On 25 Mar 2024 at 04:12:33 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:07:07 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) supportthe anthropogenic
>> climate change hypothesis.
>
> Science has never been about votes.
>
> What matters is the evidence.
>

Of course.

> The ONLY available evidence is that the atmospheric
> CO2 level has certainly increased dramatically

That's my understanding. Doom's material is an attempt at refuting that fact.

> but it
> has been much higher before and that did not see
> thermal runaway of the planet and its not
> even clear it dropped back from those
> much higher levels in the past.
>

Several other variables at at work now, though.

Although, yes, it's my understanding that CO2 is generally given as the main
problem.

> And it isnt even clear that the increase
> in measured temperatures of a couple
> of degrees at most is even a bad thing.
>
> Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over, but even that
> soggy little frigid island continues to do fine anyway.
>
> And its very far from clear that it is actually possible
> to do anything about the increase in atmospheric
> CO2 levels without scrapping all the use of fossil
> fuel for transport and energy without changing
> everything to nukes and going that route would
> have FAR more dramatic an effect on lifestyles than
> a couple of degrees of temperature rise has had.
>

A problem has been the mention of tipping points - even to the point of
stating 'scientific' dates if we continued as we did (and we did). ISTR Al
Gore was doing this 20 years back when he got his Nobel prize. And of course
they never came to pass.

> And it wasnt that long ago that the worst of the
> hysterics were hyperventilation about a significant
> drop in temperatures, which turned out to be the
> opposite of what actually happened.
>

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

>On 24 Mar 2024 at 20:45:30 GMT, Custos Custodum wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:05:49 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 07:14:39 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23 Mar 2024 at 18:48:07 GMT, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:30:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2024 at 00:58:21 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Awareness of the Climate Change scam continues to spread - at an
>>>>>>>> ever-increasing rate. As more and more people reject this preposterous
>>>>>>>> notion, only the most die-hard Marxists will stick with it - and be
>>>>>>>> shown up for what they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/e9wkbz8x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> evidence is overrated, go with your gut
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with *proper* evidence. But what we're being presented
>>>>>> with is garbage. My gut told me that a fractional increase in Carbon
>>>>>> Dioxide (which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere!) would not bring on
>>>>>> "Global Boiling" as they're calling it.
>>>>
>>>> A dose of cyanide 0.0005% of your body weight will kill you. Does that help
>>>> you understand?
>>>>
>>>>>> My *proper research* with
>>>>>> physical textbooks confirmed what my gut told me. It's a con job.
>>>>
>>>> Name one of your 'textbooks'.
>>>
>>> Always happy to free someone from their tortured ignorance:
>>>
>>> https://disk.yandex.com/d/k56-8qQF2LM31g
>>>
>
>Good grief. A textbook written in the past 30 years?
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> You are an imbecile,
>>>>
>>>> The evidence seems to be pointing that way.
>>>
>>> You're clearly a die-hard Marxist. Did you not watch the film? Do you
>>> think you know better than the Nobel laureate and various eminent
>>> alumni interviewed therein?
>
>Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the anthropogenic
>climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one, and their related
>research and published work I take it?

Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
bread's buttered, these "scientists."

>
>>
>> The problem with "Argumentum ad auctoritatem" (appeal to authority) is
>> that you can always find an "authority" to support just about any
>> whacko viewpoit you choose. I guess we are all guilty of it on
>> occasion.
>
>Yep.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:52:12 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2024 at 04:12:33 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:07:07 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) supportthe anthropogenic
>>> climate change hypothesis.
>>
>> Science has never been about votes.
>>
>> What matters is the evidence.
>>
>
>Of course.
>
>> The ONLY available evidence is that the atmospheric
>> CO2 level has certainly increased dramatically
>
>That's my understanding. Doom's material is an attempt at refuting that fact.
>
>> but it
>> has been much higher before and that did not see
>> thermal runaway of the planet and its not
>> even clear it dropped back from those
>> much higher levels in the past.
>>
>
>Several other variables at at work now, though.
>
>Although, yes, it's my understanding that CO2 is generally given as the main
>problem.
>
>> And it isnt even clear that the increase
>> in measured temperatures of a couple
>> of degrees at most is even a bad thing.
>>
>> Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over, but even that
>> soggy little frigid island continues to do fine anyway.
>>
>> And its very far from clear that it is actually possible
>> to do anything about the increase in atmospheric
>> CO2 levels without scrapping all the use of fossil
>> fuel for transport and energy without changing
>> everything to nukes and going that route would
>> have FAR more dramatic an effect on lifestyles than
>> a couple of degrees of temperature rise has had.
>>
>
>A problem has been the mention of tipping points - even to the point of
>stating 'scientific' dates if we continued as we did (and we did). ISTR Al
>Gore was doing this 20 years back when he got his Nobel prize. And of course
>they never came to pass.
>
>> And it wasnt that long ago that the worst of the
>> hysterics were hyperventilation about a significant
>> drop in temperatures, which turned out to be the
>> opposite of what actually happened.
>>

