On 21/08/2022 09:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
> description)

His behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly the behaviour
of a serially dishonest troll and liar, as described in my answer to Bill.

> can easily be dealt with if anything needs to be done.
> There is a well established procedure for dealing with trolls on the
> internet, which is to leave them alone. Don't respond. Don't answer.
> It's not a competition. Resist the temptation to have the last word,
> and recognise when someone else is failing to do so, otherwise you may
> find yourself bickering like children with no end in sight and no
> clarification of the original subject for anyone else.

It doesn't work, because then their crap is still plastered all over
this ng, and, worse still, it goes unanswered, thereby gaining
legitimacy by its very unanswered ubiquitousness. This is how
propagandists like Goebbels, Putin, and Bob achieve white becoming
'black' and black becoming 'white'.

Bob himself is past saving and not worth caring about it, what matters
is preventing him shitting all over this ng, and the only way of doing
that is to remove the means of posting which he endlessly abuses.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
>> the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world,
>> and manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
>
> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually
> taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area where
> the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively provide
> slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth than had
> been the case for a couple of millennia before.
>
> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist
> published it.  However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
> wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?

You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/08/2022 10:09, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <auq3ghh007tru6dk1k27p8ttqsvelvoi2l@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
>> description)
>
> I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.

Because your behaviour is that of a serially dishonest troll and liar, viz:

- Posting obvious lies without checking their provenance;

- Deliberately extracting graphs and pictures from other sources and
copying them to your own site, so that their original context is removed
and cannot be discussed;

- Endlessly reposting false claims that have been many times debunked;

- Endlessly linking to sources that have already been shown to be
unreliable;

- Trying to 'cancel' Jim by ranting out the same long and many times
debunked spiels of crap every time he replies to any of your previous
trolls.

Etc, etc, etc.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <jmeiu4Fjfa9U1@mid.individual.net>,

> Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
> necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob
> is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.

Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe
what I write and I never lie. What is more I have the right to hold
views the left disapprove of, in fact it's almost a duty and it's my
right to speak them especially when climate nonsense is pushed by
others. However, I'm not perfect and could from time to time be
wrong but not often.

I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero. We must tackle climate change, is up there with the most
deluded statements ever made by man. If you think its's true then
you're either complicit in the greatest political attack on the west
ever or your a victim of propaganda.

Climate change has always existed and always will. It has been warmer
in medieval and Roman times that it is now. Nothing bad is happening
or likely too. This is being done for an agenda not to save the
planet that doesn't need saving.

The excellent Tony Heller nails the the absurd Biden claims for July
2022. Cracking video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEcRGXzv_5U
Absolute fraud plain and simple!

There are plenty of excellent scientists who that do not support this
nonsense.

Bob.

In article <tdt3pu$2b002$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
> Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
> currently in use?

I'll be honest Jim I've no idea but as the people behind these
computer models are not remotely interested in the truth I rather
doubt it.

Bob.

In article <5a1ae5d413bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> There is no climate emergency. Nothing is happening that hasn't
> happened before and more so.

The overwhelming *evidence* shows you are wrong.

> Science expects scepticism, debate and argument. Science never says
> "the science is settled" or "follow the science" or "the science
> says". Debate and argument are part of how science works.

Overesimplistic musinderstanding of the scientific process due to
cherry-picking which misses the context, etc. Done presumably to suit your
wishful delusions.

Science decides on the basis of testing ideas against the *evidence*. This
is what decides, not the theory in isolation. The "science" I keep
directing you to is a book showing how it is based upon the evidence.

By refusing to learn about the evidence your fail to test - scientifically
- your wishful thinking. The actual evidence overall is a mountain that
gives a quite clear view if you can be bothered to learn about it.

> Recently, I note the latest deep space telescope images are making
> people even think the big band theory is wrong. I've no idea but
> others are worried about this. Science is never settled.

> No predictions for climate change have ever got anywhere near coming
> true.

Curious how you 'know' that on the basis of refusing to read the actual
mountains of evicence as exampled in the book I recommended. if you read it
you might also learn now 'science' works.

Yawn.

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 <tdr0vh$207i7$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Recently, I note the latest deep space telescope images are making
> > people even think the big band theory is wrong. I've no idea but
> > others are worried about this. Science is never settled.

> AIUI, not so much wrong, as incomplete.

Yes, as usual, Bob's view of 'science' is pretty crude and foggy.
Presumably a product of being unwilling to learn out of fear he might find
he is wrong about anything he is determined to believe.

The current view is that the 'Big Bang' (a sarcastic lable given to it by
Fred Hoyle) did happen. One of the main tasks planned for JWST is finding
out details about the following 'expansion' via looking at the 1st gen
stars, etc. Plus, of course all kinds of other astronomy.

So the 'Big Bang' is still the basic idea. But many details of the early
Universe remain unclear. The label doesn't cover the details. Only that
'later' (in Unversal time terms) evicence clearly points (pun alert) back
to a 'Big Bang'.

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 <5a1ae5f779bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tdqb2e$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
> > another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
> > will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.

> I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.

Good. That'll give you a chance to employ "Physician heal thyself". :-) and
actually learn how science does work and the real evidence which makes the
situation quite clear.

Who knows, maybe you may even find time to read - and even *understand* -
the books I've repeatedly recommended.

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 <auq3ghh007tru6dk1k27p8ttqsvelvoi2l@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
> description) can easily be dealt with if anything needs to be done.
> There is a well established procedure for dealing with trolls on the
> internet, which is to leave them alone. Don't respond.

The problem is that if no-one challenges a wishful delusion that is already
widespread it may then spread further and become accepted by others who
haven't seen any reason to doubt it. You can see countless examples of this
around us in the modern world.

CC is a good example of this because actually knowing and understanding the
evidence takes time and thought and a willingness to establish what is
reliable evidence to weed out delusions and - frankly - willful lies 'sold'
by big companies, etc as a part of a *political* process which has clearly
had a lot of success. Largely because most people don't even understand
'science' as a process. Nor have seen and understood the evicence which is
complex and quite a large body of many different types.

That's why I take the opportunity to recommend a well-written book that
provides a basis for people to judge for themselves on the basis of
reliable evidence.

So although simply ignoring is a useful rule. At times pointing out things
like the above may be worthwhile - no matter how boring it is to do, and to
read when it is already obvious to you.

After a few years of lecturing to undergrads I found I was getting
irritable during a lecture, but for no obvious reason. Later on I thought
about it and realised that, emotionally, my mind was thinking "I've
explained this many times before. They should already know it!"... but of
course I was talking to a different set of people. :-)

I guess, though, that by now this group is simply a set of 'old lags' and
assorted incorrageables. :-)

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 21/08/2022 14:43, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <jmeiu4Fjfa9U1@mid.individual.net>,
>
>> Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
>> necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob
>> is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.
>
> Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe
> what I write and I never lie.

[snip rest of self-eulogising crap]

Here, to remind you yet again, is a list of your many lies told in the past:

> The terms of reference for the IPCC adds more skew, it specifically
> investigates man-made climate change not the cause of climate change.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> The UN was discussing last week the idea of using force against
> nations that did not comply with their climate hysteria destruction
> of energy usage - yes BY FORCE.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> the*additional* effect of CO2 decreases as you add more to
> the atmosphere.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> Well I don't read JJ learnt on any issues,

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> The polar bears are fine as are penguins, there is no evidence that
> storms are getting worse or more frequent

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> United states graphs show that the number of days over 90deg F per
> year peaked in the 1930s and has been dropping ever since.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> Then the
> greenhouse gas theory says that the warming should be more noticeable
> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> A court case that found against Mann's hockey stick graph pretty much
> due to lack of supporting evidence.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> Nothing, absolutely nothing bad at all related to CO2 is happening
> anywhere.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> Even if the planet was a degree or so warmer, all indications are
> that that is a good thing. Sea levels are not rising any faster than
> before

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> and the polar bears are in larger numbers than ever.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> The slightly increased CO2 is greening the planet.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> This isn't even any empirical proof that CO2 in the atmosphere is
> actually trapping heat, there just isn't, at best it's an assumption.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

> Every prediction made by the climate loons has timed out and all have
> failed miserably to come true. 100% fail.

Proven lie repeated multiple times.

Etc, etc, etc. Since I first posted that, there have been many more
repetition of the above and many new lies propagandised.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/08/2022 16:20, Java Jive wrote:

[snip]

Sorry, change in subject there was entirely accidental.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
>Net zero.

Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.

Rod.

On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
>> Net zero.
>
> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
> not everybody understands this.

Indeed, but 'absolute' and 'net' are different things. Smiley missing?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
>>> the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world,
>>> and manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
>>
>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
>> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
>> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
>> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
>> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
>> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
>> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
>> before.
>>
>> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
>> Scientist published it.  However, I have never seen it mentioned
>> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
>> currently in use?
>
> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
> to verify it.  Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>
I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
interested in. I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the exams.

Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
not built into the current models.

Jim

On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
> not everybody understands this.

In the current context, negative net emissions are possible, so zero is
not an asymptote.

On 21/08/2022 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
>>> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
>>> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
>>> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
>>> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
>>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
>>> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
>>> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
>>> before.
>>>
>>> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
>>> Scientist published it.  However, I have never seen it mentioned
>>> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
>>> currently in use?
>>
>> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
>> to verify it.  Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>>
> I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
> interested in.  I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
> A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the exams.

But again, to the rest of us, this is just more hearsay. If you want us
to discuss the original science that you claim to remember, you need to
produce *EVIDENCE* for it.

> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
>  However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
> not built into the current models.

That is a non-sequitur, I don't write the current models, so what I know
or don't know about the science you claim to remember doesn't affect
what goes into them.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/08/2022 21:38, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>>>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and
>>>> read the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the
>>>> New Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article
>>>> that explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
>>>> gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
>>>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
>>>> progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
>>>> reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
>>>> before.
>>>>
>>>> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
>>>> Scientist published it.  However, I have never seen it mentioned
>>>> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
>>>> currently in use?
>>>
>>> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been
>>> able to verify it.  Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>>>
>> I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
>> interested in.  I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
>> A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the
>> exams.
>
> But again, to the rest of us, this is just more hearsay.  If you want us
> to discuss the original science that you claim to remember, you need to
> produce *EVIDENCE* for it.
>
>> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it
>> untrue.   However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the
>> effect is not built into the current models.
>
> That is a non-sequitur, I don't write the current models, so what I know
> or don't know about the science you claim to remember doesn't affect
> what goes into them.
>
So by your own admission, even if I produce evidence you still won't
know if it is in the models or not. So you just want me to waste my time
for no benefit.

I am not going to trawl through years of New Scientist to find the
article I read, but this link is good enough to show that I didn't make
it up.
https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/

Jim

On 21/08/2022 22:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 21/08/2022 21:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/08/2022 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the
>>>>> early 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library
>>>>> and read the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy
>>>>> of the New Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an
>>>>> article that explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral
>>>>> arm was gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar
>>>>> dust unto an area where the dust was very much reduced and this
>>>>> would progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the
>>>>> sun reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of
>>>>> millennia before.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
>>>>> Scientist published it.  However, I have never seen it mentioned
>>>>> since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
>>>>> currently in use?
>>>>
>>>> You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been
>>>> able to verify it.  Until you do, it just remains a claim.
>>>>
>>> I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
>>> interested in.  I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
>>> A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the
>>> exams.
>>
>> But again, to the rest of us, this is just more hearsay.  If you want
>> us to discuss the original science that you claim to remember, you
>> need to produce *EVIDENCE* for it.
>>
>>> Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it
>>> untrue.   However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the
>>> effect is not built into the current models.
>>
>> That is a non-sequitur, I don't write the current models, so what I
>> know or don't know about the science you claim to remember doesn't
>> affect what goes into them.
>
> So by your own admission, even if I produce evidence you still won't
> know if it is in the models or not. So you just want me to waste my time
> for no benefit.

You're getting way ahead of yourself, you've still to prove that the
original prediction is actually coming true, only when we know that
would it be useful to discuss climate models. And see below ...

> I am not going to trawl through years of New Scientist to find the
> article I read, but this link is good enough to show that I didn't make
> it up.
> https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/

Interesting, but I can't see anything there that is likely to affect
global warming significantly.

Also, don't forget that even if this hypothesis turns out to be true,
we're constantly measuring the sun's radiation reaching the earth
anyway, so any change in it for whatever reason will already be being
measured!

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <tdu3ff$2e0uo$1@dont-email.me>,
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
> > not everybody understands this.

> In the current context, negative net emissions are possible, so
> zero is not an asymptote.

It may be possible but in the current context, it is utterly
pointless and ruinously expensive and it's the poor who'll really
suffer.

The most stupid idea in history.

Bob.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 12:09:47 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
>> On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
>> the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world, and
>> manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
>
>I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
>1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
>the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
>Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
>explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually
>taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area where
>the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively provide
>slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth than had
>been the case for a couple of millennia before.
>
>I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist
>published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
>wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?

NS from 22 Nov 1956 onwards thru the 1960 and 1970s is online courtesy
of Google Books. If you remember somne key words from the article a
search on all issues could find it.

--
brightside S9

--

In article <5a1b5da571bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
> > description)

> I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.

> I have a different opinion from the left wing media. An opinion that is
> shared by millions of other Brits. The left fight their arguments with
> personal attacks because their arguments are weak and they are filled
> with hate, it's written on their faces.

....he said, going for the 'man not the ball'. :-)

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 <tdt8ho$2bd2v$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 09:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> > The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
> > description)

> His behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly the behaviour
> of a serially dishonest troll and liar, as described in my answer to
> Bill.

I'll differ from that. I think he is sincere in what he states he believes.
The root of the problem is that he refuses to read and understand the
actual evidence showing the science which is considerable and detailed.

He believes what it *wants* to believe. Thus can't face the evidence
showing his beliefs are wrong. That he keeps banging on about it here
simply demonstrates how desperate he is to cling to his erronious beliefs.
The reality, I suspect. is that he is probably convincing no-one, precisely
because he refuses to read and understand the evidence which is well
referenced and explained in the book I've suggested. His sour cherries tend
to show their flaws when examined.

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 <tdt3pu$2b002$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
> Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
> explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually
> taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area
> where the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively
> provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth
> than had been the case for a couple of millennia before.

> I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist
> published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
> wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?

The word above "slightly" would be relevant I suspect given how low (1) the
levels of interstellar dust tends to be. What an astronomer might call
'dense' in that context most people would call "pretty scarce!". FWIW a lot
on non-visible-band astronomy relates to dust clouds, etc.

Beyond that. reading the book I've recommended will show the range of
processes, effects, etc that Climate scientists deal with and take into
account.

(1) I'd need a reliable reference to check. However it may be worth
pointing out that *interstellar* distances are 'quite large' compared
with the Solar System and our relative drift velocity wrt the
spiral arms, etc. Hence any changes due to variations in the
interstellar dust density would, I suspect, be *very* sloooow
compared with what's happening wrt CO2. The main effect there
which is worrying people is on a timescale of a couple of centuries
or so, most steeply more recently.

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 <jmeiu4Fjfa9U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
> necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob is
> absolutely sincere in his beliefs.

> It would be a cheap shot to respond to this by saying "But he's
> wrong/he's a pillock, yah boo sucks."

It would, however, be more accurate to say they he is wrong and refuses to
look at the substantiated evidence which shows that he is stubbornly
deluded. The key problem he has is his refusal to even learn about the
evidence, let alone understand it.

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 <5a1b76afb8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe what
> I write and I never lie. What is more I have the right to hold views the
> left disapprove of, in fact it's almost a duty and it's my right to
> speak them especially when climate nonsense is pushed by others.
> However, I'm not perfect and could from time to time be wrong but not
> often.

Good. So you can now try reading the book I suggested and we can take it
from the point when you've started to study and understand the mountains of
diverse evicence that support both 'natural' and man-made climate changes.

Simply claiming you are correct, and all that evidence is wrong, won't
conform to what you say above. Believing what you claim doesn't make it
true.

Anyone can have an 'opinion'. The snag is that reality doesn't care what
anynne would prefer to believe. Your argument is based on refusing to learn
about the scientific reality as shown by that evidence.

You could say it is my 'duty' to keep pointing out what the *evidence*
tells us, and that it conflicts with what you believe/claim over and over
and over again, whilst refusing to learn about that evidence that confounds
your beliefs.

Can't help much with your belief that any idea you don't like is "leftie"
though as that's a matter for trick cyclists, not natural science. :-)

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