This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

Yeah, that's complete nonsense. No 'preposterous location' determines the
observed changes, nor do temperature measurements confuse any real science
that uses them as inputs. There are trillions spent wastefully here, trillions of
AI clock cycles spewing out this propoganda.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:45:44 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

The Anthony Watts quoted is a famous climate change denial propaganda source, and the the Heartlands Institute with which he is associated is one of the famous "merchants of doubt" that peddles climate change denial propaganda for money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

and I do own a copy of the book.

You have been suckered by the usual lies. Face it - you want to be seen as "top dawg" but you perform as a propagandists lapdog.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Cursitor Doom wrote:
> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.

Michael

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 2:51:49 PM UTC+11, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> > facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> > game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> > garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.

Not a convincing hypothesis. The proposition is that Western industrial civilisation is solely dependent on burning fossil carbon for its energy supply - which is demonstrably false. There was a time when burning fossil carbon was the cheapest way of generating energy in a lot of situations, but since solar cells and wind-turbines are now cheaper, that is no longer true.

The sun and doesn't shine and the wind does blow all the time, but we've had pumped hydroelectric storage for quite a while now, and grid scale batteries are now becoming popular.

The people who want to keep making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel are reluctant to admit this, and are spending money on people like Zero Hedge, Anthony Watts and the Heartlands Institute to spread lying propaganda to keep their revenue stream running for a few more years.

You and Cursitor Doom seem to be blind to this, which makes you gullible suckers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@hotmail.com> wrote
> Cursitor Doom wrote

>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.

>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

> They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.

Bullshit. They are too stupid to work out that
it isnt even clear that climate change which
ALWAYShappens, isnt even necessarily a bad thing.

Clearly the climate change from the ice ages obviously isnt a bad thing.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:33:13 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <MEje...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Cursitor Doom wrote
>
> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
> > They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.
>
> Bullshit. They are too stupid to work out that
> it isn't even clear that climate change which
> ALWAYS happens, isnt even necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Clearly the climate change from the ice ages obviously isn't a bad thing.

The climate change at the end of the last ice came with 120 metres of sea level rise, which inundated a lot of low lying land. The people who had been living there had to move quite a long way, and wouldn't have been positively impressed by losing their homes and farms.

The climate change that is happening at moment is happening remarkably fast, and quite a few of its effects aren't positive. We can be pretty confident that if we were dumping less extra CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be slower climate change.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

>This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
>https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
Heartland Institute.

Wikipedia:

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."

"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby
against smoking bans."

Thomas Prufer

On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 15:32:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Tim+ about trolling Rodent Speed:
He is by far the most persistent troll who seems to be able to get under the
skin of folk who really should know better. Since when did arguing with a
troll ever achieve anything (beyond giving the troll pleasure)?
MID: <1421057667.659518815.743467.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 23:00:50 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:33:13?PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <MEje...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> > Cursitor Doom wrote
>>
>> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>
>> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>
>> > They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.
>>
>> Bullshit. They are too stupid to work out that
>> it isn't even clear that climate change which
>> ALWAYS happens, isnt even necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>> Clearly the climate change from the ice ages obviously isn't a bad thing.
>
>The climate change at the end of the last ice came with 120 metres of sea level rise, which inundated a lot of low lying land. The people who had been living there had to move quite a long way, and wouldn't have been positively impressed by losing their homes and farms.
>
>The climate change that is happening at moment is happening remarkably fast

No it's not, Bill. The only thing that's rising fast is the fake
temperature figures they're using to panic everyone into buying into
their BS.

> and quite a few of its effects aren't positive. We can be pretty confident that if we were dumping less extra CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be slower climate change.

You might be pretty confident (you would be, of course) but more and
more people are waking up to the fact that they're being scammed by
bent politicians and 'scientists' who've sold out the truth for gold.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
righttardedness.

On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

I don't think it is deliberate. Who wants to travel a hundred and fifty
miles into a wilderness to read a thermometer? And even with digital
thermometers there needs to be electric power.

And in airports, what is needed for aircraft is the air temperature
there, at or near ground level, because that affects landing and takeoff
speeds.

