theory:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...ction-1688833/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #137  
Old June 17th 19, 06:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/15/2019 1:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:58:26 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11:40:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:36 AM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:27:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:37:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But, said my friend, money made by recycling was not taxed.
(Californians may want to chime in on whether that was true - for me,
it's just hearsay.) So the guy spent all his time bicycling around,
collecting roadside aluminum cans to supplement his income.

I don't know, and could not find anything definitive with Google.
However, the continuing decline in the number of recycling centers in
California seems to indicate that recycling is NOT a thriving business.

It all depends on what industry will pay for the collected goods./rubbish.

In my youth, t was rofitble for various community groups to hold paper
drives, bottle recycling, etc. Now it isn't worth the effort. it costs
far more in fuel then you'll ever get for the product.

The major changes of the massive production of raw materias like
newsprint, lastic nurdles,etc couple with rock bottom international
shipping prices.

I've wondered about the overall energy balance of recycling efforts. On
one hand, recycling aluminum uses far less energy (and must certainly
cost less) than refining new aluminum from ore.

At the other extreme, driving your SUV five miles to drop a PET bottle
in a bin is probably a net loss. Most overall recycling processes must
fall between those extremes, but I wonder where the break even point is.

BTW, thanks for the new vocabulary word. I used to be an engineer in a
plastic processing factory, but I never heard the word "nurdle." We
called them pellets.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your household garbage?

Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the
stuff we recycle has little monetary value.

My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel
and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are
low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss.

I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by
dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main
township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that
there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped.

Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing
machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin
film.


Up here our plastic shopping bags go into the Paper Recycling bins.


Exactly the problem. That mix goes through a hand-sort, as
does my local recycling facility which takes cardboard,
paper, aluminum and plastic into one stream for expensive
hand-sort. Electronics is it's own category as is glass.

Glass BTW is recycled efficiently compared to most material.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Serious, serious problem in California is that in among all of this trash that is being hand sorted is hypodermic needles used by drug addicts and this is a major source of HIV. All of the hand sorters have to use special gloves which have more or less puncture proof surfaces.

Since the majority of these sorters are illegal aliens with little education they do not understand the extreme danger this presents and often will try sorting without the gloves on. So they have to have a continuous supervision by supervisors walking up and down the line watching.

Here I believe that the recyclables go through a crusher so that the glass is fractured and falls through the bottom of the screen-like conveyer belt from which the paper is sorted from the plastic. Among these items are the needles and other disease carrying waste. This sorting is extremely difficult to automate in order to reduce the cost of recycling.

  #138  
Old June 17th 19, 07:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:04:20 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
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


Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann.. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
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.


Jay replies:
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.


This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes



Hardly. https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...take-seriously The prior link talked about the US claim in the last paragraph. This is the Canadian suit. All these claims against climate deniers are dismissed for the same reason -- they're too stupid to take seriously. Show me one where they get to the merits of the science.

You generally can't defame someone with lunatic ranting, which is a good thing for this NG.

-- Jay Beattie.


I can tell you that the claim was not creditable because in that claim Dr. Ball stated that the temperature data had been counterfeited and that he required Dr. Mann's temperature data to so prove it.

Dr. Mann refused to turn these records over for the reason I stated - that those temperature records were missing two of the most dramatic temperature events since the time of Christ and they were plainly NOT in Dr. Mann's chart of the "hickey stick".

So I'm not sure what you think that you are proving by quoting the finding and not the reasoning for that finding but what you quote and the reality are quite different.
  #139  
Old June 17th 19, 08:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,294
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:34:50 AM UTC-4, 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


Probably the same reason people reply to him - to be heard/read.

Cheers
  #140  
Old June 17th 19, 10:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,132
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:04:20 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
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


Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann.. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
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.


Jay replies:
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.


This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes



Hardly. https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...take-seriously The prior link talked about the US claim in the last paragraph. This is the Canadian suit.


Stop blowing smoke, Jay. Your link leads not to a case of Mann v Ball, as you promised us, but of Weaver v Ball. You hit Google, read the first par of a random link, and tried to impose the misinformation you got there on Tom with a sneer, starting "WTF?" When this was pointed out to you, you repeated the offence, immediately above. We could equally ask you, WTF, Jay?

All these claims against climate deniers are dismissed for the same reason -- they're too stupid to take seriously.


Oh yes? Show us another one. You should also ask for your law-school tuition back, pal. That Mann v National Review and Mark Steyn case, far from being "stupid", will end up in the Supreme Court because Mann is using the courts to chill free speech, and he's picked on a hard case in Stein, who was responsible for the horrid speech-suppression Section 13 being retracted in Canada after no fewer than three "hate-speech tribunals" were terminally burnt trying to prosecute him. Steyn, no slouch and no stranger to attempted intimidation by charges of committing libel on other scumbags beside Mann, has spent the time caused by delays in the DC courts to write a book in which a 100 or so of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world speak about Mann: "A Disgrace To The Profession" The World's Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science Volume I. Get it from http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html or look up the Amazon link for yourself. Definitely a good read; I can't wait for the second volume. It's a pity that Mann's attorneys are smarter and more cautious than he is, because the book is a libel-trap (or troll, as Rideabot would have it): as soon as Mann sues, Steyn calls all these eminent scientists as witnesses, and behind the protection of the court they will absolutely destroy the pompous little man's claims.

Show me one where they get to the merits of the science.


See above. It also appears that Mann is just smart enough not to sue the two Canadians who did the statistics that exposed him as a fraud, McIntyre and McKitrick, whose work comes with the stamp of approval of the NAS and the world's leading statisticians in sworn testimony before the United States Senate.

You generally can't defame someone with lunatic ranting, which is a good thing for this NG.


If you have a point of hard information to make about the global warming delusion, lay it on the table, sport. Whining about "lunatic ranting" will get you nowhere; we've heard it all before and it didn't impress us the umpteen times we heard it before. It's just more sour smoke from people who don't have a foot to stand on.

-- Jay Beattie.


Andre Jute
Just to be clear, while the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age stand, the can be no proof of manmade global warming, which is why the global warming faithful sneer and jeer rather than making arguments with hard facts.
 




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 10:19 AM
Protecting my shins pkplonker Unicycling 8 November 19th 06 10:02 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 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.