On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > >>empirical evidence
> >
> > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> >
> > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > >>calls the theory into question.
> >
> > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> >
> > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> >
> > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > harmful?
> >
> > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > rule.
> >
> > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> >
> > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > science of man-made CO2.
> >
> > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > Institute.
> To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> difficult to deal with -
>
> "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> group pressures" Groupthink commentary
>
> It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.

It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00

I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > > >>empirical evidence
> > >
> > > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> > >
> > > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > > >>calls the theory into question.
> > >
> > > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> > >
> > > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> > >
> > > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > > harmful?
> > >
> > > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > > rule.
> > >
> > > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> > >
> > > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > > science of man-made CO2.
> > >
> > > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > > Institute.
> > To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> > warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> > control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> > guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> > that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> > off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> > difficult to deal with -
> >
> > "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> > mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> > becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> > realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> > term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> > Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> > groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> > connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> > mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> > group pressures" Groupthink commentary
> >
> > It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> > warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> > padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> > else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> > though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> > just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> > prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> > kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
>
>
> It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
>
> I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.

Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.

You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.

https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/

The link also includes a trailer

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail..com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > > > >>empirical evidence
> > > >
> > > > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> > > >
> > > > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > > > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > > > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > > > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > > > >>calls the theory into question.
> > > >
> > > > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> > > >
> > > > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> > > >
> > > > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > > > harmful?
> > > >
> > > > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > > > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > > > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > > > rule.
> > > >
> > > > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > > > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > > > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > > > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > > > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> > > >
> > > > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > > > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > > > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > > > science of man-made CO2.
> > > >
> > > > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > > > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > > > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > > > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > > > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > > > Institute.
> > > To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> > > warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> > > control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> > > guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> > > that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> > > off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> > > difficult to deal with -
> > >
> > > "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> > > mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> > > becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> > > realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> > > term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> > > Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> > > groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> > > connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> > > mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> > > group pressures" Groupthink commentary
> > >
> > > It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> > > warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> > > padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> > > else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> > > though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> > > just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> > > prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> > > kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
> >
> >
> > It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
> >
> > I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.
> Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”.. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
>
> You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension..
>
>
> https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
>
> The link also includes a trailer

The trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 13:13:46 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > > > > >>empirical evidence
> > > > >
> > > > > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > > > > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > > > > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > > > > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > > > > >>calls the theory into question.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > > > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > > > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > > > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > > > > harmful?
> > > > >
> > > > > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > > > > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > > > > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > > > > rule.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > > > > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > > > > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > > > > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > > > > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > > > > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > > > > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > > > > science of man-made CO2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > > > > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > > > > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > > > > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > > > > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > > > > Institute.
> > > > To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> > > > warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> > > > control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> > > > guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> > > > that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> > > > off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> > > > difficult to deal with -
> > > >
> > > > "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> > > > mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> > > > becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> > > > realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> > > > term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> > > > Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> > > > groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> > > > connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> > > > mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> > > > group pressures" Groupthink commentary
> > > >
> > > > It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> > > > warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> > > > padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> > > > else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> > > > though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> > > > just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> > > > prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> > > > kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
> > >
> > >
> > > It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
> > >
> > > I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.
> > Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
> >
> > You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
> >
> >
> > https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
> >
> > The link also includes a trailer
> The trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.

Then watch the programme and find out about it.

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 15:05:55 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 13:13:46 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > > > > > >>empirical evidence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > > > > > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > > > > > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > > > > > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > > > > > >>calls the theory into question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > > > > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > > > > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > > > > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > > > > > harmful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > > > > > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > > > > > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > > > > > rule.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > > > > > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > > > > > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > > > > > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > > > > > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > > > > > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > > > > > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > > > > > science of man-made CO2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > > > > > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > > > > > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > > > > > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > > > > > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > > > > > Institute.
> > > > > To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> > > > > warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> > > > > control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> > > > > guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> > > > > that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> > > > > off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> > > > > difficult to deal with -
> > > > >
> > > > > "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> > > > > mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> > > > > becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> > > > > realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> > > > > term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> > > > > Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> > > > > groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> > > > > connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> > > > > mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> > > > > group pressures" Groupthink commentary
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> > > > > warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> > > > > padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> > > > > else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> > > > > though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> > > > > just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> > > > > prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> > > > > kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
> > > >
> > > > I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.
> > > Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
> > >
> > > You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
> > >
> > >
> > > https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
> > >
> > > The link also includes a trailer
> > The trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.
> Then watch the programme and find out about it.

Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:22:39 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

> Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.

Are you a complete idiot or just a partial idiot?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/extreme-temperatures-kill-5-million-people-a-year-with-heat-related-deaths-rising-study-finds

"The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. But heat-related deaths were increasing, while cold-linked deaths were dropping."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heat-related-deaths-are-expected-to-rise-after-1-7-million-people-died-in-2019-due-to-extreme-temperatures-study-11629485635

"Deaths attributed to extreme cold were up 31% from 1990, whereas heat-related deaths increased 74% from 1980 to 2016."