Al Gore's now ridiculed 'hockey stick' graph - an excellent case in
point.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:24:22 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:52:12 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Mar 2024 at 04:12:33 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:07:07 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) supportthe
> >>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
> >>
> >> Science has never been about votes.
> >>
> >> What matters is the evidence.
> >>
> >
> >Of course.
> >
> >> The ONLY available evidence is that the atmospheric
> >> CO2 level has certainly increased dramatically
> >
> >That's my understanding. Doom's material is an attempt at refuting
> >that fact.
> >
> >> but it
> >> has been much higher before and that did not see
> >> thermal runaway of the planet and its not
> >> even clear it dropped back from those
> >> much higher levels in the past.
> >>
> >
> >Several other variables at at work now, though.
> >
> >Although, yes, it's my understanding that CO2 is generally given as
> >the main problem.
> >
> >> And it isnt even clear that the increase
> >> in measured temperatures of a couple
> >> of degrees at most is even a bad thing.
> >>
> >> Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over, but even that
> >> soggy little frigid island continues to do fine anyway.
> >>
> >> And its very far from clear that it is actually possible
> >> to do anything about the increase in atmospheric
> >> CO2 levels without scrapping all the use of fossil
> >> fuel for transport and energy without changing
> >> everything to nukes and going that route would
> >> have FAR more dramatic an effect on lifestyles than
> >> a couple of degrees of temperature rise has had.
> >>
> >
> >A problem has been the mention of tipping points - even to the point
> >of stating 'scientific' dates if we continued as we did (and we
> >did). ISTR Al Gore was doing this 20 years back when he got his
> >Nobel prize. And of course they never came to pass.
> >
> >> And it wasnt that long ago that the worst of the
> >> hysterics were hyperventilation about a significant
> >> drop in temperatures, which turned out to be the
> >> opposite of what actually happened.
> >>
>
> Al Gore's now ridiculed 'hockey stick' graph - an excellent case in
> point.

What nobody seems to mention is that the 'hockey stick' was no more nor
less than the graphical output of the climate model being used at the
time. Discrediting the hockey stick was therefore discrediting the
whole climate model.

--
Joe

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>

> >
> >Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
> >anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one,
> >and their related research and published work I take it?
>
> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>

It's a bit more than that, actually.

" In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per
cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and
dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask
that question, so he was basically making it up."

"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published
scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to
poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most
papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per
cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to
global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is
unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique
key elements of the IPCC position."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

--
Joe

On 25 Mar 2024 at 11:01:50 GMT, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
>>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one,
>>> and their related research and published work I take it?
>>
>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>
> It's a bit more than that, actually.
>
> " In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per
> cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and
> dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask
> that question, so he was basically making it up."
>
> "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published
> scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to
> poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most
> papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per
> cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to
> global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is
> unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique
> key elements of the IPCC position."
>
> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

What you are basically saying here, is that at best O'Bama can't do sums.

--
Britain sitting behind the protectionist wall of the Customs Union is doing absolutely nothing for the oppressed coffee bean growers of the developing world. How ironic then that the cappuccino-swilling hordes of Hove voted in large numbers to keep some of the world's poorest people and traders locked out of our markets.

Tom Bewick - Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove

On 25 Mar 2024 at 10:22:23 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the anthropogenic
>> climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one, and their related
>> research and published work I take it?
>
> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
> bread's buttered, these "scientists."

