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
  #141  
Old June 17th 19, 10:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:27:05 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
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.



Aaaaak. I linked the Weaver suit. Here's the opinion in that case. https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/bet...%2 002-13.pdf

Nothing shows up in a search of BC cases for Mann v. Ball, or "Timothy Ball" except the Weaver v. Ball case. If Mann's case was dismissed, the order isn't in the BC cases I can access. Whatever the discovery dispute might have been, I wouldn't trust any reporting without seeing the docket.

The bottom line is that the Mann v. Ball case is about a defamatory statement, something to the effect of Mann should be in the state pen instead of Penn State. A dopey statement of opinion. None of these defamation cases are about the legitimacy of global warming theory. It's a huge waste of court time.

-- Jay Beattie.



Ads
  #142  
Old June 17th 19, 10:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 2:11:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
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.



From the Weaver opinion:

First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance
credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore
potentially defamatory.

I'm not calling Ball ludicrous -- the court is. I couldn't care one way or another. I'll let the tin-foil hat crowd go duke it out with the super-computer guys. I don't like stupid lawsuits regardless of who files.

BTW, have you read he cert petition in the National Review case? They don't want the case to proceed for the reason that they would have to prove the truth of their own statements allegedly defaming Mann, among other things. https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-co...t-Petition.pdf They're just making the same arguments as in the other suits -- which is fundamentally correct: expressing an opinion is not defamation. More wasted court time.

-- Jay Beattie.


  #143  
Old June 17th 19, 11:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:52:20 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 2:11:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
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.



From the Weaver opinion:

First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance
credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore
potentially defamatory.

I'm not calling Ball ludicrous -- the court is. I couldn't care one way or another. I'll let the tin-foil hat crowd go duke it out with the super-computer guys. I don't like stupid lawsuits regardless of who files.

BTW, have you read he cert petition in the National Review case? They don't want the case to proceed for the reason that they would have to prove the truth of their own statements allegedly defaming Mann, among other things. https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-co...t-Petition.pdf They're just making the same arguments as in the other suits -- which is fundamentally correct: expressing an opinion is not defamation. More wasted court time.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're preaching to the choir. It's not National Review or Mark Steyn bringing these SLAPP suits, it's the Gobal Warmies fave man, Michael Mann wasting everyone's time as a form of intimidation. Go tell him not to be such a jerk.

BTW, Mann's suit against National Review and Mark Steyn arises from a book review well under 200 words long...

AJ
  #144  
Old June 17th 19, 11:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Protecting yourself

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:16:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:27:05 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
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.



Aaaaak. I linked the Weaver suit. Here's the opinion in that case. https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/bet...%2 002-13.pdf

Nothing shows up in a search of BC cases for Mann v. Ball, or "Timothy Ball" except the Weaver v. Ball case. If Mann's case was dismissed, the order isn't in the BC cases I can access. Whatever the discovery dispute might have been, I wouldn't trust any reporting without seeing the docket.

The bottom line is that the Mann v. Ball case is about a defamatory statement, something to the effect of Mann should be in the state pen instead of Penn State. A dopey statement of opinion. None of these defamation cases are about the legitimacy of global warming theory. It's a huge waste of court time.

-- Jay Beattie.


You should tell Michael Mann to stop wasting court time by bringing these frivolous SLAPP suits, not me.

Andre Jute
  #145  
Old June 18th 19, 12:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:55:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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



His blog also states that "Dr. Spencer's research has been entirely
supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE."

You mean that he takes money from an agency that he resigned for in
horror for falsifying data? That doesn't sound like he is a very
ethical person, does it?

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #146  
Old June 18th 19, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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".


Well, I was trying to save a bit of space but if you are too lazy to
research it yourself, here goes:

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all?
If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration,
(2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were
carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the
satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of
these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that
lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration
(requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted
in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus
weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose
orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day
in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these
changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different
methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the
unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for
reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain
AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift,
which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible,
and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The
correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been
committed to it being empirically\ufffdbased, partly to provide an
alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model
for the diurnal drift adjustment.

The following plot (Fig. 1) shows the variety of satellites making up
the satellite temperature record and their local solar time of
observation as the satellites pass northbound across the Equator
(ascending node).
Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive
carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use
NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts),
NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9
after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).

The explanation goes on... and on... and on.. and as you are obviously
too lazy to search and read the original explanation here is the
address. Read it yourself
https://tinyurl.com/pakunao
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #147  
Old June 18th 19, 12:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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.



Since you never bother to include references to explain, or justify,
your statements I can only assume that from your description that it
is similar to a bank saying that Mr. X robbed us and when the court
asks how much was stolen the bank refuses to tell them.

Which may make sense to you but probably doesn't to anyone reading
your posts.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #148  
Old June 18th 19, 01:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:36:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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.


Given that the U.S. is actually second in list of the 10 most
polluting countries in the world and India didn't even make the top
ten and , if as you say, China uses their energy largely to grow food,
than probably the blame should be placed on the U.S. for CO2
production.

On a per capita basis the U.S. produces 16.5 tonnes per capita of
carbon dioxide emissions annually, while China produces 6.4.

As an aside, The U.S. also leads the world as the largest producer of
municipal waste generated per year with 760 kgs per person.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #149  
Old June 18th 19, 04:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Protecting yourself

On 6/17/2019 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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/


Specific deadlines and the like are notoriously difficult to predict.
That's true of everything. But it certainly doesn't disprove the overall
effect. See https://skepticalscience.com/himalay...rs-growing.htm
or dozens of other sources.

Ever been to Glacier National Park? The photos and views comparing past
and present are pretty startling.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #150  
Old June 18th 19, 05:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:48:58 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


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.


And it would result in the lowest qualty glass crud as there would be all
sorts of glass; clean, coloured/colored, lead contaminated and piles of
plastic. Useful for weak concrete at best.

 




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 09:44 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.