Yet AGAIN! Massive Sex Scandal Shakes Catholic Church; Victims are Thousands of Children

https://www.newsdelivers.com/2021/12/20/massive-sex-scandal-shakes-spanish-catholic-church-victims-thousands-of-children/

On 6/01/2023 12:11 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:20:20 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>>>>>>> where it belongs>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>>>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>>>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>>>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>>>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>>>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>>>>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>>>>>> have told us.
>>>>>
>>>>> By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> **No, it isn't. I have provided links to the best science available. If
>>>> YOU dispute that science, then it is up to YOU to submit your refutation
>>>> of that science.
>>>>
>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>
>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>
>>>> Over to you.
>>>
>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>
>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>
> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
> the Turd World dominated UN.

**Prove it.

>
>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>
>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>
>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>
>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>
>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>> succeed.
>>>>
>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>
>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>
>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>
> I have not claimed that he was wrong,

**Yes, you have. Many times.

I just want *you* to prove he
> was correct.

**I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.

Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.

**I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

In alt.global-warming Mr Posting Robot <MrPostingRobot@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> In alt.global-warming Wod Spud <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>> Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _
>> More of your lies given that the CO2 level has increased
>> dramatically since the industrial revolution and the
>> temperature has barely moved, by just 1C at most.
> More total ignorance.
> The difference between the avg summer surf temp and the
> average winter surf temp e.g. for the N Hem is less than 2C.
> You probably didnt know that after studying the subject for 30y.
> So if you add 2C then you have converted what WAS winter into
> what WAS summer and what WAS summer into SUPERSUMMER.
> I guess you couldnt figure that out either, in 30y.

I figga some guys that maybe are not wizzes at science and math
know something about engines.
Watching an old ep of Garage Squad on the local "man channel" brought
a couple laughs when Joe discovered to his horror the owner
of the mess they were trying to fix had put the engine together himself
with a mate. Joe slowly tried to crank the engine around and, sure
enough, the pistons locked up at some point. The owner had not been
too worried how they put the timing chain on.
I think the marks were almost 180 deg off -- a new record for
the vehicles the program gets involved with.

So today's mental image is -- the earth's timing chain has slipped
a couple links and is going to slip a couple more in the next 50-100y.

Even Exxon calculated back in the 1980s that doubling the CO2 in
the atm above what it used to be in the early 19th cent would lead to
around 3C of warming. I.e. .01C per 1ppmv of CO2 added.
We are up to about 415 ppmv of CO2 as of end last year.
That's 135 ppmv more than before the industrial rev started. I.e. around 1.4C.

Adding 1.4C to the climate that used to be normal before Gt of CO2
were dumped into the atm and ocean every year means the months have
roughly advanced by 2 places. Today's Jan is what used to be Mar as
far as global avg temps are concerned. And what is now the warmest month
in global avg temp terms had no equal in the past (at least) couple
hundred years.

By the time the atm is up to 560 ppmv well before 2100 at the current
rates of population growth and pollution the earth will slip another
2 or 3 spots on the timing chain.

Avg global temps (30y baseline period mid 20th cent)
Month Avg land/sea
(deg C abs)
1 9.8996
2 10.0750
3 10.6607
4 11.7457
5 12.8698
6 13.8578
7 14.4488
8 14.5553
9 13.8255
10 12.5974
11 11.1859
12 10.2492

c2020 the world has warmed around 1.4C over pre-industrial temps.
Meaning the Earth has slipped its timing chain by a couple months.
The year now starts with the old March.

Global avg land/ocean surf temps by month
new normal old normal
9.8996
10.0750
1 11.2996 11.7457
2 11.475 12.8698
3 12.0607 13.8578
4 13.1457 14.4488
5 14.2698 14.5553
6 15.2578 13.8255
7 15.8488 12.5974
8 15.9553 11.1859
9 15.2255 10.2492
10 13.9974
11 12.5859
12 11.6492

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:25:55 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN spamming as Freedom for Gaza (LOL)
<gazaforthegazans@paleshtein.org> spammed from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:31:22 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:27:58 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN spamming as NoSpamAtAll (LOL) <spamnot@not.home> spammed from
STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 6/01/2023 12:11 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:20:20 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>>>>>>>> where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>>>>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>>>>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>>>>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>>>>>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>>>>>>> have told us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **No, it isn't. I have provided links to the best science available. If
>>>>> YOU dispute that science, then it is up to YOU to submit your refutation
>>>>> of that science.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>
>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>
>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>
>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>
>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>
>**Prove it.

It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
ever was. What's there to prove? Find ONE thing of value the UN has
ever produced.

>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>
>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>
>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>
>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>
>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>
>**Yes, you have. Many times.

Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!

> I just want *you* to prove he
>> was correct.
>
>**I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.

So you claim. Now prove it.

> Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.
>
>**I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
>have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.

I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct. I note that
you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct.

Now what about these ICE AGES going back 2.4 BILLION years I mentioned
elsewhere? No comment, shithead?

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:32:42 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew forgery b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:28:55 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew forgery b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

Shame! Diplomatic immunity for SICK VATICAN PIGS

https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/12/catholic-church-sex-abuse-claims-vatican-has-immunity-rules-echr

MORE Vatican FILTH exposed: head of the Vatican bank found guilty of
embezzlement and money laundering and sentenced to eight years and
11 months in prison

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/21/former-head-of-vatican-bank-found-guilty-of-embezzlement

In article <dm9erh5guoqegg4ujpb8cev9qlg95ak885@4ax.com>,
KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> wrote:

> Now what about these ICE AGES going back 2.4 BILLION years

Well, what EXACTLY about them, shithead? You're just throwing
words around.

Vatican FILTH exposed: new information indicates that the troubles
may boomerang back onto the pontiff himself

A MUST READ!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/magteam/2021/10/03/the-popes-corruption-problems/?sh=524bf21d54c9

R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote

> Even Exxon calculated back in the 1980s that doubling the CO2 in
> the atm above what it used to be in the early 19th cent would lead to
> around 3C of warming. I.e. .01C per 1ppmv of CO2 added.

And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.

> We are up to about 415 ppmv of CO2 as of end last year.
> That's 135 ppmv more than before the industrial rev started. I.e.
> around 1.4C.

> Adding 1.4C to the climate that used to be normal before Gt of CO2
> were dumped into the atm and ocean every year means the months have
> roughly advanced by 2 places. Today's Jan is what used to be Mar as
> far as global avg temps are concerned.

BULLSHIT.

> And what is now the warmest month
> in global avg temp terms had no equal in the past (at least) couple
> hundred years.

BULLSHIT.

> By the time the atm is up to 560 ppmv well before 2100 at the current
> rates of population growth and pollution the earth will slip another
> 2 or 3 spots on the timing chain.

BULLSHIT.

> Avg global temps (30y baseline period mid 20th cent)
> Month Avg land/sea
> (deg C abs)
> 1 9.8996
> 2 10.0750
> 3 10.6607
> 4 11.7457
> 5 12.8698
> 6 13.8578
> 7 14.4488
> 8 14.5553
> 9 13.8255
> 10 12.5974
> 11 11.1859
> 12 10.2492
>
> c2020 the world has warmed around 1.4C over pre-industrial temps.
> Meaning the Earth has slipped its timing chain by a couple months.
> The year now starts with the old March.
>
> Global avg land/ocean surf temps by month
> new normal old normal
> 9.8996
> 10.0750
> 1 11.2996 11.7457
> 2 11.475 12.8698
> 3 12.0607 13.8578
> 4 13.1457 14.4488
> 5 14.2698 14.5553
> 6 15.2578 13.8255
> 7 15.8488 12.5974
> 8 15.9553 11.1859
> 9 15.2255 10.2492
> 10 13.9974
> 11 12.5859
> 12 11.6492

Daniel65
> Ördög
>> Petz
>
> Oh!! I thought he was powered by BOOZE.
>
At this sad point in time BOOZE alone can't account any more for all the
deranged craziness the village idiot keeps on demonstrating.
>>> Daniel65
>>>> Petz
>>>>> The FBI has just confirmed that it has paid MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to
>>>>
>> YAWN!
>>>>
>>>> Oh!! Have you got a (reputable) link for that, thanks??
>>>>
>> /snip/
>>>    https://tinyurl.com/2h5vn8dl
>>>
>> Nope, that is is not any sort of reputable source. But then I am sure
>> Daniel has not really expected to get one from you, Petz dear.
>
Have you noticed that Petz gets more and more lazy...he does not even
bother any more providing direct links to his cyber sewer resources,
instead he just points to pages with search result as if they proved
something. It is the digital equivalent of somebody telling you the
direction to your nearest psychiatric care facility.
>
> But I can try, can't I?? ;-P
>
Knock yourself out trying, I have no intention stopping the fun.

I am just pointing out that doing the same thing but expecting different
results is ... mildly put...not very productive, hmmm.

:-P

Sadly I start to find Petz more and more boring...his entertainment
value is dropping more rapidly than the value of Elon's Tesla shares.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:59:16 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN spamming as RJ11 <RJ11@nospam.org> (LOL) spammed from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:53:40 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:52:58 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN forging as KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com> forged from STD.COM:

<jew shite b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

In article <nkcerhtsn4eimmn4sbrvpp5dlnojfrff22@4ax.com>,
sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron ("KKKernal Corn") wrote:

[...]

