On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 8:12:15 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/27/2023 9:41 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:22:32 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/26/2023 8:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/
> >
> >>> Incidentally, the North Pole did not surface. It was the various
> >>> submarines that were photographed after surfacing.
> >
> >> "the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
> >> summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050."
> >>
> >> And I'm told first snow here will be Tuesday. Or not.
> >
> > Hopefully, the ground will not rise to meet the snow per Tom's
> > submarine description. However, if it happens, please take some
> > ACTUAL photos.
> >
> > 38F now in Santa Cruz CA. It's not cold enough yet to snow, but it's
> > trying. NWS has issued fire and high wind warnings of 20 to 30 mph
> > for Saturday and Sunday which will likely be accompanied by power
> > outages. Meanwhile, my steel wood burner is partly disassembled and
> > awaiting time for me to flux weld a crack and other repairs.
> > <https://photos.app.goo.gl/LLYM5DPaHAUMhM8z5>
> >
> > What else can go wrong?
> >
> >
> Zombie apocalypse.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Which is precisely what Liebermann is attempting to convince people he is an expert on. Where precisely did I claim that the land was going to rise? Just another example of Liebermann lying because he believes he might gain from it.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:22:32 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 10/26/2023 8:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/
>
>>> Incidentally, the North Pole did not surface. It was the various
>>> submarines that were photographed after surfacing.
>
>>"the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
>> summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050."
>>
>>And I'm told first snow here will be Tuesday. Or not.
>
> Hopefully, the ground will not rise to meet the snow per Tom's
> submarine description. However, if it happens, please take some
> ACTUAL photos.
>
> 38F now in Santa Cruz CA. It's not cold enough yet to snow, but it's
> trying. NWS has issued fire and high wind warnings of 20 to 30 mph
> for Saturday and Sunday which will likely be accompanied by power
> outages. Meanwhile, my steel wood burner is partly disassembled and
> awaiting time for me to flux weld a crack and other repairs.
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/LLYM5DPaHAUMhM8z5>

A balmy 78F here in yankee land. Nice day for a ride. We're supposed
to have frost next week, which seems plausible.

One trouble with climate doomers is that they rely on numerical
predictions that have never demonstrated any skill in prediction at all.
Short term weather forecasters do make skilled predictions, although
they are clearly not perfect. As some sage once said, "Prediction is
hard, especially about the future."

--

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 8:12:15?AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/27/2023 9:41 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:22:32 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/26/2023 8:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/
>> >
>> >>> Incidentally, the North Pole did not surface. It was the various
>> >>> submarines that were photographed after surfacing.
>> >
>> >> "the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
>> >> summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050."
>> >>
>> >> And I'm told first snow here will be Tuesday. Or not.
>> >
>> > Hopefully, the ground will not rise to meet the snow per Tom's
>> > submarine description. However, if it happens, please take some
>> > ACTUAL photos.
>> >
>> > 38F now in Santa Cruz CA. It's not cold enough yet to snow, but it's
>> > trying. NWS has issued fire and high wind warnings of 20 to 30 mph
>> > for Saturday and Sunday which will likely be accompanied by power
>> > outages. Meanwhile, my steel wood burner is partly disassembled and
>> > awaiting time for me to flux weld a crack and other repairs.
>> > <https://photos.app.goo.gl/LLYM5DPaHAUMhM8z5>
>> >
>> > What else can go wrong?
>> >
>> >
>> Zombie apocalypse.

My wood burner is rated for burring wood not zombies. However,
mummies might work.

>Where precisely did I claim that the land was going to rise?

Tom: You wrote:
"The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/"
The North Pole does not surface. A submarine surfaces.

>Just another example of Liebermann lying because he believes he might gain from it.

Gain what? Fame and fortune perhaps? I'm certainly not seeking fame
and I'm not asking for money to provide you with something to complain
about.

Incidentally, I suggest you be careful with how you use Pinterest.
"Privacy Evaluation for Pinterest 63% Warning..."
<https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Pinterest>
I also use Pinterest, which I suspect is responsible for my browsing
preferences landing in the hands of advertisers and spammers. At some
point in the past, you complained that your personal information was
found all over the internet. Pinterest is one likely source.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:17:49 AM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
> Uh.. pisswilly?
>
Pisswilly is a contemptuous manner of saying with minimum expenditure of breath that something is minuscule and described as large only by fellows comparing it to their dicks. -- AJ
>

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:07:13 AM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
>
Actually, I think I wrote this:
>
> > The way I read the comments there, those posters were making satirical and sarcastic comments about the beliefs of the global warmies. Sorta like, "Yeahbut, whaddaya expect when you go back 420 thousand years? There weren't any people back then. So that proves that Global Warming is real! It was always there, as you can see in the many historic heat peaks from hundreds of thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution." If I said something as confused as that, you'd know I was ragging somone, because I wouldn't mean something as stupid as that (hell, that's almost down at the Krygowski-Flunky level of mindless dumbassery). Those guys commenting seem all to know each other, so there's space for a bit of humour. -- AJ
> > >
> The important thing here is 420.
>
Exactly. Ice cores are the hardest scientific evidence of all the inputs into the Global Warming Hoax. But even that Fat Al Gore got wrong, totally upside down. If you have his video, check the bit where he explains how CO2 rise causes Warming, when the ice core information he showed on the huge graph behind him showed temperature rise led CO2 increases by around 700 years. Conclusion, CO2 doesn't cause warming, but warming releases CO2. I'm not surprised his handlers kept all but the lapdogs among the press out, in some cases violently. -- AJ
>