Climate change is real, no matter how much you claim otherwise, and extreme weather is probably here to stay due to it.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 7:05:55 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 13:13:46 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 09:39:13 UTC, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 7:25:02 PM UTC+1, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 11, 6:16 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:kr2bo71v2mp2kli80...@4ax.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:24:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring
> > > > > > >>empirical evidence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>HOUSTON, TX - April 10, 2012.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA
> > > > > > >>Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's
> > > > > > >>role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a
> > > > > > >>major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that
> > > > > > >>calls the theory into question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thankfully, they are former employees. Most are not qualified to have
> > > > > > > the opinion they do, and all are incompetent, as demonstrated by their
> > > > > > > unfounded and unscientific views.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The agency is certainly better off for their absence. It doesn't need
> > > > > > > flat-earthers and science deniers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember when tobacco companies found a few doctors who said smoking was not
> > > > > > harmful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any large sample of people it is impossible to get 100% of them to agree
> > > > > > on anything. How often do you hear "4 out of 5 doctors agree..." A maximum
> > > > > > 80% agreement on anything is often mentioned as a corollary to Pareto's
> > > > > > rule.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seriously though, 10 or 15 years ago there may have been some very slight
> > > > > > room for doubt about global warming. Anyone who has kept up with the science
> > > > > > since then can see there is absolutely, positively no doubt that "man-made
> > > > > > CO2 is a major cause of climate change". In fact there is essentially no
> > > > > > doubt to make much stronger statements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denial is a strong motivator. The pro-smoking doctors of the 40's and 50's
> > > > > > did not WANT to keep up with the new science of that age. Likewise many
> > > > > > people even in technology and science do not WANT to keep up with the
> > > > > > science of man-made CO2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people (perhaps 4 out of 5?) do not want to cripple the economy by
> > > > > > suddenly eliminating fossil fuels. But, if the science is overshadowed by
> > > > > > propoganda it will only delay efforts to find practical replacement energy
> > > > > > sources. Delay, of course, is the object of all the fossil fuel industry
> > > > > > "think thanks" which are the modern equivalent of the American Tobacco
> > > > > > Institute.
> > > > > To be fair,the ultimate conclusion is not that humans cause global
> > > > > warming or that climate changes,the core conclusion is that humans can
> > > > > control the planet's temperature within a certain range .People are
> > > > > guilty of nothing more than a form of groupthink with the exception
> > > > > that climate science is comprised of multiple sub-groups all feeding
> > > > > off the same conclusion rather than one group so it is extremely
> > > > > difficult to deal with -
> > > > >
> > > > > "I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the
> > > > > mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
> > > > > becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override
> > > > > realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a
> > > > > term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George
> > > > > Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context,
> > > > > groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a
> > > > > connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in
> > > > > mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of
> > > > > group pressures" Groupthink commentary
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears the reaction to observations that the planet wasn't
> > > > > warming in concurrence with modeling is to hire more scientists as
> > > > > padding to increase the consensus that it is warming.For everyone
> > > > > else,science has become stale,there is nothing new coming in even
> > > > > though the place is bursting at the seams with observational data and
> > > > > just waiting for people to put them in context but wasted on trying to
> > > > > prove or disprove old concepts that were a product of their era but
> > > > > kept alive by the uninspiring peer review system.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is remarkable that 'climate change modelling' morphed from the political right to the political left over the years and that hiring more academics after the East Anglia University emails to demonstrate 'climate change modelling' has increased the instability in human reasoning-
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00
> > > >
> > > > I am dismayed the newsgroup is now dominated by a few contributors who have retreated into infant reactions from what it once was.
> > > Since you’ve revived this 19 year old thread to add more disinformation you, and your many admirers should watch “The Trick”. it’s a BBC program about the climategate hack.
> > >
> > > You might be able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer but if you can’t it’s still possible to see it from abroad using a Chrome extension.
> > >
> > >
> > > https://beebs.io/guide/how-to-stream-the-trick-on-bbc-iplayer-abroad/
> > >
> > > The link also includes a trailer
> > The trick indeed !, how many tricks I have noted over the years obscuring genuine research in solar system and Earth science research.
> Then watch the programme and find out about it.

Ah, Mike, you end your days as an unrepentent empiricist even when you were among the first to affirm the insight that the stars transition from an evening to morning appearance, or from left to right of the Sun, due to the Earth's orbital motion. From there it is the major insight by accounting for the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury seen from a slower moving Earth further out from the stationary/central Sun-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

The trick Isaac used to promote RA/Dec or the 'clockwork solar system' was framing Kepler's observations of Mars and its retrograde loops as geocentric-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

He called that false geocentric perspective relative space and motion so by plonking the Sun in the centre of the diagram was meant to serve the purpose of absolute space and motion, hence-

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It may be that you are not able to absorb the language and the manipulation used to make it appear that astronomical predictions were the same as experimental predictions-

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.

Deaths caused directly by hor or cold (and both are more extreme with
global warming) are pretty insignificant in comparison with the deaths
from extreme weather events, resource wars, broken food chains, and
collapsing economies that we'll be seeing in the coming decades.

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 17:05:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.
> Deaths caused directly by hor or cold (and both are more extreme with
> global warming) are pretty insignificant in comparison with the deaths
> from extreme weather events, resource wars, broken food chains, and
> collapsing economies that we'll be seeing in the coming decades.

And NONE of those has come to pass. Storms are NO MORE extreme than 100 years ago
but we have TEN TIMES as many people occupying more dense areas so storms have
a greater impact. And oh yes, it COSTS more because of INSURANCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Written 50+ years ago; and the third world still breed like rats with the
over-populated Amazonia dumping raw sewage and other garbage into its
rivers!!!!!!!

And all that Prime Minister Justin Blackface can do is tweet his condolences
about more "carbon" taxes,

to pay lip service to this little shit!!!!!!!!!!
https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202102/Cover_Pic__2__1200x768.jpeg?6sw3HPt9Brwz6ohTu91XSbQKHNhNTYDO&size=770:433
..

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 17:05:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Cold-related deaths run 1 million a year worldwide, perhaps more. 100,000 in Europe. Warm = better. Not that it's warming, at least not from anything man has produced.
>> Deaths caused directly by hor or cold (and both are more extreme with
>> global warming) are pretty insignificant in comparison with the deaths
>> from extreme weather events, resource wars, broken food chains, and
>> collapsing economies that we'll be seeing in the coming decades.
>
>And NONE of those has come to pass. Storms are NO MORE extreme than 100 years ago
>but we have TEN TIMES as many people occupying more dense areas so storms have
>a greater impact. And oh yes, it COSTS more because of INSURANCE.

Fortunately, you're now in the fringe who still believes the world is
flat, so your views are of little value or carry little weight.

I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

That is the way things proceed so apart from a slight dismay that this newsgroup has fallen on difficult times, things get done behind the scenes. It will be the same for direct/retrograde resolution for Venus and Mercury, the proper explanation for the seasons, differential rotation across latitudes for plate tectonics/spherical deviation and other things brought up over the years.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:08:43 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Indeed... from that Wiki page...

Rotation period 1.0 d
(24h 00m 00s) average synodic rotation period (solar day)

Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[19]
(23h 56m 4.100s)

It is not my fault if you cannot comprehend the difference between "synodic period" and "sidereal period". You don't get to accept one of them and reject the other one, for they are both valid in their own realm. Of course, they are NOT interchangeable, and one is not "better" or "more correct" than the other!

On 11/2/21 1:08 PM, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
>
> That is the way things proceed so apart from a slight dismay that this newsgroup has fallen on difficult times, things get done behind the scenes. It will be the same for direct/retrograde resolution for Venus and Mercury, the proper explanation for the seasons, differential rotation across latitudes for plate tectonics/spherical deviation and other things brought up over the years.
>
>

Therapy could do wonders for you!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 8:27:25 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:08:43 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I am delighted that Wikipedia finally assigned the correct rotation period for the Earth even if they still have to adjust the Equatorial rotation velocities to suit the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems-
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
> Indeed... from that Wiki page...
>
> Rotation period 1.0 d
> (24h 00m 00s) average synodic rotation period (solar day)
>
> Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[19]
> (23h 56m 4.100s)
>
> It is not my fault if you cannot comprehend the difference between "synodic period" and "sidereal period". You don't get to accept one of them and reject the other one, for they are both valid in their own realm. Of course, they are NOT interchangeable, and one is not "better" or "more correct" than the other!

So, for all the fuss you made over the years, Wikipedia eventually adopted the period rotation of the Earth consistent with the Latitude/Longitude system but did not adjust the 1037.5 mph or 1669.8 km/hr for an Equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles or 40,075 km.

The value that is less than 24 hours has no meaning other than it clocks the return of a star to the same spot using the 24 hour clock and the calendar system to make that determination. It does not represent anything to do with the physical dynamic of rotation as that dynamic is anchored not only to noon, but the symmetrical period from sunrise to noon with the period from noon to sunset.

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-diego

I notice that you have nothing to say about the annual change in the position of the stars from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane as a direct result of the Earth's orbital motion as seen from a satellite tracking with the Earth-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I love that because I am a Christian and that gift of perception is part of me but does not belong to me as another Paul once wrote-

" Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God, according to the words of the Apostle, "What hast thou that thou hast not received from God? and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? " St Paul as repeated by St Francis of Assisi

We all pass through Eternity but some of us love what makes our lives possible while others make it sullen and dull by adopting intellectual pretence from other times and that is a living grave. To be fair to you, you are an unrepentant celestial sphere enthusiast who imagines the Earth has two distinct types of daily rotation and not even a flat Earth proponent compares to that.