On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.

How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.

On 10/07/2022 15:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/06/2022 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that
>>> travelling much
>>> faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose
>>> consciousness as
>>> the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.
>>
>> Brunel ran into this mentality.  He needed to tunnel under Box Hill.
>> He was told that at the speed his train would be travelling everybody
>> on the train would suffocate in the tunnel.  He got past the objection
>> by building a tunnel with a gradient so that if everybody died the
>> train would continue out of the tunnel by gravity so that rescuers did
>> not suffer from the lack of air problem getting to the victims.
>>
>> Funny enough, nobody has died in the tunnel (except some idiot who
>> decided to walk through and got hit by a train), despite trains now
>> capable of 125mph through it.
>>
>> Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted
>> as being right.  Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth
>> went round the sun.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Is this the tunnel that the sun shines through on his birthday each year?
>
That's the one. Except that the Earth's orbit is now slightly different
and I am told it is now 2 days out (though I haven't checked it myself).

Jim

On 10/07/2022 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>
>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>> facts.
>>>
>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
>>> you?
>>
>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>
> I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
>
> It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
>
> I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
> opinion that someone else might not agree with.

Why else would anyone restate an opinion that has already been proven false?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/07/2022 16:38, Java Jive wrote:

>
> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>

I am told that it is where a golf ball rests after it has been struck by
a club.

:-)

Jim

On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>
>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>
> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
> merchants a few years ago.

We weren't:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/07/2022 19:29, charles wrote:
> In article <84289dd2-947e-e888-5470-6e4be452e8e1@outlook.com>,
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
>>> In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>>>>> do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>>>
>>>> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
>>>> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
>>>> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
>>>> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
>>>
>>> Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
>>>
>
>> That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion
>> starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."
>
> whereas Chambers: "what seems to one to be probably true"; Shakesperean
> use: "Arrogance"
>

Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not
worthy of respect in a democratic society".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>
> Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
> probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not
> worthy of respect in a democratic society".

But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
*ALREADY* been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely
voicing an opinion, it's lying.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>>
>>Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
>>probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not
>>worthy of respect in a democratic society".
>
>But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has ALREADY
>been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely voicing an
>opinion, it's lying.

Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are
really, really, confused about what an opinion is.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The first five days after the weekend are the hardest.

On 10/07/2022 22:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
>>> probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
>>> not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
>>
>> But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
>> ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely
>> voicing an opinion, it's lying.
>
> Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are
> really, really, confused about what an opinion is.

Go and speak to a scientist and get some advice because your are really,
really, confused about what a fact is.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/07/2022 in message <tafht3$1fpg9$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 22:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
>>>>probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not
>>>>worthy of respect in a democratic society".
>>>
>>>But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has ALREADY
>>>been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely voicing an
>>>opinion, it's lying.
>>
>>Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are
>>really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
>
>Go and speak to a scientist and get some advice because your are really,
>really, confused about what a fact is.

I know exactly what a fact is AND I know the difference between a fact and
an opinion. Get some advice, you need it.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

On 10/07/2022 23:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <tafht3$1fpg9$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 22:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
>>>>> probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
>>>>> not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
>>>>
>>>> But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
>>>> ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer
>>>> merely  voicing an opinion, it's lying.
>>>
>>> Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your
>>> are really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
>>
>> Go and speak to a scientist and get some advice because your are
>> really, really, confused about what a fact is.
>
> I know exactly what a fact is AND I know the difference between a fact
> and an opinion. Get some advice, you need it.

Yes, I am sure you do, that's what make all this bullshit thoroughly
dishonest, and proves you to be still lying.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:30:28 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 10/07/2022 in message <taeroe$1dla0$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>>>I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>>>>>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate
>>>>>>but more rapid changes over a few years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
>>>>>>Change cult.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
>>>>>climate is not fashionable of course.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were
>>>>driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for
>>>>decades now that humans are warming the planet.
>>>
>>>Accepted by whom, "they"?
>>
>>Anyone with a basic understanding of planetary science.
>
> Ah, that's why it went over my head.

The ancient aliens know.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 20:44:44 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>>
>> I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
>>
>> It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
>>
>> I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
>> opinion that someone else might not agree with.
>
>Why else would anyone restate an opinion that has already been proven false?

Because it's their opinion perhaps?

Because they might not know that it has been proven false?

Because even if they've heard of a proof that it's false they might
not accept that the proof valid? (Is it really a proof anyway, or just
another opinion?)

In any case, as long as they are not attempting deliberately to
deceive, then they are not "lying". They may be mistaken, or ignorant,
or they may have formed their opinion by some reasoning method that is
less than scientifically rigorous (e.g. religion, possibly the main
culprit but not the only one), but if they are stating what they
understand to be true, regardless of the source of their
understanding, they are not attempting to deceive anyone.

We are talking about the difference between an untruth and a
deliberate untruth. Most people seem to have no difficulty
understanding this. Intent (or lack thereof) is relevant. To accuse
people of lying whenever they say something you don't agree with is to
accuse them falsely of motivations that may not apply.

Rod.

On 10/07/2022 10:45 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
>>> probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
>>> not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
>>
>> But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
>> ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely
>> voicing an opinion, it's lying.
>
> Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are
> really, really, confused about what an opinion is.

Don't feed the trolls.

It's what he *wants*.

On 11/07/2022 08:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 20:44:44 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>>>
>>> I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
>>>
>>> It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
>>> opinion that someone else might not agree with.
>>
>> Why else would anyone restate an opinion that has already been proven false?
>
> Because it's their opinion perhaps?