What is slightly mire worrying is the way they record 'daily averages'

In the days of mercury or alcohol thermometers you read the maximum and
minimum temperatures recorded by the sliding steel bars, added them
together, and halved them.

Not very precise, or average, but the best you could do.

However digital thermometers respond much faster than mercury does, so
it's possible to record a very brief maximum caused by e.g. a car or jet
exhaust, by a climate activist shining a mirror on the weather
station...or holding a lighter underneath it...

And of course nearly all land weather stations have seen encroachment by
urbanisation since 1950.

What about the sea? Well that too is a tad suspect. It generally now
measures from the intakes of cooling water into the ships engines. But
ships tend to stick to shipping lanes, because they represent the
shortest distances between choke points and popular destinations. and
are pouring out hot water into the seas in those lanes.

The best measurements are satellite, but they don't record earth
temperatures, but the radiation over an area that may come from clouds
high up, weather balloons, and buoys that duck down into the deep water,
and record temperatures on the way up.

In short, the actual data on which all these models are based, is not
nearly as solid as people are told it is.

And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5°C...

Which is so far well within the range of 'natural' variation...

In the little ice age ...'mean annual temperatures across the Northern
Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average
temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE.'...

Not saying man made climate change isn't happening - it would be hard to
justify saying that human activity has no effect whatsoever - but there
is no smoking gun and no gunshot residue either.

It could as easily be 99% natural. Or systematic errors in measurement.

The real indicators would be places like the US and Canadian prairies to
see whether they were getting earlier harvests consistently. Or whether
the Siberian tundra were in fact becoming available for agriculture.

But Siberian winters seem just as cold as they ever were.

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
>
> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
> Heartland Institute.
>
> Wikipedia:
>
> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public
> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on
> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>
> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the
> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby
> against smoking bans."
>

Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.

And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.

And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out

More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 01/02/2024 09:54, Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
> I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
> pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
> righttardedness.
>

Nah. Cursitor is merely veering more towards the paranoid fringe of the
right than is normal.

It doesn't detract from the fact that there is a case to answer by the
climate alarmists, and all they actually do is never refute it, just say
with impeccable Bandar Log-ic 'We all say so, so it must be true'.

THAT is real communism.

And the commonly held perception of the Left is that 'if we all say it,
it will *become* true'.

As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
oppressed and held back.
Well if they are so fucking smart, why don't they band together and take
over,.

As they have in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sudan...

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:50:32 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 23:00:50 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:33:13?PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
> >> Michael Ejercito <MEje...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> > Cursitor Doom wrote
> >>
> >> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >>
> >> > They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. They are too stupid to work out that
> >> it isn't even clear that climate change which
> >> ALWAYS happens, isnt even necessarily a bad thing.
> >>
> >> Clearly the climate change from the ice ages obviously isn't a bad thing.
> >
> >The climate change at the end of the last ice came with 120 metres of sea level rise, which inundated a lot of low lying land. The people who had been living there had to move quite a long way, and wouldn't have been positively impressed by losing their homes and farms.
> >
> >The climate change that is happening at moment is happening remarkably fast
>
> No it's not, Bill. The only thing that's rising fast is the fake temperature figures they're using to panic everyone into buying into their BS.

We've been sampling global surface temperatures from satellite in orbit for about thirty years now. The Stevenson boxes that Anthony Watts gets so excited about haven't been the main data source for the past 100 years. Climate change denial propaganda relies on fake data. Real science does better.

> > and quite a few of its effects aren't positive. We can be pretty confident that if we were dumping less extra CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be slower climate change.
>
> You might be pretty confident (you would be, of course) but more and
> more people are waking up to the fact that they're being scammed by
> bent politicians and 'scientists' who've sold out the truth for gold.

The fossil carbon extraction industry has been spending a lot of money on buying up bent politicians and the kind of "scientist" who will say anything if well enough paid for it. Anthony Watts was never a scientist - just a TV weatherman.