Please stay away from HUMAN forums, you shiteating, pissdrinking, donkeydicksucking,
grannyfucking, jizzlicking, motherless pile of sub-excrement nazoid PAEDO filth who
takes dozens of muzzie dicks up his arse and throat on an hourly basis.

Thank you!

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>
>> Even Exxon calculated back in the 1980s that doubling the CO2 in
>> the atm above what it used to be in the early 19th cent would lead to
>> around 3C of warming. I.e. .01C per 1ppmv of CO2 added.
> And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.

You were saying .5 at one time. You are still low-balling and
we assume you know that.

Exxon confirmed they expected a CO2 doubling to produce 3C of warming.
That was in the 70s and 80s.

Later work has somewhat increased the expected number and reduced
the error bars.

But at 3C and 280 ppmv that means .01C per 1 ppmv of CO2.

We have added around 135 ppmv so the earth has probably warmed
1.35C around now, regardless of the noisy measurements that might be
made or the totally shit ones produced by various nitwits,
self-promoting dip-sticks and fossil shills you see about the place.

NASA puts the avg for 2022 (triple La Nina active) 1.25C above 1880 temps.
NOAA says 1.19C.
JMA says 0.95C.
Hadley says 1.07C.

So a super La Nina period is now much warmer than the biggest
El Nino year in the 2th cent (1998).

Everyone in the biz expects the next El Nino top smash records.

That's what you get when you slip the Earth's timing chain a few notches.

--
[Hillbillies cain tella diffruns atweed summer and winter:]

Climate Change: Worried About a 2 Degree Rise In Temperatures? Don't Be ...
-- AlleyCat Computers aka Hillbilly "Icytope" Davis, 07 May 2019 5:27 AM
1 posts 0 views

Year N Hem SST 20N-88N (ERSST5)
summer winter diff
(C)
2000 9.01 7.50 1.51
2001 9.01 7.48 1.52
2002 9.00 7.44 1.56
2003 9.10 7.52 1.58
2004 9.20 7.57 1.63
2005 9.18 7.61 1.57
2006 9.13 7.62 1.51
2007 9.12 7.63 1.49
2008 9.16 7.59 1.57
2009 9.12 7.60 1.52
2010 9.17 7.60 1.57
2011 9.16 7.64 1.52
2012 9.26 7.66 1.59
2013 9.19 7.67 1.52
2014 9.32 7.71 1.61
2015 9.31 7.81 1.50
2016 9.46 7.90 1.56
2017 9.36 7.91 1.45
2018 9.30 7.91 1.39

Avg 1.54

(In S Hem same avg is .90C because mo water).

IOW +1.5C of warming means what was once winter now becomes summer
and what was summer becomes "supersummer".

Limiting AGW to this change was the goal of the UN and the last
big climate meeting.

But AGW is likely now on a path to add at least 3C to the world's
average temperatures within 80y -- about the time known oil and gas
reserves are expected to run out -- meaning winter is set to become
supersupper and summer, superdupersummer.

R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote

>>> Even Exxon calculated back in the 1980s that doubling the CO2 in
>>> the atm above what it used to be in the early 19th cent would lead to
>>> around 3C of warming. I.e. .01C per 1ppmv of CO2 added.

>> And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.

> Exxon confirmed they expected a CO2 doubling to produce 3C of warming.

And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.

> That was in the 70s and 80s.

But if it was true, we would have seen that with the CO2 doubling we have
seen.

> Later work has somewhat increased the expected number and reduced
> the error bars.

But still can't explain why we might have seen 1C at most.

<reams of your irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs>

It isnt even clear that the 1C we might have seen is actually a bad thing.

In alt.global-warming Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Lars" <lars@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tosts9$33c2t$1@news.mixmin.net...
>> Melting sea ice has only a minor impact on sea level rise because the ice
>> is already in the ocean, but it does cause major changes to the planet.
>> When sea ice melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the Earth, which causes
>> more warming.
>> It's a vicious cycle. And here's how it works:
>> When solar radiation hits snow and ice, approximately 90% of it is
>> reflected back out to space. As global warming causes more snow and ice to
>> melt each summer, the ocean underneath the ice is exposed.
> IOW, it's part of a normal cycle...
> Meanwhile, we're told that solar energy is the solution even though a solar
> panel absorbs about 95% of the light that impacts it and only reflects about
> 5%...

LOL.

Oil is stored solar power. It takes 100 mn years to make and you
can discharge it just one time. It turns the earth back to what it was
before dinosaurs were a thing and is one of if not the biggest cause
of cancer in developed countries, let alone the rest of the world.