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:17:14 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/26/2023 6:07 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> >
> >> The way I read the comments there, those posters were making satirical and sarcastic comments about the beliefs of the global warmies. Sorta like, "Yeahbut, whaddaya expect when you go back 420 thousand years? There weren't any people back then. So that proves that Global Warming is real! It was always there, as you can see in the many historic heat peaks from hundreds of thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution." If I said something as confused as that, you'd know I was ragging somone, because I wouldn't mean something as stupid as that (hell, that's almost down at the Krygowski-Flunky level of mindless dumbassery). Those guys commenting seem all to know each other, so there's space for a bit of humour. -- AJ
> >>>
> >
> > The important thing here is 420.
> Hitler's birthday? What?
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
Actually, I wrote the longer paragraph above, Andrew, and Doug pointed out that 420,000 years of unimpeachable data trumps (deliberate pun to rub the noses of the warmies in it) a few centuries of tree rings on mostly unsuitable strip bark trees (that's what Michael Mann then put through the meat grinder of his statistical ignorance or crookery to extract his notorious, discredited hockey stick) or a single, lonely, Siberian tree, about whose tree rings a British clown tried to rebuild the warmie lie. So "420" is dog whistle to the warmies. Doug may of course have another explanation of equal value or higher debating probity. -- AJ

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:24:16 AM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 10/26/2023 6:07 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> > >
> > >> The way I read the comments there, those posters were making satirical and sarcastic comments about the beliefs of the global warmies. Sorta like, "Yeahbut, whaddaya expect when you go back 420 thousand years? There weren't any people back then. So that proves that Global Warming is real! It was always there, as you can see in the many historic heat peaks from hundreds of thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution." If I said something as confused as that, you'd know I was ragging somone, because I wouldn't mean something as stupid as that (hell, that's almost down at the Krygowski-Flunky level of mindless dumbassery). Those guys commenting seem all to know each other, so there's space for a bit of humour. -- AJ
> > >>>
> > >
> > > The important thing here is 420.
> > Hitler's birthday? What?
> Hey. Do you know what's at the bottom of the English Channel, and underneath Greenland ice?
> Stone walls. Built by stoned stoneworkers.
>
I don't know about "stoned" in the marijuana sense, but they were certainly drunk on the wine grown back then in Greenland and England too. Some of my ancestors were probably there, as a large contingent from the now Danish island of Odense, the seat of my family just this side of the mists of history, sailed for Greenland. -- AJ

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:14:22 AM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
> My problem??? With your article?? I liked it, myself.
>
> The idea of man-made global warming is pure hubris. A flea, doing the backstroke down the river, crying "rIse the drawbridge"
>
Striking image. -- AJ
>

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:22:36 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/26/2023 8:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On the way across that Arctic Ocean the USS Skate surfaced a number of times to test the ice thickness and gauge whether surfacing at the North Pole would be practical. That is where most of those pictures of submarines surrounded by ice come from. The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/
> >
> > Nice photo. Perhaps some background might be worthwhile. It seems
> > that the North Pole was mostly ice free during some years and ice
> > bound during other years:
> > "Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 - not so thick"
> > <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/>
> > The web site belongs to Anthony Watts, who's beliefs on climate change
> > are similar to yours:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)>
> > One might suspect that his opinions are swayed by his sponsor, the
> > Heartland Institute.
> >
> > Pick a Fact Check site:
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=fact+check+anthony+watts>
> >
> > Depending on the source, the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
> > summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050. Pick your favorite source and
> > article:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline>
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=north+pole+ice+free>
> >
> > Incidentally, the North Pole did not surface. It was the various
> > submarines that were photographed after surfacing.
> >
> "the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
> summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050."
>
> And I'm told first snow here will be Tuesday. Or not.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
And the more it snows, the hotter it will get. That's the Science of Global Warming. I heard it on television. -- AJ
>

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:30:02 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:22:32 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On 10/26/2023 8:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>The ACTUAL photo of the North Pole surfacing us here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402650022935117832/
> >
> >>> Incidentally, the North Pole did not surface. It was the various
> >>> submarines that were photographed after surfacing.
> >
> >>"the North Pole is expected to be ice free in
> >> summer somewhere between 2030 and 2050."
> >>
> >>And I'm told first snow here will be Tuesday. Or not.
> >
> > Hopefully, the ground will not rise to meet the snow per Tom's
> > submarine description. However, if it happens, please take some
> > ACTUAL photos.
> >
> > 38F now in Santa Cruz CA. It's not cold enough yet to snow, but it's
> > trying. NWS has issued fire and high wind warnings of 20 to 30 mph
> > for Saturday and Sunday which will likely be accompanied by power
> > outages. Meanwhile, my steel wood burner is partly disassembled and
> > awaiting time for me to flux weld a crack and other repairs.
> > <https://photos.app.goo.gl/LLYM5DPaHAUMhM8z5>
> A balmy 78F here in yankee land. Nice day for a ride. We're supposed
> to have frost next week, which seems plausible.
>
> One trouble with climate doomers is that they rely on numerical
> predictions that have never demonstrated any skill in prediction at all.
> Short term weather forecasters do make skilled predictions, although
> they are clearly not perfect. As some sage once said, "Prediction is
> hard, especially about the future."
>
Professional weather forecasters now have so many more tools, and better tools than they had when I was a boy racer that their forecasts are vastly more credible and more often spot on. Makes one wonder why their reputation has not increased proportionately. -- AJ
>