On 17/08/2022 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
>> accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
>> network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
>> style gsm phone?
>
> You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the change
> *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check if they can
> afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
>

Which company is this?

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

On 18/08/2022 10:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5a194e38e0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You seem now to have developed dementia as well as being paranoid!
>> claimed as the basis of his daft assertion.
>
> Sooner or later with extreme lefties, they cannot resist, they always
> live down to my expectations and start the insults again, it's their
> first weapon. So tired of it. It makes your argument weaker not
> stronger.

*HYPOSHITE!* You are the person here who continually uses terms which
you intend to be seen as pejorative, such as 'extreme lefties',
'greenies', etc.

> You wish to ignore history.

FALSE! We have detailed extensively your dishonest history of repeating
pseudo and fake science that was first debunked long ago by credited
scientists before you even read it and since has been many times
debunked by people in this ng.

> Ignore data tampering.

FALSE! We have constantly debunked your attempts to invoke
pseudo-scientific results obtained by data-tampering, for example in the
now infamous, in this ng, two-point paper that Jim has just described
upthread.

> Ignore emails describing the plot to remove "inconvenient" things
> from history which JJ of course claimed was debunked but of course
> that easy to say but untrue. The emails still exist and we know who
> wrote them and why.

As explained to you and others multiple times before, they weren't
'inconvenient', they were 'wrong' in the sense that they weren't a valid
proxy measurement of temperature, so it would have quite wrong and
unscientific to use them, as a number of subsequent independent
scientific investigations showed.

> Ignore temperature records where no tampering has taken place.

What temperature records would those be? Where is your *EVIDENCE* for
this allegation?!

> Ignore that models are preset to give the desired result.

What models would those be? Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this allegation?!

> Ignore previous warm periods warmer than now, both in the last
> century and centuries ago.

Climate scientists do not 'ignore' any part of earth's climate history.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this allegation?!

> Ignore the obvious "fix" described in this video which in common with
> so many slams the door on items that don't suite the agenda, just
> like the BBC. To me, it looks like a corrupt stitch up.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJIw7ulYaGk

00:00 Dr John Robson, Historian/Journalist

So, surprise, surprise, not a climate scientist. Further a well known
climate denialist with links to organisations known to promote denialism
and similar right-wing fake news, such as:

F r o n t i e r C e n t r e f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Centre_for_Public_Policy

"Among the positions promoted by the Centre is climate change denial.[5]

Publications and controversies

In September 2018, the Frontier Centre ran a radio ad which claimed to
debunk myths about the lasting impact of the abuses of the Canadian
Indian residential school system that resulted in the deaths of 6000
Indigenous children and was classified as form of cultural genocide by a
six-year study undertaken by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
James Daschuk, a professor specializing in Indigenous health at the
University of Regina, described the Frontier Centre's position as
"egregiously wrong" and "knowingly turning its back on the facts."

[...]

In 2011 and 2012 the Frontier Centre put on its website and in letters
allegations made by Timothy Ball against climate scientist Michael E.
Mann, who issued a lawsuit. In June 2019 the Frontier Centre apologised
for publishing "untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the
character of Dr. Mann." It said that Mann had "graciously accepted our
apology and retraction".[8][9]"

Oh dear! Bob has unerringly found another fraud! Why is no-one surprised?!

00:47 "[...] But now agencies such agencies like the UN IPCC, NASA, and
others insist the change in solar output never happened."

FALSE! Far from being ignored or denied, changes in solar output are
quantified accurately by scientists:

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

Claims that variations in the sun's output are responsible for global
warming have been debunked multiple times before in this ng. As in the
link above the simple truth is that those changes are too small by a
factor of around 10 to explain the current levels of warming. Those
levels are most easily and rationally explained by greenhouse gas forcing.

02:00 "On average, the sun provides 1,367 W/m2 continuously on the upper
atmosphere. For comparison, all the CO2 ever released by the burning of
fossil fuels is estimated by the IPCC to have added about 2 W/m2 of
energy into the atmosphere. So, given the overwhelming role of solar
output in the total, it shouldn't take much of a change in the sun's
output to have a global influence on the climate."

As indeed it does, but as above can only explain around 1/10 of the
observed warming. Caution, because the figures claimed above are not
the problem in the failed line of reasoning, I haven't checked that they
are actually correct, so they may or may not agree with figures from
NOAA or the IPCC; the problem with the above is that it completely
ignores the other important factor, which is that the earth is also
re-radiating the energy it receives from the sun out into space and
therefore is in thermal equilibrium, where the *NET* radiation is
effectively zero, so what matters are *CHANGES* in the sun's irradiation
relative to *CHANGES* in the amount of greenhouse gases trapping earth's
attempts to re-radiate its energy, because these change the temperature
at which thermal equilibrium is achieved, and, as explained in the link
above, the solar changes only account for about 1/10th of the warming,
the rest is explained by greenhouse gases.

So that's three alarm bells encountered now, and obviously this is just
another pseudo-scientific turd that Bob has stepped in on his way to the
forum, and as usual couldn't be bothered to have the decency to wipe his
boots before entering, by checking his facts. No point in watching further.

> Why is it that the most profound anti CO2 people are left wing?
> Globalist and communist using a myth as a weapon on the gullible.

Again, pathetic attempts to blame the messenger for the message.

> I've had enough, with you anmd the insults.

SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/08/2022 13:21, Java Jive wrote:
>
> where the *NET* radiation is effectively zero,

I didn't really like that phrase when writing it, but was in a hurry.

The energy gained through solar irradiation and the energy lost through
earth's re-radiation will cancel each other out, so that the net energy
being gained at any time is zero, and earth's temperature will increase,
or decrease, until that happens. Thus, if the amount of radiation
coming from the sun increases, or earth's radiation into space is
lowered by greenhouse gases, then earth's temperature will increase
until thermal equilibrium, where the energy coming in is cancelled by
the energy going out, is restored. Likewise, if either of the two
factors above should reduce, then earth's temperature will fall until
equilibrium is restored.

Hopefully that explains it better.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/08/2022 10:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:58:44 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Watching young people on TV, many seem closer to dementia than many
>> older people. They can rarer speak properly, they might be able to get
>> onto various online sites but havd very limited technical knowledge.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVPCGA6IJXY
>
> This is a Youtube channel where someone puts simple questions to
> random young people in the street. If they're not stooges or actors
> (and they seem genuine as far as it's possible to judge) then the
> profundity of their ignorance on all subjects will astonish you.
>
> Rod.

One of the better comments

"What worries me the most is that these questions are used in medicine
to determine the severity of brain damage."

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> You wish to ignore history.

> Ignore data tampering.

Etc. etc.

When you and the other climate bedwetters have destroyed the west and
we're all global communist living in cold, hungry poverty I suppose
you'll be happy.

1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration &
say: There is no climate emergency:

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
Obviously they're all mad, liars, bigots because they disagree with
your narrative and the WEF/communist suicidal agenda.

Bob.

On 17/08/2022 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
>> accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
>> network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
>> style gsm phone?
>
> You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the change
> *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check if they can
> afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
>
> BTW Barry isn't just a 'friend' of mine. He is also a well-known
> journalist who has decades of publishing technical articles in a
> wide range of magazines and journals. His original focus was
> on things like patents, but this expanded over the years. He
> did for some years write as "Adrian Hope" IIRC.
>
> Jim
>

As in Barry Fox by any chance?

On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> When you and the other climate bedwetters have destroyed the west and
> we're all global communist living in cold, hungry poverty I suppose
> you'll be happy.

HYPOSHITE! Up thread you were complaining about personal insults, but
again you are the foremost, most consistent, and most despicable user of
that tactic. Your techniques exactly mirror Nazi characterisations of
Jews, and Russian characterisations of Ukrainians.

> 1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration &
> say: There is no climate emergency:
>
> https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment

"Since Mr Kelly posted the petition on Facebook, it has been re-released
with over 700 signatories, including 109 Australians, and rebadged the
"World Climate Declaration".

Fact Check's investigation focuses on the version presented by Mr Kelly
in October, 2019.

Key points

- Many of the Australian signatories have current or former
connections to the mining industry

- Less than 19 per cent of Australian signatories were verified by
Fact Check to have held an academic position, or published peer-reviewed
research

- The majority are listed as working or previously working in fields
unrelated to climate science or the environment"

> Obviously they're all mad, liars, bigots because they disagree with
> your narrative and the WEF/communist suicidal agenda.

No, the vast majority have little or zilch scientific knowledge, and of
the minority of genuine scientists in the list, the vast majority of
those are salaried by the fossil-fuel industry and are dancing to their
employer's tune. Of the handful of genuine scientists remaining after
the above are discounted, none or nearly none are climate scientists or
have any working knowledge of climate science.

Similar lists have been presented regularly before as 'new' , for example:

- A 1998 Petition claimed that its 30,000 signatories were scientists
who disagreed with climate change, but there was no checking of
signatories done by the petition's creators, and when they were examined
independently they were found to include myriad cartoon characters and
characters from fiction, and few, less than 12%, had anything to do with
atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences, and of those the actual
number of climate scientists was unknown, but given the patterns of
behaviour that have happened since, it's a fairly safe bet that the vast
majority of that 12% were geologists employed by the fossil-fuel
industry, dancing to their employer's tune.

- ISTR there were others, one around mid-2000s, another around 2015, but
have not been able to find details of them by searching online.

- In 2019, essentially the same list as is now linked above was
circulated claiming to represent, then, 500 scientists disagreeing with
climate change, but a measure of the lack of scientific worth in the
list was that, somewhere around #20, was the British denialist
aristidiot Lord Monckton, who has a BA not a BSc, and who only
accomplishment in life seems to have been to perform Tom Lehrer's song
"The Elements" embarrassingly badly. Of the genuine scientists above
him in the list, nearly all were geologists working in the fossil-fuel
industry, and dancing to their paymaster's tune. I didn't find a single
climate scientist in the list.

So if anyone feels they have missed this bus, don't worry, there'll be
another along in a year or two's time, because this is just the latest
recycling of this threadbare technique of trying to create an impression
of controversy, uncertainty, and dissent when really there is none.

In this respect, it's interesting to look at two other sorts of list.

The first is maintained by a well-known non-scientist denialist of
scientists sympathetic to denialism. He lists just 44 arguing that the
causes of global warming are natural or unknown, and of those only 12
could be said to have any professional knowledge at all of climate
science. Remembering that this list is maintained by a devout denialist
having every reason to over-populate it, where are these hundreds, let
alone thousands or tens of thousands, denialist climate scientists who
are claimed for the above lists that are recycled so often?

h t t p s : / / e l e c t r o v e r s e . n e t / t h e - l i s t - s c
i e n t i s t s - w h o - p u b l i c l y - d i s a g r e e - w i t h -
t h e - c u r r e n t - c o n s e n s u s - o n - c l i m a t e - c h a
n g e /

The other type is lists of climate scientists. The first I found is a
list of those having a Wikipedia entry, which, across this list and its
main sublist "List of climate scientists", I make a total of 299. 12 is
just 4% of 299:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climatologists

But that's only a list of those famous enough to have a Wiki entry,
surely we can get a more accurate figure? Next I found a Reuters list
of the world’s top climate scientists, and 12 is 1% of 1,000:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/

But, again, that only their list of the most influential or top climate
scientists, so still a subset of the field. When we try to get a handle
of the actual total number, things look even worse for denialism ...

https://www.quora.com/How-many-climatologists-in-the-world-are-there

In two different answers: "perhaps 7,000 in the world", "69,406
individual scientists who authored papers [2013-4]"

So anytime you see the next recycling of this well-known denialist "list
of climate scientists questioning climate change" ploy, just remember,
the actual number is somewhere around 12, and much less than 1% of the
field!

STOP SPAMMING THIS NG!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/08/2022 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> 1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration &
>> say: There is no climate emergency:
>>
>> https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
> The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
> here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
>
> "Since Mr Kelly posted the petition on Facebook, it has been re-released
> with over 700 signatories, including 109 Australians, and rebadged the
> "World Climate Declaration".
>
> Fact Check's investigation focuses on the version presented by Mr Kelly
> in October, 2019.
>
> Key points
>
> -    Many of the Australian signatories have current or former
> connections to the mining industry
>
> -    Less than 19 per cent of Australian signatories were verified by
> Fact Check to have held an academic position, or published peer-reviewed
> research
>
> -    The majority are listed as working or previously working in fields
> unrelated to climate science or the environment"
>
>> Obviously they're all mad, liars, bigots because they disagree with
>> your narrative and the WEF/communist suicidal agenda.
>
> No, the vast majority have little or zilch scientific knowledge, and of
> the minority of genuine scientists in the list, the vast majority of
> those are salaried by the fossil-fuel industry and are dancing to their
> employer's tune.  Of the handful of genuine scientists remaining after
> the above are discounted, none or nearly none are climate scientists or
> have any working knowledge of climate science.

Meant to do an analysis of the signatories:
Total: 1113
Scientists: 238
Climate Scientists: 28 depending on how you define the term*

* What is particularly interesting about that last figure, is that if
you just search for the beginning of the word, viz: climat, you get 115
hits, but if you actually analyse what is being claimed it drops to
around the figure above, depending on how generous or strict you are; my
criteria was a scientific qualification in climate science or
meteorology, including the paleo- versions of both. That gives just 28
hits. So why the big difference? It's because, hoping that people
would just count words without analysing the claims more fully, people
were giving their 'profession' as things like 'climate realist'. That
gives you some idea of how dishonest the whole thing is!

> So anytime you see the next recycling of this well-known denialist "list
> of climate scientists questioning climate change" ploy, just remember,
> the actual number is somewhere around 12,

.... or perhaps 28, but still comfortably ...

> less than 1% of the field!
>
> STOP SPAMMING THIS NG!

Stet

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5a194e38e0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > You seem now to have developed dementia as well as being paranoid!
> > claimed as the basis of his daft assertion.

> Sooner or later with extreme lefties, they cannot resist, ...

> You wish to ignore history.

> Ignore data tampering.

(Snip repetitive rant.)

Wrong again.

You continue to "ignore" that I, and others, have routinely followed up and
checked the nonsense you keep pointing to. And find it to, indeed, be
nonsense. Whereas you continue to refuse to even *read* the book I've
recommended.

I know I'm wasting my time so far as you are concerned. But at least I can
use this chance to point out the book on Climate Change (of all kinds by
many mechanisms - man-made and 'natural') so people who have the mind to
read the actual evidence. Then make an informed decison.

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 <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> > <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > 1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say:
> > There is no climate emergency:
> >
> > https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

> The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
> here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:

(snip details of shakey claims)

Thanks, JJ. Saves me doing it. :-) It'll bounce off Bob, but lets others
seen the problem with Bob's sour cherries.

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 <tdlpr8$13p9o$1@dont-email.me>, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/2022 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> > <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
> >> accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
> >> network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
> >> style gsm phone?
> >
> > You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the
> > change *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check
> > if they can afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
> >
> > BTW Barry isn't just a 'friend' of mine. He is also a well-known
> > journalist who has decades of publishing technical articles in a wide
> > range of magazines and journals. His original focus was on things like
> > patents, but this expanded over the years. He did for some years write
> > as "Adrian Hope" IIRC.
> >
> > Jim
> >

> As in Barry Fox by any chance?

Yes. I thought I'd given that full name earlier. When I pointed to the item
in HFN.

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> 1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say:
>>> There is no climate emergency:
>>>
>>> https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
>> The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
>> here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
>
> (snip details of shakey claims)
>
> Thanks, JJ. Saves me doing it. :-) It'll bounce off Bob, but lets others
> seen the problem with Bob's sour cherries.
>
> Jim
>

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.

In article <5a1a546663noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> > > <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > > 1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say:
> > > There is no climate emergency:
> > >
> > > https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

> > The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
> > here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:

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

The modern climate nonsense isn't science its the the politics of the
left wing activists trying to destroy capitalism and they're being
rather successful. This then backed up by left wing media pumping
ridiculous propaganda day and night with the same agenda.

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.
Science doesn't data tamper, it doesn't lie about past temperatures
or lie about current temperatures. It doesn't air brush inconvenient
items out of history.
Attacking people and silencing people isn't science its foul politics.

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. How many times have we had - if we don't cut CO2 within n years
then x will happen but it never ever does. Prince Charles alone has
at least 3 failed predictions on his own.

Why are the prices of luxury houses and apartments near the beaches
all over the world not dropping in price? Why have no islands
vanished as promised?

Then we get the items from around the world pointed out. Barrier
reef, glaciers, the poles - always places people don't go, why is
that? Eventually all turn out to be BS.
Barrier reef doing fantastic - silence
Glaciers have chunks break off which is well reported as being
climate change but when it grows back - silence.
Sea ice growing - silence.
Greenland - silence.

The left media only report stuff that matches their agenda.

Graphs produced by naive models pre-programmed to illustrate the
creators view are hopeless for both covid and climate. Remember prof
pants down?

If theses dangerous people are not stopped, we will soon have no
meat, no affordable energy, no jobs, no private transport and our
lives will be a fight to exist. Whilst the elite and the WEF will
carry on with their private jets etc..

Net zero will kill far more people than climate change just like the
press now realise that Lockdowns are killing more people than covid.
You were warned at the time but of course you knew better and
everyone telling you this had to be vilified.

Why are people so naive? Why can't you see what's happening?

Don't say you weren't warned, again..

Bob.

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.

Bob.

On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham 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.

*SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham 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.
>
> *SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*
>

Seeing as neither of you can amend the subject field….

On 20/08/2022 12:21, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5a1a546663noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
>>> here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
>
> There is no climate emergency. Nothing is happening that hasn't
> happened before and more so.

So yet again you expose yourself as a serial liar and peddler of
right-wing fake news and propaganda. In the post just immediately
upthread you wrote ...

On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.

.... yet here you are again still peddling the same old lies, because,
though god knows you should've gotten used to it by now because you've
had so much chance to practice, you just can't take being proven wrong.

> The modern climate nonsense isn't science its the the politics of the
> left wing activists trying to destroy capitalism and they're being
> rather successful. This then backed up by left wing media pumping
> ridiculous propaganda day and night with the same agenda.

Paranoid fantasy left unsnipped for everyone else to laugh at.

> 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.
> Science doesn't data tamper, it doesn't lie about past temperatures
> or lie about current temperatures. It doesn't air brush inconvenient
> items out of history.

And indeed all the above it true, the trouble is, that you don't happen
to like the results that science has produced, so are trying to lie them
out of existence.

> Attacking people and silencing people isn't science its foul politics.

Which is exactly why your politics are foul, they're the politics of
Naziism and Putinism.

> 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.

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

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.

> How many times have we had - if we don't cut CO2 within n years
> then x will happen but it never ever does. Prince Charles alone has
> at least 3 failed predictions on his own.

Prince Charles is not a scientist, and anyway I note that, as usual, you
give no provenance for your claim.

> Why are the prices of luxury houses and apartments near the beaches
> all over the world not dropping in price? Why have no islands
> vanished as promised?

Go and read up about Tuvalu.

> Then we get the items from around the world pointed out. Barrier
> reef, glaciers, the poles - always places people don't go, why is
> that? Eventually all turn out to be BS.
>
> Barrier reef doing fantastic - silence.

Nonsense, in some places it has had good growth of new coral for a
while, which is enabling it to recover partially from recent bleaching
events, but that doesn't alter the facts that those bleaching events
have still left the reef impoverished overall:

https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health

> Glaciers have chunks break off which is well reported as being
> climate change but when it grows back - silence.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for any glaciers growing back in the long term?
Like anything else subject to the vagaries of weather, glacier
conditions fluctuate annually, but the overall long-term trend is one of
diminishment, and over coming decades this will be critically important
for nations such as India where a great deal of their water comes from
glacial melting (you may have to click the graph icon below the photos
to see the actual graph):

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/big-thaw

"When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home
to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to
fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by
two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the
park's namesake glaciers will disappear."

> Sea ice growing - silence.
> Greenland - silence.

*TROLL* REPETITION OF PREVIOUS CLAIMS DEBUNKED MANY TIMES BEFORE!

Both claims are nonsense, like glaciers and the Great Barrier Reef both
undergo annual fluctuations, but the decadal trends of both are of loss
of ice:

https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

> The left media only report stuff that matches their agenda.

As no-one here reads the left media, that is hardly relevant, even
supposing it to be true, which it probably isn't. What is true is that
the right-wing media consistently lie about certain topics, of which
climate change is one.

> Graphs produced by naive models pre-programmed to illustrate the
> creators view are hopeless for both covid and climate. Remember prof
> pants down?

*TROLL* REPETITION OF PREVIOUS CLAIMS DEBUNKED MANY TIMES BEFORE!

Modelling ongoing natural phenomena is the best way to predict what will
happen in the future, and thereby alert governments and public alike to
any dangers they may pose. A model is successful if it succeeds in
altering perceptions and behaviour to avoid its worst outcomes. It will
never be perfect, but the two types of modelling you constantly and
ignorantly disparage here have been remarkably successful in changing
public perceptions in an attempt to avert their worst predictions,
particularly so with covid-19, despite the efforts of people like
yourself who are fond of advertising their own pig-ignorance to the
world by constantly making false claims about them.

> If theses dangerous people are not stopped, we will soon have no
> meat, no affordable energy, no jobs, no private transport and our
> lives will be a fight to exist.

Ukrainians are unfortunately already suffering all of these because they
are victims of the same sort of lies and propaganda that you constantly
produce here.

> Whilst the elite and the WEF will
> carry on with their private jets etc.

*TROLL* REPETITION OF PREVIOUS CLAIMS DEBUNKED BEFORE IN THIS THREAD!

> Net zero will kill far more people than climate change just like the
> press now realise that Lockdowns are killing more people than covid.
> You were warned at the time but of course you knew better and
> everyone telling you this had to be vilified.

*TROLL* REPETITION OF PREVIOUS CLAIMS DEBUNKED MANY TIMES BEFORE!

Lock downs didn't and won't ever kill more people than covid-19, last
week from covid-19 799 people in the UK died and 7079 were admitted to
hospital. Where is your *EVIDENCE* that lockdowns have killed even that
many, let alone the 163,681 minimum that have been killed by covid-19
since the pandemic first struck here? Don't bother looking because you
can't find any. The simple truth is that if lockdowns were killing
significant numbers people, then the excess death rate would have been
boosted accordingly, because it contains both covid-19 deaths and
so-called 'death by lockdown', but the excess death rate is actually
lower than both the other methods of measuring covid-19 directly,
showing that the overall death rate from other causes is *lower* than
normal, and therefore that lockdowns have not killed any significant
numbers of people.

> Why are people so naive? Why can't you see what's happening?

Because what is you claim is happening very obviously isn't happening,
it's just a sick paranoia that is yours and yours alone, and however
much you may wish to make us all as unhappy, sick, and paranoid as
yourself, unsurprisingly we're not interested in the turgid contents of
the cesspit that you like to pretend to the rest of the world is your mind.

> Don't say you weren't warned, again.

Your irresponsible and dishonest post will be reported to your news
server, don't say you haven't been warned, again.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/08/2022 16:39, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham 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.
>>
>> *SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*
>
> Seeing as neither of you can amend the subject field….

I take your point, but the real problem here is the troll Bob. Appended
is a conservative list of threads that he has dragged off the original
topic onto one of his favourite anti-science hobby horses. Note that
some of them were OT threads to begin with which were started by him,
but which he then dragged off its original anti-science topic onto
another one! One originally on-topic thread he dragged off topic in
three different directions! The 34 of them below is a minimum number,
and doesn't convey that within each thread he constantly repeats the
same lies over and over again, so that the real number of trolling posts
is actually at least around 850, which is not far off an average of a
troll a day over the last 3 years or so.

If, like me, you or anyone else is pissed off with his trolling, then
write and complain about it to ...
n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
.... including the source of a post where he has dragged a thread OT,
lied, trolled, abused, etc, etc. You may also wish to include the
following list as well, just to highlight the magnitude of the problem:

Currently:
Interchangeable Programs

Previously:
A Covid study found by accident
BBC Three
BBC Two
BritBox: UK broadcasters enter the streaming wars as new service launches
Climate fraud
COM 8 Closing this month !
Covid update video
Covid19 video
Finally a new Humax box - Aura
Freeview retune time
GB News
GB News on the radio?
HOW THE BBC HIDES THE FACTS
HOW THE IPCC, GREENS and UN DISTORTS THE FACTS
If we create a vaccine that works
Indian people are very rude
Neil Oliver Comments - Here we go again
NHS Scotland: Inadequate Covid-19 Advice
No more red button (3x)
OT: Climate Change Paper
OT: Climate Doomsday - net zero
OT: Dark Matter
OT: If magnetism ...
OT: Sky News Australia about their fires
OT: Westminster bridge pictures
Proms 2020
Should commercial TV stations support the free Licence ?
SOT: Have I got no news for you
Strange tuning problem
The Indian Doctor (BBC1)
Victoria Derbyshi*e program axed.
Voluntary licence fee
Why People Believe In Conspiracy Theories

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 21:42:06 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
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.
>>>
>>> *SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*
>>
>> Seeing as neither of you can amend the subject field….
>
>I take your point, but the real problem here is the troll Bob.[...]

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. 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.

Rod.

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.

Fair point. I'll do that if I decide to waste more time on Bob. But I
suspect most people have this calibrated by now.

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)

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.

Bob.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:09:46 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> 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.
>
>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.
>
>Bob.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not calling you anything. I was merely
repeating the previous poster's wording to make it clear what I was
replying to. I could have used quotation marks. Perhaps I should have.

Rod.

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?

Jim

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.
>
> 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.
>
> Bob.
>

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."

Bill

On 21/08/2022 12:23, williamwright 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.

I don't particularly care what he actually believes, because it's
irrelevant - his behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly
the behaviour 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 his 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 that Jim replies to any of his
previous trolls.

Etc, etc, etc. I don't need to say any more, because we've all
witnessed it ad nauseam.

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 constantly abuses.

--

Fake news kills!

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