OT: more evidence of AGW scam

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:57:42 AM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

The Finnish study seems to be just that

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

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

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GB005472

"By using a 13C inventory change method, we have determined a global ocean inventory of anthropogenic CO2 of 92 Âą 46 Gt C from our 13C Suess effect estimates."

The extra CO2 that has pushed up the atmospheric content from the 270ppm that is characteristic of an interglacial (not just this one) to the current 414ppm is all our own work, and respresnets about half the fossil carbomn we have burnt as fuel since the start of the industrial revolution - the rest is in the oceans.

Even Cursitor Doom should have been aware of that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 9:14:05 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.


But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it
doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much,

In fact the relationship between rising CO2 level and rising temperature is perfectly obvious, but John Larkin doesn't know enough science to follow the arguments, and is gullible enough to trust denialist websites on the subject.

> or that the added CO2 is bad for the planet.

It may not be bad for the planet but it isn't good for human society, which isn't quite the same thing.

> Lots of people want it to be, for various reasons.

And a few well-heeled people in the fossil carbon extraction industry don't want people to recognise the fact for the very obvious reason that it would impact the fossil carbon extraction industry's cash flow, so they spend a lot on climate changer denial propaganda, which gullible people like John Larkin lap up.

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

But is the extra vegetation the kind we can eat, or the weeds that compete with the plants we eat?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 8:00:12 AM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Whereas climate change already harms the sceptic and the non-sceptic alike.

The serious damage at the moment is largely confined to people who live in the paths of tropical cyclones and typhoons (which have become more intense as the ocean has warmed up), but more warming will produce more victims.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 7:47:47 AM UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:54:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

<snip>

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

That's just silly; production per capita might be interesting, but recall that all grasslands have 'produced grain', for millennia, alongside of human harvest.

John Larkin might need to recall that not all "grains" are harvestable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

makes the point that only few plants are suitable for cultivation as crops, and the plants that we have fixed on have been vigorously selected for thousands of years to suit our needs a whole better than their ancestors did.

The grains that might do better from a warmer climate are all going to be weeds, not crops.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:09:07 PM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:48 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-
greening-earth

This is a nice excerpt from Robert Brown a leading physicist.

Never heard of him. The denialist propaganda machine has a nasty habit of recruiting "scientists" who don't know much about climate science to endorse denialist propaganda. He's a lecturer at Duke University, so "leading physicist" would be a stretch. Anthony Watts likes him, which does suggest that he's another liar for hire.

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures! Seriously. Not one human being on
the planet would look at that complete record - or even the complete
record of temperatures during the Holocene, or the Pliestocene - and
stab down their finger at the present and go "Oh no!". Quite the
contrary. It isn't the warmest. It isn't close to the warmest. It isn't
the warmest in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. It isn't warming the
fastest.

In fact it is.

It isn't doing anything that can be resolved from the natural
statistical variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann's utterly
fallacious hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with
the LIA* and MWP** restored, it isn't even remarkable in the last
thousand years!

Mann's hockey stick reconstruction was the first of about a dozen now (all based on different proxies for historlical temperatures) which all tell much the same story, so Brown is wrong there too.

Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years
reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends 80
to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that cover
the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate zone.
We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which
humans emerged all the way from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern
civilization. The Earth's climate is manifestly, empirically bistable,
with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely
and more stable.

This has been true for the past five million years, but - geologically speaking - it hasn't happened often in the last 500 million years. Once the continents move around a bit more the climate will stop being bistable.

As a physicist who has extensively studied bistable
open systems, this empirical result clearly visible in the data has
profound implications. The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in
the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling from the
Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant on the
scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are nowhere
near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000 years ended
a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with the Maunder
minimum in solar activity.

The little ice age was essentially a north Atlantic centred event, and the Maunder minimum doesn't seem to have been relevant.

There is absolutely no evidence in this historical record of a third
stable warm phase that might be associated with a 'tipping pointâ'and
hence 'catastrophe'(in the specific mathematical sense of catastrophe,
a first order phase transition to a new stable phase).