It's no longer just an 'opinion' if it's *ALREADY* proven false.

> Because they might not know that it has been proven false?

He was given, IMS, around 13 links to information that proved his
opinion was false.

> Because even if they've heard of a proof that it's false they might
> not accept that the proof valid? (Is it really a proof anyway, or just
> another opinion?)

The economic statistics that were linked to are facts, not opinions.

> In any case, as long as they are not attempting deliberately to
> deceive, then they are not "lying".

The restating of the opinion after it had been shown to be false, and
this whole trail of bullshit since then, proves his guilt.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>
>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
>> merchants a few years ago.
>
> We weren't:
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>
> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."

Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of papers?

--
Max Demian

On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>>
>>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
>>> merchants a few years ago.
>>
>> We weren't:
>>
>> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>>
>> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
>
> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
> papers?

Since when were they not?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>>>
>>>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
>>>> merchants a few years ago.
>>>
>>> We weren't:
>>>
>>> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>>>
>>> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
>>
>> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
>> papers?
>
> Since when were they not?
>

The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to me
novel and contentious.

What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation can
ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

OK, Popper teaches us that's naive. (And not just 'cos one would in
practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)

But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm shift.
And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of papers to tip
the balance.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/07/2022 14:05, Robin wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>>>>
>>>>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
>>>>> merchants a few years ago.
>>>>
>>>> We weren't:
>>>>
>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>>>>
>>>> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
>>>
>>> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
>>> papers?
>>
>> Since when were they not?
>>
>
> The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to me
> novel and contentious.
>
> What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation can
> ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
>
> OK, Popper teaches us that's naive.  (And not just 'cos one would in
> practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)
>
> But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm shift.
> And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of papers to tip
> the balance.

Philosophy is fine as an intellectual talking point, but, back here in
the real world, ideally we, in particular politicans, have to make
decisions on some sort of rational evidential basis, and that will
usually involve following what the majority of the science says,

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/07/2022 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 14:05, Robin wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to
>>>>>> doom merchants a few years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> We weren't:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
>>>>
>>>> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
>>>> papers?
>>>
>>> Since when were they not?
>>>
>>
>> The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to me
>> novel and contentious.
>>
>> What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation
>> can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
>>
>> OK, Popper teaches us that's naive.  (And not just 'cos one would in
>> practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)
>>
>> But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm shift.
>> And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of papers to
>> tip the balance.
>
> Philosophy is fine as an intellectual talking point, but, back here in
> the real world, ideally we, in particular politicans, have to make
> decisions on some sort of rational evidential basis, and that will
> usually involve following what the majority of the science says,
>

I was questioning your claim for the role of a majority of papers.

Your new formulation - "the majority of the science" - begs just as many
questions. Summing over all the papers ever published or some defined[1]
period? And over all "science" or just a selected[2] subset of
researchers/journals/States?

Meanwhile there is ample evidence that the way scientific advice to
Ministers is arrived at, and the way decisions are taken, is nothing
like as simple as "what's the majority view?" You don't have to have
been in the room to know that: advice on climate and minutes from the
1970s have long been available and reviewed extensively.

[1] by whom? on what basis?
[2] do.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/07/2022 15:32, Robin wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 14:05, Robin wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to
>>>>>>> doom merchants a few years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We weren't:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote
>>>>> of papers?
>>>>
>>>> Since when were they not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to
>>> me novel and contentious.
>>>
>>> What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation
>>> can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
>>>
>>> OK, Popper teaches us that's naive.  (And not just 'cos one would in
>>> practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)
>>>
>>> But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm
>>> shift. And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of
>>> papers to tip the balance.
>>
>> Philosophy is fine as an intellectual talking point, but, back here in
>> the real world, ideally we, in particular politicans, have to make
>> decisions on some sort of rational evidential basis, and that will
>> usually involve following what the majority of the science says,
>>
>
> I was questioning your claim for the role of a majority of papers.
>
> Your new formulation - "the majority of the science" - begs just as many
> questions. Summing over all the papers ever published or some defined[1]
> period?  And over all "science" or just a selected[2] subset of
> researchers/journals/States?
>
> Meanwhile there is ample evidence that the way scientific advice to
> Ministers is arrived at, and the way decisions are taken, is nothing
> like as simple as "what's the majority view?"  You don't have to have
> been in the room to know that: advice on climate and minutes from the
> 1970s have long been available and reviewed extensively.
>
>
> [1] by whom? on what basis?
> [2] do.

I really don't see your problem here: a paper may come out that pushes
science in a radically new direction - there always has to be someone
that is first - but, over time, the new science is accepted. In a
manner of speaking, it's the 'natural' way of things. Ideally, on a
given issue, politicians will follow the scientifically accepted view at
the time.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
> Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of papers?

Much better to leave to a Scandinavian child who does not even seem to
go to school?

In article <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as
> being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
> round the sun.

I may be that it was hounded for making the Pope look like an idiot.

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 <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

> I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.

> I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
> Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
> more rapid changes over a few years.

> But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
> Change cult.

Not heresy, just lazy sh1t-stirring or willful ignorance. :-)
l 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 Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:50 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as
>> being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
>> round the sun.
>
>I may be that it was hounded for making the Pope look like an idiot.
>
>Jim

It would be unfair either way, because it wouldn't be his fault if the
Pope really was an idiot.

Rod.