Some people have enough sense to realise that they are being lie to by the climate change denial propaganda machine. You don't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:48:45 PM UTC+11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> >
> > The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
> > Heartland Institute.
> >
> > Wikipedia:
> >
> > "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public
> > policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on
> > climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
> >
> > "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the
> > 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby
> > against smoking bans."
> >
> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
> possible.
>
> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>
> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>
> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change is not a major issue.

The climate change denial propaganda has published surveys that appear to show this. People have looked at the names on this lists, and they don't include many climate scientists all.

The US proceedings of the national academy of science published a survey of the top 1000 climate scientists - people with cited publications in the area - a few years ago, and posted a link to the paper when it first came out..

95% of them accepted that anthropogenic global warming is real. 5% of the population is nuts, so that isn't any kind of surprise.

Of the top 300, 290 accepted the hypothesis. I though that I could identify five of the ten hold-outs.

The most famous of them - Spencer and Christy at Alabama - are born-again Christians and seem to have theological reservations, though they don't admit it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:54:42 PM UTC+11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 09:54, Steve wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
> > Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>
> >> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> > I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
> > pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
> > righttardedness.
> >
> Nah. Cursitor is merely veering more towards the paranoid fringe of the
> right than is normal.
>
> It doesn't detract from the fact that there is a case to answer by the
> climate alarmists, and all they actually do is never refute it, just say
> with impeccable Bandar Log-ic 'We all say so, so it must be true'.

Not actually true. When facts are presented, they are ignored. John Larkin has been ignoring them for twenty years now.
> THAT is real communism.

It might be if it were true. It isn't.
> And the commonly held perception of the Left is that 'if we all say it, it will *become* true'.

Not that I've noticed. Our local rightist seem to act as if their assertions are undeniably correct, so it seems to be more diagnostic of half-wits than political orientation.
> As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are oppressed and held back.

Not an assertion I've ever seen. Enough of them have seen off their oppressors to make it an untenable propostion.

> Well if they are so fucking smart, why don't they band together and take over,.
>
> As they have in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sudan...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>
>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>
>>
>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>> fellow at The
>> Heartland Institute.
>>
>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>> public
>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>> consensus on
>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>
>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>> throughout the
>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>> lobby
>> against smoking bans."
>>
>
> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
> possible.
>
> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>
> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>
> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
> is not a major issue.

60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.

Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>
>>>
>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>> fellow at The
>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>> public
>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>> consensus on
>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>
>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>> throughout the
>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>>> lobby
>>> against smoking bans."
>>>
>>
>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>> possible.
>>
>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>
>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>
>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>> is not a major issue.
>
> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.

One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.

This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.

He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.

--
Spike

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>game away.

ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.

Here's some more enlightenment for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen

On 01/02/2024 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 09:54, Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>
>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>
>> I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
>> pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
>> righttardedness.
>>
>
> Nah. Cursitor is merely veering more towards the paranoid fringe of the
> right than is normal.
>
> It doesn't detract from the fact that there is a case to answer by the
> climate alarmists, and all they actually do is never refute it, just say
> with impeccable Bandar Log-ic 'We all say so, so it must be true'.

No. An analogy is that smoking kills you, 'We all say so, so it must be
true'. That turned out to be true. We don't know if man induced climate
change will be damaging to future generations but some of us with family
we talk to, including children, means I'm not prepared to take that risk.

If you have no offspring you care about, I can see why it doesn't matter
to you. I can only presume CD doesn't have children or ones he maintains
contact with either.

> THAT is real communism.

At some point right wing features match left wing. The NDSAP was very
much socialist and left wing, yet they were called fascists.

> And the commonly held perception of the Left is that 'if we all say it,
> it will *become* true'.

Sometimes it does. Your version of left wing is Rishi Sunak and his mob.

> As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
> oppressed and held back.

Having a lower IQ doesn't help them very much either. Whereas Asian and
other races do very well.

> Well if they are so fucking smart, why don't they band together and take
> over,.
>
> As they have in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sudan...

Your hatred is already apparent.
>

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 11:56:11 PM UTC+11, Spike wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia:
> >>>
> >>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public
> >>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on
> >>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
> >>>
> >>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
> >>> throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
> >>> lobby against smoking bans."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
> >> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
> >> possible.

