On 23:24 29 Nov 2021, Bernie said:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 22:38:53 +0000
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> No, just another tiresomely ignorant internet troll who hasn't
>> learnt the truth of the old saying, that it is better to keep one's
>> mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and
>> remove all shadow of doubt, thus wasting the time of everyone else.
>>
>
> I suspect that Burt will reflect that back on you and claim that
> he's practising a psychological technique of reflecting bad
> behaviour back to the perpetrator. It's not a displacement activity
> at all when Burt does such things. No, no ,no ,no, no, not at all.
> It is what he says it is, of course.

I haven't followed Burt's dance here very closely but he does seem to use
strange logical twists and turns to maintain his stance.

Has Burt always used copious Latin phrases to adjudicate on another
person's line of argument? He mentions so many of them that he seems to
be looking them up in a book.

On 10:30 30 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:

> On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
>>
>> It's crap - get over it.
>
> But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance
> coming on? Found a theatre yet?

"Denialism By Dance" ... lol

Maybe Spike/Burt would call it "negatio ab saltatio".
Although I haven't attempted the correct dative case for dance.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:37:39 +0000, Pamela wrote:

> On 23:03 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:18:05 GMT Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>
>>> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
>>> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
>>> >> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>> >> >> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
>>> >> >> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>> >> >> >> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
>>> >> >> >> > <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> planet to model the climate, due to its being a
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> chaotic system, the components being numerous and not
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> all being known, and the level of their inputs are
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> not known either. The current models, which run a
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> not modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> effects is assumed, and which, given their far
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> greater effect on the climate than trace gasses, is
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> astonishing.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> might feel the need to make.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> scientific evidence supporting AGW.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
>>> >> >> >> >> > don't do so badly:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
>>> >> >> >> >> their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is
>>> >> >> >> >> we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> That's a brave position to take.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our
>>> >> >> >> >> > greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up
>>> >> >> >> >> > after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money
>>> >> >> >> >> > from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
>>> >> >> >> >> > 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the
>>> >> >> >> >> > same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former
>>> >> >> >> >> > denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
>>> >> >> >> >> > statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
>>> >> >> >> >> > warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It
>>> >> >> >> >> > means the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax.
>>> >> >> >> >> > So let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can
>>> >> >> >> >> > focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
>>> >> >> >> >> > will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
>>> >> >> >> >> > What should we do about it?_". Note the excellent
>>> >> >> >> >> > correlation between CO2 and temperature in their
>>> >> >> >> >> > findings:
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of
>>> >> >> >> >> two ways:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended
>>> >> >> >> >> grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas
>>> >> >> >> >> is warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it
>>> >> >> >> >> right away".
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> The other way goes like this:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for
>>> >> >> >> >> you to go along and present the picture of the plight of
>>> >> >> >> >> polar bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that,
>>> >> >> >> >> because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's
>>> >> >> >> >> a problem with your funding, you won't be able to go".
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
>>> >> >> >> > Burt?
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Why do you call him Burt?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
>>> >> >> background?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
>>> >> > alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
>>> >> > holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
>>> >> > through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
>>> >>
>>> >> Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
>>> >> generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
>>> >>
>>> >> Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
>>> >> arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
>>> >> diplomacy.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anything else?
>>> >
>>> > Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a number
>>> > of years, which may explain some of his online behaviour.
>>> > Loves anything to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that
>>> > might explain that). He's got a posting history as long as your arm
>>> > on uk.radio.amateur if you're really interested. See also RVMJ on
>>> > that group, that was Burt too.
>>>
>>> I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old radio
>>> amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him chatting as
>>> a radio ham.
>>
>> No, Burt would never reveal himself. He's a man of mystery.
>
> Another poster there, Jim, has no such qualms and has even cross posted
> YouTubes of himself in action to the DIY group.

On 16:50 30 Nov 2021, Sysadmin said:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:37:39 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>
>> On 23:03 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:18:05 GMT Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
>>>> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
>>>> >> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>> >> >> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
>>>> >> >> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>> >> >> >> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
>>>> >> >> >> > <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> the planet to model the climate, due to its
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> being a chaotic system, the components being
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> numerous and not all being known, and the level
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> of their inputs are not known either. The
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> current models, which run a
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> tiny subset of the contributors to the climate,
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> example, are not modelled - a set of standard
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> which, given their far greater effect on the
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> climate than trace gasses, is
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> astonishing.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> might feel the need to make.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> the results of our uncontrolled but live
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> call into question the scientific evidence
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>> supporting AGW.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task,
>>>> >> >> >> >> > they don't do so badly:
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't
>>>> >> >> >> >> toe their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it
>>>> >> >> >> >> is we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> That's a brave position to take.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our
>>>> >> >> >> >> > greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set
>>>> >> >> >> >> > up after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil
>>>> >> >> >> >> > money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
>>>> >> >> >> >> > 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY*
>>>> >> >> >> >> > the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
>>>> >> >> >> >> > former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth
>>>> >> >> >> >> > team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now
>>>> >> >> >> >> > accept that global warming is happening, saying:
>>>> >> >> >> >> > "What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds.
>>>> >> >> >> >> > It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate
>>>> >> >> >> >> > over temperature so that we can
>>>> >> >> >> >> > focus on the part of the debate that really
>>>> >> >> >> >> > matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What
>>>> >> >> >> >> > can we do about it? What should we do about it?_".
>>>> >> >> >> >> > Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and
>>>> >> >> >> >> > temperature in their findings:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one
>>>> >> >> >> >> of two ways:
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an
>>>> >> >> >> >> open-ended grant for your research centre to prove
>>>> >> >> >> >> that a trace gas is warming the planet". "Thanks,
>>>> >> >> >> >> I'll get the team on it right away".
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> The other way goes like this:
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds
>>>> >> >> >> >> for you to go along and present the picture of the
>>>> >> >> >> >> plight of polar bears caused by climate change". "I
>>>> >> >> >> >> can't do that, because polar bears are thriving".
>>>> >> >> >> >> "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding,
>>>> >> >> >> >> you won't be able to go".
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any
>>>> >> >> >> > research, Burt?
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> Why do you call him Burt?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
>>>> >> >> background?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
>>>> >> > alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic
>>>> >> > passport holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego,
>>>> >> > communicates mainly through the medium of contemporary
>>>> >> > dance, and lives in Torquay,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
>>>> >> generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on
>>>> >> anything.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas
>>>> >> and arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the
>>>> >> way of diplomacy.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Anything else?
>>>> >
>>>> > Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a
>>>> > number of years, which may explain some of his online
>>>> > behaviour. Loves anything to do with The War (he was born in
>>>> > 1944, so that might explain that). He's got a posting history
>>>> > as long as your arm on uk.radio.amateur if you're really
>>>> > interested. See also RVMJ on that group, that was Burt too.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old
>>>> radio amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him
>>>> chatting as a radio ham.
>>>
>>> No, Burt would never reveal himself. He's a man of mystery.
>>
>> Another poster there, Jim, has no such qualms and has even cross
>> posted YouTubes of himself in action to the DIY group.
>
> yes, sickening isn't it.

In article <XnsADF29D4C8385537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Denialism By Dance" ... lol

> Maybe Spike/Burt would call it "negatio ab saltatio". Although I haven't
> attempted the correct dative case for dance.

Afraid it's all Greek to me! :-) My main secondary school barely did
Ingerlish, let alone fancy ancient stuff. By 6th form (different school)
'science' students weren't given a timetable you could fit such languages
into, although presumably the bio people did get some.

Science also clashed with music in 6th form. But I cheated a way round
that. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
>> An S2xx in an ology <swoon>

>> Kindly stop appealing to (your assumed) authority. It makes you look
>> inadequate.

> You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely
> correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.

"I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.

Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.

> How's Denialism By Dance coming on?

That makes you look petty.

--
Spike

On 30/11/2021 10:30, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:

>> Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?

>> It's crap - get over it.

> But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance coming
> on? Found a theatre yet?

That's even sillier than you normally manage.

--
Spike

On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely
>> correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
>
> "I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.
>
> Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.

You are a pathetic hypocrite, it was you who first started going for the
man, for example ...

On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
>
> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the
>> argument, because you're going for the man.
>
> It's *EVIDENCE*!
>
> *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
> really know, you wouldn't say that.

.... only to discover that I have a 1st in Sci-Tech subjects, and ever
since then you've been trying to belittle my qualifications because all
you've got in reply is apparently an interest in Contemporary Dance!
The moral of this is simple, if you have no worthwhile qualifications
yourself, don't question the abilities of others when you're losing an
argument, because, as has happened here, you can all too easily end up
making a dickhead of yourself.

>> How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
>
> That makes you look petty.

You should know all about that.

Further replies in this subthread lacking substantive argument based on
*EVIDENCE* will be ignored henceforth.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2021 10:30, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
>>>
>>> It's crap - get over it.
>>
>> But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance coming
>> on? Found a theatre yet?
>
> That's even sillier than you normally manage.

Hypocrite! See other reply along the same lines, further replies in
this subthread lacking substantive argument based on *EVIDENCE* will be
ignored henceforth.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 01/12/2021 18:25, Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:

>> On 30/11/2021 10:30, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:

>>>> Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?

>>>> It's crap - get over it.

>>> But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance coming
>>> on? Found a theatre yet?

>> That's even sillier than you normally manage.

> Hypocrite! See other reply along the same lines, further replies in
> this subthread lacking substantive argument based on *EVIDENCE* will be
> ignored henceforth.

You first.

--
Spike

On 01/12/2021 18:22, Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:

>> On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:

>>> You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely
>>> correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.

>> "I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.

>> Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.

> You are a pathetic hypocrite, it was you who first started going for the
> man, for example ...

> On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:

> > On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:

> >> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the
> >> argument, because you're going for the man.

> > It's *EVIDENCE*!

> > *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
> > really know, you wouldn't say that.

Believe that if you wish.

> ... only to discover that I have a 1st in Sci-Tech subjects,

Not doing you much good, is it?

>>> How's Denialism By Dance coming on?

>> That makes you look petty.

> You should know all about that.

> Further replies in this subthread lacking substantive argument based on
> *EVIDENCE* will be ignored henceforth.

You first, then.

--
Spike

On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:

>>>> <http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>

>>> Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...

>> So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.

>> Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
>> obviously.

> I did, but you snipped it.

You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
huge destruction of the web site and the authors.

Java Jive wrote:

"Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped>

This is, of course, completely unscientific. Go for the man, why don't
you - another false argument used by you almost as a first response to
any fact or opinion that doesn't match you own preconceptions.

Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
they forecast has turned out to be wrong", so apart from that claim
being much like the climate hysterics forecasts of no Arctic summer ice
by 2013, or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015, 2018, etc, the
statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of
a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
first place.

Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
findings of the analysis I linked to. You don't seem to aware of the
importance of looking for what is not being said, an example of which is
your having missed a key factor in a piece of work of your own which you
quoted a little while ago.

> More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake
> 'science' site?

Ignoring your pre-formed opinion, the idea was to see if you would trip
over yourself in your hysterical rush to condemn. You didn't disappoint.

You have not been charged for these lessons.

--
Spike

On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p >
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
>>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
>>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
>>>
>>> So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
>>>
>>> Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
>>> obviously.
>>
>> I did, but you snipped it.
>
> You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
> huge destruction of the web site and the authors.

You made the climate denialist fanatic's mistake of making multiple
links to an obviously bogus fake 'science' site, and I destroyed it as a
lesson to you that such sources cannot be relied upon.

> Java Jive wrote:
>
> "Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
> let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
> untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
> untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped
>
> This is, of course, completely unscientific.

It's completely valid, even scientific, to show that people who are
peddling lies are liars, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

> Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
> they forecast has turned out to be wrong"

For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed
turned out to be wrong!

, so apart from that claim
> being much like the climate hysterics forecasts of no Arctic summer ice
> by 2013,

Not a comparison of like with like: your links were supposedly to
scientists, whereas Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and the
scientist whose research he claimed to be quoting repudiated Al Gore's
quotes of his work at the time.

> or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015, 2018, etc,

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> the
> statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of
> a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
> of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
> effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
> first place.

On the contrary, you obviously failed to understand the repudiation, I
suspect because you just didn't bother to read it properly if at all, or
else failed to understand it, which wouldn't be surprising, given that
you were dumb enough to link to the crap in the first place. Here's
some R-language documentation on time-series analysis, show me an
example of A N D Y M A Y's calculation being done in the same
manner as he did:

https://a-little-book-of-r-for-time-series.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/timeseries.html

His use of the R-language struck me as being like a chimpanzee trying to
use a calculator; a calculator makes no mistakes, but you have to enter
meaningful data into one to get meaningful answers out of it. Similarly
the R-language's calculations are not in error, but the calculations he
asked it to do were meaningless.

> Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
> findings of the analysis I linked to.

There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.

> You don't seem to aware of the
> importance of looking for what is not being said, an example of which is
> your having missed a key factor in a piece of work of your own which you
> quoted a little while ago.

You still have given no *EVIDENCE* of that, and given your other proven
evasions, ad hominems, abuse, and other like bullshitting, I'll just
continue to ignore it until you do.

>> More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake
>> 'science' site?
>
> Ignoring your pre-formed opinion, the idea was to see if you would trip
> over yourself in your hysterical rush to condemn. You didn't disappoint.
>
> You have not been charged for these lessons.

Good thing, otherwise I'd be demanding my money back for their total
lack of useful learning. Don't bother replying until you've found an R
calculation being done in the same manner as A N D Y M A Y's,
because any further replies lacking substantive argument based on
*EVIDENCE* will be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:35:07 +0000
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
> >> An S2xx in an ology <swoon>
>
> >> Kindly stop appealing to (your assumed) authority. It makes you
> >> look inadequate.
>
> > You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm
> > merely correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
>
> "I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.
>
> Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.
>
> > How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
>
> That makes you look petty.
>

LOL!

Medice, cura te ipsum.

As you might say, Burt.

On 01/12/2021 21:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:

>>>> <http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>

>>> Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...

You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
huge destruction of the web site and the authors.

What you should have done was destroy their *argument*, which, of course
you *COMPLETELY* *FAILED* to do in your rush to condemn.

>> Java Jive wrote:

>> "Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
>> let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
>> untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
>> untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped

Have you ever read a peer-reviewed scientific paper that started with an
emotional attack on another author?

Thought not.

>> Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
>> they forecast has turned out to be wrong"

> For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed
> turned out to be wrong!

Much like the claims of climate hysterics like yourself predicting no
Arctic summer ice by 2013, or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015,
2018, etc

>> the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of
>> a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
>> of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
>> effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
>> first place.

>> Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
>> findings of the analysis I linked to.

> There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.

Oh dear.

You don't seem to aware of the importance of looking for what is not
being said, an example of which is your having missed a key factor in a
piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.

The *EVIDENCE* is there, in both cases. To miss one key point speaks of
misfortune; to miss two speaks of carelessness. Is putting your fingers
in your ears a SCIENTIFIC response, in your world of S101? Good luck in
finding your missing links.

In future:

Don't reply with an emotional appeal based on ad homs

Don't reply with /any/ false arguments

Don't reply with an appeal to your assumed authority

Don't reply with a wall of text that you think supports your case

Don't assume that everything you don't agree with is wrong

Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
can always give a reference where necessary.

Recognise when you've been outclassed.

HTH

--
Spike

On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
>
> Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
> cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
> can always give a reference where necessary.

See previous replies. The site is bullshit run by bullshitters, and the
so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical
operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result.

> Recognise when you've been outclassed.

Recognise when you're in a shithole and stop digging.

I'm still waiting for *EVIDENCE* in the form of another example of an R
program done in reverse order like the one you linked to, and which has
got a correct and meaningful result. I expect to be waiting a very long
time, so I won't be holding my breath.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 21:05, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> <http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>
>
>>>> Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
>>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
>>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
>
> You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
> huge destruction of the web site and the authors.
>
> What you should have done was destroy their *argument*, which, of course
> you *COMPLETELY* *FAILED* to do in your rush to condemn.
>
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> "Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
>>> let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
>>> untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
>>> untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped
>
> Have you ever read a peer-reviewed scientific paper that started with an
> emotional attack on another author?
>
> Thought not.
>
>>> Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
>>> they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
>
>> For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed
>> turned out to be wrong!
>
> Much like the claims of climate hysterics like yourself predicting no
> Arctic summer ice by 2013, or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015,
> 2018, etc
>
>>> the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of
>>> a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
>>> of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
>>> effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
>>> first place.
>
>>> Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
>>> findings of the analysis I linked to.
>
>> There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> You don't seem to aware of the importance of looking for what is not
> being said, an example of which is your having missed a key factor in a
> piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.
>
> The *EVIDENCE* is there, in both cases. To miss one key point speaks of
> misfortune; to miss two speaks of carelessness. Is putting your fingers
> in your ears a SCIENTIFIC response, in your world of S101? Good luck in
> finding your missing links.
>
> In future:
>
> Don't reply with an emotional appeal based on ad homs
>
> Don't reply with /any/ false arguments
>
> Don't reply with an appeal to your assumed authority
>
> Don't reply with a wall of text that you think supports your case
>
> Don't assume that everything you don't agree with is wrong
>
> Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
> cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
> can always give a reference where necessary.
>
> Recognise when you've been outclassed.
>
> HTH
>

Love it!

Bill

On 03/12/2021 15:36, williamwright wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
>>
>> [snip self-opinionated bullshit]
>
> Love it!

There's the kiss of death from Bill just to prove my point!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/12/2021 10:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:

>> Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
>> cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
>> can always give a reference where necessary.

> See previous replies. The site is bullshit run by bullshitters, and the
> so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical
> operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result.

That's a meaningless statement.

>> Recognise when you've been outclassed.

> I'm still waiting for *EVIDENCE* in the form of another example of an R
> program done in reverse order like the one you linked to, and which has
> got a correct and meaningful result. I expect to be waiting a very long
> time, so I won't be holding my breath.

You fool. You *still* haven't worked out what it is you've missed. Your
previous wall of text quotation didn't mention it either, largely
because it would have exposed their weakness. Recognise when you've been
bamboozled, probably because of your limited knowledge of statistics.

--
Spike

On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2021 10:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
>>> cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
>>> can always give a reference where necessary.
>
>> See previous replies. The site is bullshit run by bullshitters, and the
>> so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical
>> operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result.
>
> That's a meaningless statement.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue with it, so I'll just use abuse as a cover
up to avoid being seen to lose yet another argument, but I've got news
for you, anyone rational reading this will be able to see that you lost
it a long time back!

And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
*determined* not to understand it in the first place?

Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
2 * 45 tan =
.... and ...
45 * 2 tan =
.... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.

>> I'm still waiting for *EVIDENCE* in the form of another example of an R
>> program done in reverse order like the one you linked to, and which has
>> got a correct and meaningful result. I expect to be waiting a very long
>> time, so I won't be holding my breath.
>
> You fool. You *still* haven't worked out what it is you've missed. Your
> previous wall of text quotation didn't mention it either, largely
> because it would have exposed their weakness. Recognise when you've been
> bamboozled, probably because of your limited knowledge of statistics.

I'm still waiting for verifiable *EVIDENCE* about any of your claims at
all, including anything I may or may not have missed, but probably not
because probably you're just bullshitting endlessly because it seems you
just can't bear to lose yet another argument, though that seems to be
such a way of life for you that anyone else would have gotten well used
to it by now!

Let's see some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread!
Cough up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:

> And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
> performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
> meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
> *determined* not to understand it in the first place?

> Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
> 2 * 45 tan =
> ... and ...
> 45 * 2 tan =
> ... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.

That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.

It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.

> Let's see some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread!
> Cough up or shut up.

So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
*arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.

No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.

--
Spike

On 04/12/2021 12:10, Spike wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:
>
>> And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
>> performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
>> meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
>> *determined* not to understand it in the first place?
>
>> Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
>> 2 * 45 tan =
>> ... and ...
>> 45 * 2 tan =
>> ... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
>
> That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.

Earth shattering a shock to you it may be, but everyone else in the
world has known for a long time that statistics is based on arithmetical
operations.

> It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.

It is entirely your fault, your failure in character in fact, that you
continue to flog a horse so very long and so very dead, just because you
can't accept losing an argument.

>> Let's see some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread!
>> Cough up or shut up.
>
> So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
> *arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
>
> No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.

Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/12/2021 12:23, Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 12:10, Spike wrote:
>> On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:

>>> And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
>>> performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
>>> meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
>>> *determined* not to understand it in the first place?

>>> Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
>>> 2 * 45 tan =
>>> ... and ...
>>> 45 * 2 tan =
>>> ... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.

BTW, that's a low-quality calculator's way of expressing the operation.

A mathematically-correct one would say
2 <enter>45<tan><x> and it's hard to get that wrong.

>> That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.

> Earth shattering a shock to you it may be, but everyone else in the
> world has known for a long time that statistics is based on arithmetical
> operations.

So you're saying that 2x3=6 is different from 3x2=6??

You're batshit crazy.

>> It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.

> It is entirely your fault, your failure in character in fact, that you
> continue to flog a horse so very long and so very dead, just because you
> can't accept losing an argument.

Keep telling yourself that. if it brings you any comfort.

>> So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
>> *arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.

>> No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.

> Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
> some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
> or shut up.

Learn some maths, microbiology, statistics, and Cold War history, and
you might not make so many fundamental errors.

--
Spike

On 04/12/2021 13:32, Spike wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2021 12:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 04/12/2021 12:10, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
>>>> performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
>>>> meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
>>>> *determined* not to understand it in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
>>>> 2 * 45 tan =
>>>> ... and ...
>>>> 45 * 2 tan =
>>>> ... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
>
> BTW, that's a low-quality calculator's way of expressing the operation.
>
> A mathematically-correct one would say
> 2 <enter>45<tan><x> and it's hard to get that wrong.

So? You've just proven my point for me, which was the undoubted fact
that certain mathematical operations have to be performed in a
particular order to get the right answer, and your guru failed to do
this, which is why he got a nonsensical answer.

>>> That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
>
>> Earth shattering a shock to you it may be, but everyone else in the
>> world has known for a long time that statistics is based on arithmetical
>> operations.
>
> So you're saying that 2x3=6 is different from 3x2=6??

No, I said, that ...

>>>> 2 * 45 tan =

.... is different from ...

>>>> 45 * 2 tan =

> You're batshit crazy.

I'm simply correct, and you just can't stand it, can you?

>>> It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.
>
>> It is entirely your fault, your failure in character in fact, that you
>> continue to flog a horse so very long and so very dead, just because you
>> can't accept losing an argument.
>
> Keep telling yourself that. if it brings you any comfort.

Keep telling yourself that. if it brings you any comfort.

>>> So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
>>> *arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
>
>>> No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.
>
>> Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
>> some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
>> or shut up.
>
> Learn some maths, microbiology, statistics, and Cold War history, and
> you might not make so many fundamental errors.

Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <sog1s3$bpl$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
> some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
> or shut up.

So far as I can tell, "Spike" just wants to get attention and "have the
last word". i.e. waste of time to respond.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html