Most don't rely on funding other than from their employer - they're salaried
staff with no financial incentives beyond promotion. And many that I know/knew
stayed at their grade because promotion would take them on to a management
spine, with all that involves.

I do accept some will be pressurised into publishing, especially if they're
not tenured, or have a contract that dissociated publication with employment
(my university had that clause for professors). But really - would you publish
and research in direct opposition to your training and beliefs, *and* endorse
the research of others (through peer review) for decades, and then die?

It's not even that well paid any more, unless they're linked to oil etc.

And people don't spend about 10 years getting educated to 'butter bread'.
These are passionate, very well educated and trained, and motivated. Well,
most of them anyway.

And is the fossil fuel industry, and its consultants, lobbyists, and
hangers-on unbiased? Of course not.

I know who I'd rather trust.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 25 Mar 2024 at 11:01:50 GMT, Joe wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
>>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one,
>>> and their related research and published work I take it?
>>
>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>>
>
> It's a bit more than that, actually.
>
> " In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per
> cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and
> dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask
> that question, so he was basically making it up."
>
> "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published
> scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to
> poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most
> papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per
> cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to
> global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is
> unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique
> key elements of the IPCC position."
>
> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

Or you could read a recent study by people who know what they're talking
about, using proper methods:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2024 at 11:01:50 GMT, Joe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
>>>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one,
>>>> and their related research and published work I take it?
>>>
>>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>>> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>>> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>>> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>>> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>>> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>>>
>>
>> It's a bit more than that, actually.
>>
>> " In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per
>> cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and
>> dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask
>> that question, so he was basically making it up."
>>
>> "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published
>> scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to
>> poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most
>> papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per
>> cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to
>> global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is
>> unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique
>> key elements of the IPCC position."
>>
>> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

> Or you could read a recent study by people who know what they're talking
> about, using proper methods:

> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

Is it as easy to get a ‘sceptical’ paper published as a ‘believer’ one? If
that isn’t so, then all this paper reports is based on a flawed data set.

This might be of interest:

BBC's six-year cover-up of secret 'green propaganda' training for top
executives

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
23:52, 11 Jan 2014 , updated 23:52, 11 Jan 2014

Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top executives

Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace

Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a 'broad range of output'

Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it secret

<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html#ixzz2qBlfEG9a>

--
Spike

On 25/03/2024 08:52, RJH wrote:
> Several other variables at at work now, though.
>
> Although, yes, it's my understanding that CO2 is generally given as the main
> problem.
>
>> And it isnt even clear that the increase
>> in measured temperatures of a couple
>> of degrees at most is even a bad thing.
>>
>> Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over, but even that
>> soggy little frigid island continues to do fine anyway.
>>
>> And its very far from clear that it is actually possible
>> to do anything about the increase in atmospheric
>> CO2 levels without scrapping all the use of fossil
>> fuel for transport and energy without changing
>> everything to nukes and going that route would
>> have FAR more dramatic an effect on lifestyles than
>> a couple of degrees of temperature rise has had.
>>
> A problem has been the mention of tipping points - even to the point of
> stating 'scientific' dates if we continued as we did (and we did). ISTR Al
> Gore was doing this 20 years back when he got his Nobel prize. And of course
> they never came to pass

And this is where the scientific narrative forks into a
poiitical/commercial one.

Is CO2 increasing by man made or other means?
Yes.

Does CO2 have an effect on climate?
What doesn't ?

Could it be extremely large?
No idea. *Could* be.

And here is the fork

Science :
======
Is there any evidence that it will be either deleterious , catastrophic,
or reversible?
No, not really.

Alarmism:
======
So you cant say that it *wont* be deleterious , catastrophic, or
reversible?
No. No one can.

So we ought to do everything to stop it on the faint chance that it
might be?
No. That's false logic.

But people are concerned about it, so we have to pretend we are doing
something about it.
That's not science, that's politics.

And we night as well make some money while we are at it, might we not?
That's being a cynical cunt.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 25/03/2024 11:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> What you are basically saying here, is that at best O'Bama can't do sums.

The only sums I have ever known a lawyer do are in terms of billable
hours, and they lie about those, too.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 25/03/2024 16:26, Spike wrote:
> Is it as easy to get a ‘sceptical’ paper published as a ‘believer’ one? If
> that isn’t so, then all this paper reports is based on a flawed data set.