That isn't any kind of ad hominem attack. The business of the Heartlands Institute is known to that of systematically trying to discredit inconvenient scientific facts.

There's a book about it (and similar organisations)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

> >> And conspiracy theories by the left are rather laughable.

This isn't any kind of conspiracy theory. It's a matter of fact.

> >> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PNAS..10712107A

got published in the Proceedings of the (Amercian) National Academy of Science (PNAS) in 2010. If I remember rightly. I posted a link to the paper here at the time.
> >> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change is not a major issue.
> >
> > 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.

It's actually a fake survey set up by one of the climate denial organisations. Lots of real names, hardly any of them climate scientists.

> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.

There's nothing outrageous about it. That's what the peer-reviewed PNAS paper said. Find a a reliable reference that says anything else.
> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise, mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>
> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.

Sea level rise is happening pretty slowly at the moment. When ice sheets start sliding off into the sea, it will go a lot faster. Biden will probably be dead before his beach-front property goes under.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>>> fellow at The
>>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>>> public
>>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>>> consensus on
>>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>>
>>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>>> throughout the
>>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>>>> lobby
>>>> against smoking bans."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>
>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>
>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>> is not a major issue.
>>
>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>
> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was
> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.

Hardly outrageous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Even TNP will agree that man has an effect on climate so you seem to be
on your own here.

A more conservative article says there is a still a consensus while
disputing the 97% figure:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>
> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.

The real issue on the effect of man made climate change, not that it's
happening. If I had a spare $18m I might even snap it up myself.

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+11, Fredxx wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 01/02/2024 09:54, Steve wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
> >> Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
> >>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
> >>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
> >>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
> >> pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
> >> righttardedness.
> >>
> >
> > Nah. Cursitor is merely veering more towards the paranoid fringe of the
> > right than is normal.
> >
> > It doesn't detract from the fact that there is a case to answer by the
> > climate alarmists, and all they actually do is never refute it, just say
> > with impeccable Bandar Log-ic 'We all say so, so it must be true'.
> No. An analogy is that smoking kills you, 'We all say so, so it must be
> true'. That turned out to be true. We don't know if man induced climate
> change will be damaging to future generations but some of us with family
> we talk to, including children, means I'm not prepared to take that risk.
>
> If you have no offspring you care about, I can see why it doesn't matter
> to you. I can only presume CD doesn't have children or ones he maintains
> contact with either.
>
> > THAT is real communism.
>
> At some point right wing features match left wing. The NDSAP was very
> much socialist and left wing, yet they were called fascists.
> > And the commonly held perception of the Left is that 'if we all say it,
> > it will *become* true'.
> Sometimes it does. Your version of left wing is Rishi Sunak and his mob.
> > As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
> > oppressed and held back.
>
> Having a lower IQ doesn't help them very much either. Whereas Asian and other races do very well.

"Culture free" IQ tests don't show them as having a lower IQ. The Chinese have been literate for a lot longer than everybody else, and with a truly vile writing system.
The cultural adjustments required to sustain literacy when the writing system is not user friendly aren't actually racial.

> > Well if they are so fucking smart, why don't they band together and take over,.
> >
> > As they have in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sudan...
>
> Your hatred is already apparent.

Russia managed to throw off communism, but doing that wasn't enough to create a class of competent and honest politicians.
American hasn't got all that many of them either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>>> fellow at The
>>>> Heartland Institute.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>>> public
>>>> policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
>>>> consensus on
>>>> climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
>>>>
>>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>>> throughout the
>>>> 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
>>>> lobby
>>>> against smoking bans."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>
>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>
>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>> is not a major issue.
>>
>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>
> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was
> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>
> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>
> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>
"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.

The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled
only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree
in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.

The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be
the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for
people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said
“significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant
improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two
percent were not sure.

Among respondents with the most experience – those at least 50-years-old
– less than half expect significant harm for people alive today.
Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which
more than 60 percent expect significant harm.

Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority
of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents
attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More
importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future
warming will be much of a problem.

The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has
been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events.
The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.

In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
recent decades."

So much for 'consensus'

--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen