On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:12:18 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > > > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > > > She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> > > > https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
> > > > Wherein they state:
> > > > So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> > > > about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> > > > changing the climate.
> > > > This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> > > > single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> > > > the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> > > > analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> > > > The evidence is
> > > > overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> > > > arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> > > > The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> > > > waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> > > > oceans are acidifying.
> > > >
> > > > More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> > > > :
> > > > An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
> > > >
> > > > I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> > > > https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
> > > >
> > > > He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
> > > >
> > > > Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
> > > Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> > > Everything flows Panta rhei
> > That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
> > >
> > > 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
> > > to fluctuations in solar activity,
> > > reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
> > The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.
> > >
> > > which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect
> > >
> > > https://www.spaceweather.com/
> ----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices
>
>
> ---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
>
> Climate changes or Climate Changes is
> is a scientifically proven fact
>
> so combining the two
>
> "Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,
>
> so what we get is exactly
> Tautology ( read below)
>
>
>
> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
>
> since
> Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation

Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.

The Panta rhei thing is pseudo-observation, it's not even a principle.

>
> so
> Climate Changes
> is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> Everything flows, Panta rhei
>
> and aphorism has nothing to do with tautology or science
>
> URGENT !!
>
> Go back to school and collect tuition money

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 20:33:44 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:12:18 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > > > > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > > > > She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> > > > > https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
> > > > > Wherein they state:
> > > > > So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> > > > > about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> > > > > changing the climate.
> > > > > This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> > > > > single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> > > > > the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> > > > > analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> > > > > The evidence is
> > > > > overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> > > > > arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> > > > > The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> > > > > waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> > > > > oceans are acidifying.
> > > > >
> > > > > More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> > > > > :
> > > > > An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> > > > > https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
> > > > >
> > > > > He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
> > > > Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> > > > Everything flows Panta rhei
> > > That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
> > > >
> > > > 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
> > > > to fluctuations in solar activity,
> > > > reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
> > > The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.
> > > >
> > > > which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect
> > > >
> > > > https://www.spaceweather.com/
> > ----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices
> >
> >
> > ---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
> >
> > Climate changes or Climate Changes is
> > is a scientifically proven fact
> >
> > so combining the two
> >
> > "Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,
> >
> > so what we get is exactly
> > Tautology ( read below)
> >
> >
> >
> > In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y".. Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
> >
> > since
> > Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation
> Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.
>
> The Panta rhei thing is pseudo-observation, it's not even a principle.

-URGENT !!

--Go back to school and collect tuition money

Panta rhei, everything flows is Top Level, General Tautology in case of climate

We were fooled for years by Putin paid fakers, that climate is almost fixed for the span of thousands of years

than Global Warming fakers , sponsored by UN agencies, IPCC, Prof. Mann, Al Gore, Putin, Kremlin,
started to
spread the Global Warming by humans gospel world-wide

It tooks me 10 years to switch Global Warming fakers into Climate Change Tautology
to be read:
Climate is not constant and is not fixed

supported by Prof. Mann's ice hockey chart

but nobody before me every studied how fluctuations in solar activity
can clock 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes

Today it's now clear,
the Sun controls the Earth's climate
in 1-month/1-year Short Term cycles

H2O, water, water vapor, water retention account for 99.9% of so-called greenhouse effect ( human's acitivity fake is still sponsored by Putin and Kremlin to make easy money selling natural gas)

== ---Climate change is not a formal study of mathematical logic.

you are stupid dog

Climate Change is studied by thousands of top researchers and scientists world-wide, by every UN agency, NASA, NOAA, ESA, China's gov
under mathematical logics standards

What comes today is called
Twin Sun effect

and can be easily live studied
since thermal energy of the Sun can double
by Huge Coronary Mass Ejections directed to the Earth

https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

---
----Go back to school and collect tuition money

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:45:37 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>
>On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>>>>
>>>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>>>>
>>>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
>>> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
>>
>> It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
>>
>> The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
>>
>> They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
>>
>> Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
>>
>> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
>>
>> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
>>
>
>Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
>nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
>MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
>they thought.

It's like homelessness. A growth industry.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:45:47 AM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:

> Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> they thought.

Absolutely false; if you talk of scientists, you are specifying persons
whose concern is knowledge, understanding: in a word, science.
Some shills claim to be scientists, of course; that's a fraud, though.

The "climate scientists' phrase isn't how meteorologists, atmospheric
chemists, etc. call themselves; you might find a lot of politically slanted commentary
if you were to search on that phrase.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>
> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>
> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>
> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

This is just more fear mongering. For example, air pollution has dropped DRAMATICALLY over the last several decades, yet they say that global warming is causing pollutants to INCREASE:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139418/air-pollutant-emissions-by-type-us/#:~:text=In%201970%2C%20approximately%2026.8%20million,tons%20between%201990%20and%202021.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:24:55 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > >
> > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > >
> > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > >
> > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
>
> The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
>
> They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
>
> Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

WRONG, Bozo. Here is why:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
> > On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > >>>
> > >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > >>
> > >> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > >
> > > It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
> > >
> > > The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
> > >
> > > They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
> > >
> > > Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
> > >
> > > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> > >
> > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> > >
> > Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> > nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> > MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> > they thought.
> That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
> > Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
> > another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
> > name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
> > that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
> > mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
> Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.

LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!

> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:42:16 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:09:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
> > > > On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
> > > > >
> > > > > They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
> > > > >
> > > > > Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> > > > >
> > > > Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> > > > nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> > > > MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> > > > they thought.
> > > That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
> > > > Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
> > > > another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
> > > > name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
> > > > that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
> > > > mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
> > > Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.
> >
> > LOL! Tell me, WHICH of your "scientific observations" can tell the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic temperatures? Answer: NONE!
> Wrong. The extra CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere buy burning fossil carbon contains less C-13 than natural CO2.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
>
> Keeling nailed it back in 1979. Suess saw it earlier in radiocarbon dating, but the effect was confounded by atmospheric nuclear testing which injected a bit of extra C-13.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

LOL! That just says which CO2 molecules are coming from fossil fuel burning - it says NOTHING about "anthropogenic temperature change."