And most [papers are simply 'if climate change.,...then polar
bears'...type of studies. Like the IPCC their mandate is not to question
climate change but to document its possible effects.

Compare David Bellamy (skeptic) and David Attenborough(in it for the
money). One is a naturalist, the other is a luvvie. One was fired from
the BBC, the other gets paid a mint

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote

>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support
>>> the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

>> Science has never been about votes.

>> What matters is the evidence.

> Of course.

>> The ONLY available evidence is that the atmospheric
>> CO2 level has certainly increased dramatically

> That's my understanding.

> Doom's material is an attempt at refuting that fact.

That fool has always been completely irrelevant.

>> but it has been much higher before and thatdid not see thermal
>> runaway of the planetand its not even clear why it dropped backfrom
>> those much higher levels in the past.

> Several other variables at at work now, though.

Nope, just the combustion of fossil fuels
and no evidence of thermal runaway.

> Although, yes, it's my understanding that CO2is generally given as the
> main problem.

Given is irrelevant, what matters is the evidence.

>> And it isnt even clear that the increase
>> in measured temperatures of a couple
>> of degrees at most is even a bad thing.

>> Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over, but even that
>> soggy little frigid island continues to do fine anyway.

>> And its very far from clear that it is actually possible
>> to do anything about the increase in atmospheric
>> CO2 levels without scrapping all the use of fossil
>> fuel for transport and energy without changing
>> everything to nukes and going that route would
>> have FAR more dramatic an effect on lifestyles than
>> a couple of degrees of temperature rise has had.

> A problem has been the mention of tipping points -

No evidence of any tipping point given that atmospheric
CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past.

> even to the point of stating 'scientific' dates

Nothing scientific about them.

> if we continued as we did (and we did).

And didnt see any tipping point.

> ISTR Al Gore was doing this 20 years back when he gothis Nobel prize.
> And of course they never came to pass.

Yep, that shit was straight from his arse.

You can tell from the smell.

And Gore has no scientific qualifications what so ever.

>> And it wasnt that long ago that the worst of the
>> hysterics were hyperventilation about a significant
>> drop in temperatures, which turned out to be the
>> opposite of what actually happened.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 21:48:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:02:52 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
><pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:30:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:48:07 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>>><pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:30:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 23 Mar 2024 at 00:58:21 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Awareness of the Climate Change scam continues to spread - at an
>>>>>>> ever-increasing rate. As more and more people reject this preposterous
>>>>>>> notion, only the most die-hard Marxists will stick with it - and be
>>>>>>> shown up for what they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/e9wkbz8x
>>>>>>
>>>>>>evidence is overrated, go with your gut
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing wrong with *proper* evidence. But what we're being presented
>>>>>with is garbage. My gut told me that a fractional increase in Carbon
>>>>>Dioxide (which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere!) would not bring on
>>>>>"Global Boiling" as they're calling it. My *proper research* with
>>>>>physical textbooks confirmed what my gut told me. It's a con job.
>>>>You are an imbecile,
>>>
>>>I'll wager you're a foreigner of some description as well as a troll.
>>
>>You don't reside or pay taxes in the UK, so that makes you the
>>foreigner.
>
>You clearly have a very different concept of nationality from the
>typical rational person's.

Foreigners neither reside nor pay taxes in the UK. That's you. You
clearly have a problem with comprehension.

>
>>I sometimes wonder why it is that you gammon right whingers are so
>>willing to embrace any wacko conspiracy theory that floats by. Is it
>>that you think you're cleverer than everyone else because you've
>>discovered some "information" that the "deep state" is keeping form us
>>all, or is it that you're just plain stupid?
>
>The former.

The two states are not mutually exclusive. You are both a gullible
conspiracy theorist and congenitally stupid.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 24 Mar 2024 at 20:45:30 GMT, Custos Custodum wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:05:49 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 07:14:39 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Mar 2024 at 18:48:07 GMT, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:30:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2024 at 00:58:21 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Awareness of the Climate Change scam continues to spread - at an
>>>>>>>>> ever-increasing rate. As more and more people reject this preposterous
>>>>>>>>> notion, only the most die-hard Marxists will stick with it - and be
>>>>>>>>> shown up for what they are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/e9wkbz8x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> evidence is overrated, go with your gut
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with *proper* evidence. But what we're being presented
>>>>>>> with is garbage. My gut told me that a fractional increase in Carbon
>>>>>>> Dioxide (which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere!) would not bring on
>>>>>>> "Global Boiling" as they're calling it.
>>>>>
>>>>> A dose of cyanide 0.0005% of your body weight will kill you. Does that help
>>>>> you understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My *proper research* with
>>>>>>> physical textbooks confirmed what my gut told me. It's a con job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name one of your 'textbooks'.
>>>>
>>>> Always happy to free someone from their tortured ignorance:
>>>>
>>>> https://disk.yandex.com/d/k56-8qQF2LM31g
>>>>
>>
>>Good grief. A textbook written in the past 30 years?
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are an imbecile,
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence seems to be pointing that way.
>>>>
>>>> You're clearly a die-hard Marxist. Did you not watch the film? Do you
>>>> think you know better than the Nobel laureate and various eminent
>>>> alumni interviewed therein?
>>
>>Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the anthropogenic
>>climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one, and their related
>>research and published work I take it?
>
>Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>bread's buttered, these "scientists."

Yet another wacko conspiracy theory from the imbecile.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The problem with "Argumentum ad auctoritatem" (appeal to authority) is
>>> that you can always find an "authority" to support just about any
>>> whacko viewpoit you choose. I guess we are all guilty of it on
>>> occasion.
>>
>>Yep.

On 25 Mar 2024 at 19:16:35 GMT, "Pomegranate Bastard" <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 21:48:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:02:52 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>> <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:30:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:48:07 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>>>> <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>> I'll wager you're a foreigner of some description as well as a troll.
>>>
>>> You don't reside or pay taxes in the UK, so that makes you the
>>> foreigner.
>>
>> You clearly have a very different concept of nationality from the
>> typical rational person's.
>
> Foreigners neither reside nor pay taxes in the UK. That's you. You
> clearly have a problem with comprehension.

Sure they can. My S-i-L is French and has been resident in the UK since around
1970. My nephew is resident in Japan and pays taxes there and has been for 40
years or so.

I'd give up on that line of bollocks, PommyB, you're just being made to look a
fool. Or more of a fool.

--
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?

Tony Benn

On 25/03/2024 19:16, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 21:48:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:02:52 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>> <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:30:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:48:07 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>>>> <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:30:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2024 at 00:58:21 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Awareness of the Climate Change scam continues to spread - at an
>>>>>>>> ever-increasing rate. As more and more people reject this preposterous
>>>>>>>> notion, only the most die-hard Marxists will stick with it - and be
>>>>>>>> shown up for what they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/e9wkbz8x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> evidence is overrated, go with your gut
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with *proper* evidence. But what we're being presented
>>>>>> with is garbage. My gut told me that a fractional increase in Carbon
>>>>>> Dioxide (which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere!) would not bring on
>>>>>> "Global Boiling" as they're calling it. My *proper research* with
>>>>>> physical textbooks confirmed what my gut told me. It's a con job.
>>>>> You are an imbecile,
>>>>
>>>> I'll wager you're a foreigner of some description as well as a troll.
>>>
>>> You don't reside or pay taxes in the UK, so that makes you the
>>> foreigner.
>>
>> You clearly have a very different concept of nationality from the
>> typical rational person's.
>
> Foreigners neither reside nor pay taxes in the UK. That's you. You
> clearly have a problem with comprehension.
>
>>
>>> I sometimes wonder why it is that you gammon right whingers are so
>>> willing to embrace any wacko conspiracy theory that floats by. Is it
>>> that you think you're cleverer than everyone else because you've
>>> discovered some "information" that the "deep state" is keeping form us
>>> all, or is it that you're just plain stupid?
>>
>> The former.
>
> The two states are not mutually exclusive. You are both a gullible
> conspiracy theorist and congenitally stupid.

More likely what we used to call a "wind up merchant" in polite company...
.... or gobshite elsewhere....