Due to the incredibly poor efficiency of ICE you only get ~30% of the
energy out that is actually in there. If you dont tune the motor every
week that can drop to 20%.

For 150 years fossil companies have essentially been charging you triple
for each gallon of gas an nitwits have been happy to pay through the
nose for it.

Electric motors there days run over 90% and up to 99% and the energy you
can harvest to run them is essentially free and unrestrained by rent-seeking
assholes that dont want you to gits off the grid they own.

Again. Hillbillies talk up a real storm about being free and independent.
But like most things they talk about it is just a bunch of shit.
They daily regurgitate the old PR solgans and mis-truths they are programmed
with by their invisible masters. They resist moving away from a status quo
that keeps them beholden to cartels and related slimy politics
because they have been brainwashed from birth to think what they have
is the best of all possible worlds and it is impossible to change anyway.

Truly. The bulk of cud-chewing humanity answers the Fermi paradox
every single day and social media the best of all.

--
Cough cough cough.
US state coal consumption versus rates of lung cancer:

States like: coal cons lung cancer linear model
(t/yr/cap) death rate
New.Hampshire 0.313167 43.5667 40.2753
New.Jersey 1.348 39.9 40.4667
South.Dakota 1.979 41.55 40.5834
New.York 2.867 39.6 40.7476
Nevada 3.777 45.5 40.9159
Washington 4.616 39.9 41.0711
Maryland 8.123 41.1 41.7197
Montana 10.462 37.6 42.1522
Virginia 11.8395 36.95 42.407*(model +1sd over)
South.Carolina 12.5835 51.55 42.5446*
Nebraska 16.253 42.8 43.2232
Minnesota 17.781 39 43.5058
Kansas 18.2885 37.05 43.5997*(+1)
Tennessee 20.278 52.75 43.9676*(-1)
Wisconsin 22.713 42.5 44.4179
Iowa 23.3128 42.775 44.5289
Alabama 27.135 54.7 45.2357*(-1)
Wyoming 27.941 35.9 45.3848*(+1)
North.Dakota 28.816 41 45.5466
Michigan 31.944 47.9 46.1251
Ohio 43.585 51.3 48.278
Missouri 44.231 54.8 48.3975*(-1)
Pennsylvania 46.481 45.1 48.8136
Indiana 55.344 54.3 50.4527
Illinois 56.309 45.9 50.6312

T-test: Pr(beta>0) = 99.7%
Rank test: Pr(the ordering could be so similar without an underlying link) < 5%
R2 = 28%

THAT COOL, FRESH TASTE! Suck it and see!

In alt.global-warming Wod The Spud <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>> Even Exxon calculated back in the 1980s that doubling the CO2 in
>>>> the atm above what it used to be in the early 19th cent would lead to
>>>> around 3C of warming. I.e. .01C per 1ppmv of CO2 added.
>>> And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.
>> Exxon confirmed they expected a CO2 doubling to produce 3C of warming.
> And in fact we might have seen 1C at most.
....

And in fact we've seen it was warmer even in the middle of a triple
La Nina.

--
The ever changing story.

(a) Changes in X follow changes in Y.
(b) X and Y are "not as correlated as you think".
(c) X and Y are not correlated at all.
(d) If X and Y cyclic they can't be correlated.
(e) X causes Y (therefore is correlated & the opposite causation of (a)).

Footnote:
Here are five signs of a pathological liar
....
(3) Inconsistencies in stories: Pathological liars will not have a perfect
memory, so it is only a matter of time before they slip up by confusing one
lie for another. Hearing multiple responses to the same question will be a
way to identify a pathological liar.
....
<https://www.choosingtherapy.com/pathological-liar/>

On 6/01/2023 6:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 6/01/2023 12:11 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:20:20 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>>>>>>>>> where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>>>>>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>>>>>>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>>>>>>>> have told us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **No, it isn't. I have provided links to the best science available. If
>>>>>> YOU dispute that science, then it is up to YOU to submit your refutation
>>>>>> of that science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>>
>>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>>
>>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>>
>> **Prove it.
>
> It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
> ever was.

**Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
reports are wrong.

Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.

What's there to prove?

**Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.

Find ONE thing of value the UN has
> ever produced.

**The IPCC reports.

>
>>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>
>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>
>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>
>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>
> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!

**Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,

>
>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>> was correct.
>>
>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>
> So you claim. Now prove it.

**Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.

>
>> Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.
>>
>> **I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
>> have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.
>
> I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct.

**Arrhenius proved his own theory. Not once in the past 120+ years has
Arrhenius been shown to be wrong.

I note that
> you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct.