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.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:48:40 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/11/2021 16:41, Pamela wrote:
> >
> > On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread,
> as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
>

Don't think that's true. Burt does like to be an expert in all things,
though.

On 28/11/2021 20:56, Bernie wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:48:40 +0000
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/11/2021 16:41, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread,
>> as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
>
> Don't think that's true. Burt does like to be an expert in all things,
> though.

Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.

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.

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.

On 27/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:

>> On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:

>>> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
>>> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
>>> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
>>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
>>> climate change.

>> Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
>> temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
>> correlation is less than good.

> But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
> leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
> temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
> golden cross.

If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:

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

Good luck.

>> Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.

> You're still not producing any relevant *EVIDENCE* about that, nor
> indeed about this, so no need.

You're the one making the claims; you provide the evidence.

>>> FALSE! It doesn't:

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

>> So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting
>> globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
>> exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.

>> You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
>> and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
>> millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
>> scientifically robust.

> Opinion stated as if it were fact, yet again unsupported by *EVIDENCE*.
> Why am I not surprised!

You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle. Here's a summary for you:

<http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/rwpdacp.php>

[37 References]

>>>> [3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
>>>> warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
>>>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
>>>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?

>>> Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
>>> Raymo's graph already linked.

>> Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?

> I thought you said that my mentioning of Milankovic cycles was
> irrelevant? If you claim enough knowledge to be able to declare them
> irrelevant, why do I need to explain to you, when really there should be
> nothing further to explain, that the graphs shows that previous
> interglacials were predicted to be warmer by Milankovic's own calculations?

Then having jumped in with the subject, you need to explain, If
Milankovitch controls the interglacial temperature peaks, what CO2 has
got to do with it.

> When are you going to produce some *EVIDENCE* for what you claim?

Your deflections, ground-shifting, abuse, and false arguments in this
thread are there for all to see.

>>>> [4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
>>>> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
>>>> skills, such as they are...

>>> It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
>>> S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
>>> investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
>>> flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
>>> description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
>>> the scientific literature.

Try this, it's a bit long but should give you some of the science you need:

<http://www.co2science.org//education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php>

[121 References]

>> Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
>> appears to be poor.

> Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!

Silly boy! You have to look for what *isn't* in your description base.
It's more difficult than finding a Wikipedia article but does assume you
know something about the topic.

[Snip abuse showing that you've lost the substantive argument]

>> I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
>> IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
>> policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
>> times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.

> I leave it as an exercise for your research to discover what he actually
> said in what context, which is rather different from what you've tried
> to imply above.

Evasion.

>> And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
>> Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
>> Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being
>> revised
> And keep in mind that due to the sustained efforts of bigoted and
> dishonest idiots like you and the people you read online over more than
> twenty years, that consequential lack of earlier effective action by
> many governments, who allowed themselves to be conned thereby, means
> that we've got twenty years' *EXTRA* emissions to deal with that we
> could easily have avoided simply through people being honest.

Emotive drivel. Dry your eyes and grow up.

Still no *EVIDENCE* for anything you claim, put up or shut up.

Maldives under water by 2013...2015...2018...oh, well, sometime, then.

Arctic summer ice gone by 2013.....oops....

--
Spike

On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:

> Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as
> we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.

It could be worse - he could have got S101...

--
Spike

On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:

> Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
> scientific knowledge here in this thread.

That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
knowledge.

All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate with
S101, which is a foundation course.

--
Spike

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:30:57 +0000
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:
>
> > Judging by what we already know from above description and up
> > thread, as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
>
> It could be worse - he could have got S101...
>
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:06:49 +0000
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state
> as regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a
> watch list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes
> also other stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no
> messages of his, or indeed any of his that have been replied to by
> people who are.

Does you seeing that post signify that I'm in your "watch list", Burt?
Or is it just a bit of imagination failure on your part, Burt?

In article <j0i8l3F81ftU3@mid.individual.net>,
Bernie <bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Is he G2 or G3, then?

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

In article <j0jku8Fhd1uU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:

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

I recall discovering reports many decades ago that the stats of traffic
flow in and out of Tokyo show a 1/f spectrum, much like 1/f noise in a
small resistor. I'm not sure they are actually correlated, though. :->

However its an interesting result from the POV of Chaos Theory. Sort of
thing that intrigued people back when Mandelbrot was a best seller on T
shirts. :-)

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 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote:
>
> On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
>> scientific knowledge here in this thread.
>
> That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
> knowledge.
>
> All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate with
> S101, which is a foundation course.

I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the
Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I gained
distinction, and many years of interested reading before and since,
whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm looking
forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through the medium of
contemporary dance.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
> On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as
>> we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
>
> It could be worse - he could have got S101...

I've obviously got you there, because despite repeated requests, you
can't even muster that, let a second-level course in earth sciences,
both gained with distinction.

How's denialism as proven by contemporary dance coming on?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
>>>> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
>>>> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
>>>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
>>>> climate change.
>
>>> Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
>>> temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
>>> correlation is less than good.
>
>> But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
>> leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
>> temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
>> golden cross.
>
> If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:
>
> <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 ...

h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a b o u t / c e n t
e r _ s t a f f . p h p

A n d y M a y

"J O H N A N D R E W ( A N D Y ) M A Y is ... an experienced
petrophysicist and developmental geologist with extensive experience in
North and South America Onshore, Russia, Yemen, Gulf of Mexico, North
Sea, Indonesia, Brazil offshore, West Africa offshore, and China. He
also has significant experience in evaluating wildcats, delineating
newly discovered oil fields, appraising domestic and international
acquisitions, and re-appraising older oil and gas fields. Andy retired
from a 42-year career in petrophysics in 2016."

During which he worked for Exxon from 1980 to 1985. So here is a
geologist who has worked all his life for the fossil-fuel industry, and
is still dancing to their tune.

C r a i g I d s o

Again has strong links to well-known denialist organisations, receiving
$11,600 per month from the H e a r t l a n d I n s t i t u t e, is
involved with several denialist organisation receiving funding from
ExxonMobile, and is the denialist son of the denialist father below ...

S h e r w o o d I d s o

Is listed by DeSmog for his denialist activities ...

https://www.desmog.com/sherwood-b-idso/

.... but the Wikipedia article on him is more telling, because it lists
predictions that he has made, virtually all of which have turned out to
be wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso#Climate_science

"In 1980, Idso published research which concluded that climate
sensitivity was probably only about 0.3 °C.[9] The following year, he
criticized NASA's global warming predictions, saying they were "about 10
times too great," adding that, in his view, global warming would have a
beneficial effect on agriculture.[10]"

What are not given there are the precise details of his claim which were
that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would only raise
temperatures by 0.26degC, but in fact within a year of his claim NASA
had actually *measured* an increase of 0.5degC from just a 40-50ppm
increase in CO2 over the previous century [back from that time].

"In 1984, Idso, along with A.J. Brazel, published a study in Nature
which concluded, contrary to a report the National Academy of Sciences
released the previous year, that rising CO2 levels would increase
streamflow.[11] The study's authors argued that the NAS report came to
the opposite conclusion because it neglected the effect of rising CO2
levels on plants.[12]"

Again, time has shown this to be false, worldwide, streamflow has not
increased; perhaps it has become more unpredictable, but it has not
significantly, and perhaps more importantly, usefully, increased.

"In the 1997 book, Global Warming: The Science and the Politics Idso
said: "I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will
necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the
ongoing rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration."[13]"

Yet since then temperatures have continued to rise in step with CO2.

"In the 1998 paper, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of
potential climate change Idso said: "Several of these cooling forces
have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of
opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a
doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net
temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of
CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."[14]"

Yet again, simply hasn't happened.

More generally, note that all three of these individual have direct or
indirect links to Exxon Mobil, and we all know about Exxon's decades
long role in climate denialism:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/search?term=exxon

"Exxon Mobil faces trial over allegations of misleading investors on
climate crisis"

"Supreme Court rejects Exxon Mobil appeal in climate case"

"New York sues Exxon Mobil, saying it deceived shareholders on climate
change"

"'Clean coal' does not mean what Trump thinks it means, Exxon
deliberately mislead public on climate change, say researchers"

.... etc, etc, but particularly also their funding of it ...

"Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top
10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysing-the-900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-9-out-of-top-10-authors-linked-to-exxonmobil

And so to the article itself, which is about autocorrelation:

https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/autocorrelation/

"Autocorrelation

Autocorrelation refers to the degree of correlation between the values
of the same variables across different observations in the data. The
concept of autocorrelation is most often discussed in the context of
time series data in which observations occur at different points in time
(e.g., air temperature measured on different days of the month). For
example, one might expect the air temperature on the 1st day of the
month to be more similar to the temperature on the 2nd day compared to
the 31st day. If the temperature values that occurred closer together
in time are, in fact, more similar than the temperature values that
occurred farther apart in time, the data would be autocorrelated.

[...]

How to Detect Autocorrelation

A common method of testing for autocorrelation is the Durbin-Watson
test. Statistical software such as SPSS may include the option of
running the Durbin-Watson test when conducting a regression analysis.
The Durbin-Watson tests produces a test statistic that ranges from 0 to
4. Values close to 2 (the middle of the range) suggest less
autocorrelation, and values closer to 0 or 4 indicate greater positive
or negative autocorrelation respectively."

.... and ...

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1343

"Uncertainty increases with autocorrelation

The two contributions to uncertainty described above are widely known.
If for example you use the matrix version of the LINEST function found
in any standard spreadsheet program, you will get an estimate of trend
and uncertainty taking into account these factors.

However, if you apply it to temperature data, you will get the wrong
answer. Why? Because temperature data violates one of the assumptions of
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression - that all the data are
independent observations.

In practice monthly temperature estimates are not independent - hot
months tend to follow hot months and cold months follow cold months.
This is in large part due to the El Nino cycle, which strongly
influences global temperatures and varies over a period of about 60
months. Therefore it is possible to get strong short term temperature
trends which are not indicative of a long term trend, but of a shift
from El Nino to La Nina or back. This ‘autocorrelation’ leads to
spurious short term trends, in other words it increases the uncertainty
in the trend.

It is still possible to obtain an estimate of the trend uncertainty, but
more sophisticated methods must be used. If the patterns of correlation
in the temperature data can be described simply, then this can be as
simple as using an ‘effective number of parameters’ which is less than
the number of observations. This approach is summarised in the methods
section of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) [Note that the technique for
correcting for autocorrelation is independent of the multivariate
regression calculation which is the main focus of that paper].

This is the second effect in play in the difference in uncertainties
between the raw and adjusted data in Figure 1: Not only has the noise
been reduced, the autocorrelation has also been reduced. Both serve to
reduce the uncertainty in the trend. The raw and corrected uncertainties
(in units of C/year) are shown in the following table:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:10:34 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote:
> >
> > On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >> Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
> >> scientific knowledge here in this thread.
> >
> > That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
> > knowledge.
> >
> > All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate
> > with S101, which is a foundation course.
>
> I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the
> Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I
> gained distinction, and many years of interested reading before and
> since, whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm
> looking forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through
> the medium of contemporary dance.
>

Good dancer though, isn't he? Light on his feet, fantastic changement
de pieds, and lashings of flourishes. A little flamboyant, for some,
perhaps?

On 21:22 29 Nov 2021, Bernie said:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:10:34 +0000
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
>> >> scientific knowledge here in this thread.
>> >
>> > That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
>> > knowledge.
>> >
>> > All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate
>> > with S101, which is a foundation course.
>>
>> I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the
>> Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I
>> gained distinction, and many years of interested reading before and
>> since, whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm
>> looking forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through
>> the medium of contemporary dance.
>>
>
> Good dancer though, isn't he? Light on his feet, fantastic changement
> de pieds, and lashings of flourishes. A little flamboyant, for some,
> perhaps?

I'be become dizzy watching him dance with Java and have had to look away.

On 29/11/2021 21:22, Bernie wrote:
>
> Good dancer though, isn't he? Light on his feet, fantastic changement
> de pieds, and lashings of flourishes. A little flamboyant, for some,
> perhaps?

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.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.

On 29/11/2021 17:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote
>> On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
>>> scientific knowledge here in this thread.

>> That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
>> knowledge.

>> All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate with
>> S101, which is a foundation course.

> I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the
> Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I gained
> distinction, and many years of interested reading before and since,
> whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm looking
> forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through the medium of
> contemporary dance.

An S2xx in an ology <swoon>

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

--
Spike

On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>> On 27/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
>>>>> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
>>>>> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
>>>>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
>>>>> climate change.

>>>> Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
>>>> temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
>>>> correlation is less than good.

>>> But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
>>> leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
>>> temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
>>> golden cross.

>> If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:

>> <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.

<drivel snipped>

--
Spike

On 29/11/2021 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as
>>> we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.

>> It could be worse - he could have got S101...

> I've obviously got you there, because despite repeated requests, you
> can't even muster that, let a second-level course in earth sciences,
> both gained with distinction.

> How's denialism as proven by contemporary dance coming on?

Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?

It's crap - get over it.

--
Spike

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.

How's Denialism By Dance coming on?

--

Fake news kills!

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

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?

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.

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

--

Fake news kills!

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