Dave

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:16:35 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyB@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 21:48:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:02:52 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>><pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:30:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:48:07 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
>>>><pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:30:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 23 Mar 2024 at 00:58:21 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Awareness of the Climate Change scam continues to spread - at an
>>>>>>>> ever-increasing rate. As more and more people reject this preposterous
>>>>>>>> notion, only the most die-hard Marxists will stick with it - and be
>>>>>>>> shown up for what they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/e9wkbz8x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>evidence is overrated, go with your gut
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing wrong with *proper* evidence. But what we're being presented
>>>>>>with is garbage. My gut told me that a fractional increase in Carbon
>>>>>>Dioxide (which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere!) would not bring on
>>>>>>"Global Boiling" as they're calling it. My *proper research* with
>>>>>>physical textbooks confirmed what my gut told me. It's a con job.
>>>>>You are an imbecile,
>>>>
>>>>I'll wager you're a foreigner of some description as well as a troll.
>>>
>>>You don't reside or pay taxes in the UK, so that makes you the
>>>foreigner.
>>
>>You clearly have a very different concept of nationality from the
>>typical rational person's.
>
>Foreigners neither reside nor pay taxes in the UK. That's you. You
>clearly have a problem with comprehension.
>
>>
>>>I sometimes wonder why it is that you gammon right whingers are so
>>>willing to embrace any wacko conspiracy theory that floats by. Is it
>>>that you think you're cleverer than everyone else because you've
>>>discovered some "information" that the "deep state" is keeping form us
>>>all, or is it that you're just plain stupid?
>>
>>The former.
>
>The two states are not mutually exclusive. You are both a gullible
>conspiracy theorist and congenitally stupid.

You're an imbecile.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:30:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 25/03/2024 11:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>> What you are basically saying here, is that at best O'Bama can't do sums.
>
>The only sums I have ever known a lawyer do are in terms of billable
>hours, and they lie about those, too.

Allowance has to be made for time spent nose-picking, according to
Michael Joseph in The Conveyancing Fraud (1976).

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:13:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2024 at 10:22:23 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the anthropogenic
>>> climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one, and their related
>>> research and published work I take it?
>>
>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>
>Most don't rely on funding other than from their employer - they're salaried
>staff with no financial incentives beyond promotion. And many that I know/knew
>stayed at their grade because promotion would take them on to a management
>spine, with all that involves.
>
>I do accept some will be pressurised into publishing, especially if they're
>not tenured, or have a contract that dissociated publication with employment
>(my university had that clause for professors). But really - would you publish
>and research in direct opposition to your training and beliefs, *and* endorse
>the research of others (through peer review) for decades, and then die?
>
>It's not even that well paid any more, unless they're linked to oil etc.
>
>And people don't spend about 10 years getting educated to 'butter bread'.
>These are passionate, very well educated and trained, and motivated. Well,
>most of them anyway.
>
>And is the fossil fuel industry, and its consultants, lobbyists, and
>hangers-on unbiased? Of course not.
>
>I know who I'd rather trust.

What a wonderfully sweet, old-fashioned world-view you have there.
Good of you to take 5 minutes out of watching Brief Encounter to post
that nugget for us.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:28:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>But people are concerned about it, so we have to pretend we are doing
>something about it.

Indeed, but "people are only concerned about it" because they've been
lied to, again and again and again and again by the same vested
interests: parasites hell-bent on Global government at any cost and
with no regard whatsoever for the Truth.

On 25 Mar 2024 at 22:54:02 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:13:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2024 at 10:22:23 GMT, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the anthropogenic
>>>> climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each one, and their related
>>>> research and published work I take it?
>>>
>>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known that
>>> all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these "reports" of
>>> theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However, that funding
>>> instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from the official line
>>> of yumans and farting cows being responsible. They know where their
>>> bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>>
>> Most don't rely on funding other than from their employer - they're salaried
>> staff with no financial incentives beyond promotion. And many that I know/knew
>> stayed at their grade because promotion would take them on to a management
>> spine, with all that involves.
>>
>> I do accept some will be pressurised into publishing, especially if they're
>> not tenured, or have a contract that dissociated publication with employment
>> (my university had that clause for professors). But really - would you publish
>> and research in direct opposition to your training and beliefs, *and* endorse
>> the research of others (through peer review) for decades, and then die?
>>
>> It's not even that well paid any more, unless they're linked to oil etc.
>>
>> And people don't spend about 10 years getting educated to 'butter bread'.
>> These are passionate, very well educated and trained, and motivated. Well,
>> most of them anyway.
>>
>> And is the fossil fuel industry, and its consultants, lobbyists, and
>> hangers-on unbiased? Of course not.
>>
>> I know who I'd rather trust.
>
> What a wonderfully sweet, old-fashioned world-view you have there.

Nope, that's current.

>
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:01:50 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

>
>It's a bit more than that, actually.
>
>" In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per
>cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and
>dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask
>that question, so he was basically making it up."
>
>"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published
>scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to
>poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most
>papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per
>cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to
>global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is
>unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique
>key elements of the IPCC position."
>
>https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

I imagine that back in the 18th century, something like 97% of
'scientists' believed in phlogiston.

--
Chris

On 26/03/2024 09:05, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:01:50 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
>

>>
>> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
>
> I imagine that back in the 18th century, something like 97% of
> 'scientists' believed in phlogiston.
>
And heaven help you if you didn't believe in God.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 25 Mar 2024 16:26:16 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> > On 25 Mar 2024 at 11:01:50 GMT, Joe wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
> >> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
> >>>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each
> >>>> one, and their related research and published work I take it?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known
> >>> that all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these
> >>> "reports" of theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However,
> >>> that funding instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from
> >>> the official line of yumans and farting cows being responsible.
> >>> They know where their bread's buttered, these "scientists."
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a bit more than that, actually.
> >>
> >> " In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming
> >> 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real,
> >> man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was
> >> referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making
> >> it up."
> >>
> >> "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of
> >> published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But
> >> in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often
> >> misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no
> >> position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at
> >> least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by
> >> 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33
> >> per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the
> >> IPCC position."
> >>
> >> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
> >>
>
> > Or you could read a recent study by people who know what they're
> > talking about, using proper methods:
>
> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
>
> Is it as easy to get a ‘sceptical’ paper published as a ‘believer’
> one? If that isn’t so, then all this paper reports is based on a
> flawed data set.
>
> This might be of interest:
>
> BBC's six-year cover-up of secret 'green propaganda' training for top
> executives
>
> By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
> 23:52, 11 Jan 2014 , updated 23:52, 11 Jan 2014
>
> Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top
> executives
>
> Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace
>
> Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a 'broad range of
> output'
>
> Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it
> secret
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html#ixzz2qBlfEG9a>
>

https://off-guardian.org/2024/03/27/why-do-people-claim-they-own-the-science/

"What SUFI and Dr Stea appear to be describing is “the Science™.

The Science™ is a closed shop where only certain “experts” are deemed
credible, usually by each other. Dissent from “the Scientific
Consensus™” is actively resisted by non-scientific means. Censorship,
personal attacks, denial, ridicule, refusal to debate and so on.

Ignoring scientific evidence, denying evidence exists—when it clearly
does—applying made up propaganda labels to evidence, in order to
marginalise or discredit evidence without examining it, refusing to
discuss evidence and misreporting evidence—to deceive people into
imagining the evidence is not relevant—are not principles found
anywhere in any version of the scientific method. But they are found
everywhere in “the Science™.”

********************************************************************

"In case you weren’t aware, the United Nations (UN) owns “the Science™.”
Speaking at the WEF’s anti-disinformation panel, UN
Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming
outlined how the UN had partnered with Google and TikTok to rig their
respective search results and told the enthralled attendees:

We [the United Nations] own the science, and we think that the
world should know it.

Yes, the world certainly should know that a bunch of self-appointed
technocrats not only believe they own science, their grasp of the
scientific method is so pitiful they imagine it is possible to own
science. Dr Stea seemingly shares the same delusion."

********************************************************************

"Instead, Hotez declined and, unwilling to defend his Science™ in a
public debate, he said:

In science, we don’t typically do debates. What we do is we write
scientific papers [. . .] one doesn’t typically debate science.

Hotez’ excuse was abject anti-scientific dross. The scientific debate
couldn’t be more important to science. It is only completely irrelevant
in the Science™. There is no debate in the Science™ because it is based
upon “the Scientific Consensus™” which cannot be questioned according
to Drs Stea, Hotez and others."

--
Joe