The Paleocene-Eocene Tharmal Maximum may not have represented any kind of "first order phase transition" since it seems to reflect a massive release of methane into the atmosphere over a few thousand years, probably from methane ice clathrates that got warm enough to release the methane, which produced more warming which destablished more clathrates.

This is an obvious misuse of a technical phrase to imply an equally obviously non-existent expertise.

It has been far
warmer in the past without tipping into this phase. If anything, we are
geologically approaching the point where the Earth is likely to tip the
other way, into the phase that we know is there - the cold phase.

We do now know how these transitions work - even if Robert Brown doesn't - and 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere guarantees that we won't get the kind of permament snow fields bulding up at lower latitudes that drive the transition from an interglacial to an ice age.

A cold phase transition, which the historical record indicates can occur
quite rapidly with large secular temperature changes on a decadal time
scale, would truly be a catastrophe. Even if 'catastrophic' AGW is
correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next century, if it
stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or delayed the Earth's
transition into cold phase it would be worth it because the cold phase
transition would kill billions of people, quite rapidly, as crops failed
throughout the temperate breadbasket of the world.

As they are likely to do if the temperate bread-basket gets more tropical or drought-ridden. The man doesn't know what he is talking about.

<snipped the rest of the twaddle>

* Little ice age. A cold period from the 16th to 19th centuries (more or
less) when the Thames froze over.

A north atlantic phenomenon - ocean currents move around and some parts of the earth get warmer and others colder.

** Mediaeval warm period. A warm period when the Vikings colonized
Greenland..only to abandon it when it got too cold to grow crops.

Another north atlantic local effect.

Cursitor Doom is a gullible sucker for climate change denial, as well as for a number of other heaps of steaming self-serving propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown wrote:

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm skeptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.

There is one less Antifa.

<https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto>

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/19 7:36 PM, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown wrote:

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm skeptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.


There is one less Antifa.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto

Being a wingnut must be so confusing these days. Wondering if one is
supposed to fight the police state, or cheer it.

My take on it is all those "anti-government militias" were always just
made up of wanna-bees who never qualified to be military or cop due to
their criminal records, so they liked to dress up and play soldier as a
substitute, hoping a real cop would let them suck his dick someday.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 8:58:39 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:57:42 AM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:
https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

The Finnish study seems to be just that

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

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

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GB005472

"By using a 13C inventory change method, we have determined a global ocean inventory of anthropogenic CO2 of 92 Âą 46 Gt C from our 13C Suess effect estimates."

The extra CO2 that has pushed up the atmospheric content from the 270ppm that is characteristic of an interglacial (not just this one) to the current 414ppm is all our own work, and respresnets about half the fossil carbomn we have burnt as fuel since the start of the industrial revolution - the rest is in the oceans.

Even Cursitor Doom should have been aware of that.

When standing next to the discharge from a waste treatment plant, do we need a scientific study to tell us that is the source of the condoms floating in the river?

I suppose there will be some who deny the condoms are from humans and think they come from a bunch of horny raccoons.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 4:57:59 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.

Antifa seems to be an invention of the right-wing press. It's easy enough to buy actor-time and get them to do stuff on camera that fits the expectations of right-wing readers.

The last left-wing demonstration that I took part in - against the the Vietnam war, so quite a while ago - had bunch of left-wing monitors watching out for hot-headed kids who might do things that wouldn't look good if reporters managed to photograph them.

It's public relations 101.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:09:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 4:57:59 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.

Antifa seems to be an invention of the right-wing press. It's easy enough to buy actor-time and get them to do stuff on camera that fits the expectations of right-wing readers.

The last left-wing demonstration that I took part in - against the the Vietnam war, so quite a while ago - had bunch of left-wing monitors watching out for hot-headed kids who might do things that wouldn't look good if reporters managed to photograph them.

It's public relations 101.

From what I can see Antifa is real. They have their own organization and activities although they are not terribly active. It's funny that while very real, the extreme right wing groups seem to have little actual support. Many of the protesters who joined them in Charlottesville were just doing it as a lark. They had never been in any right wing action before.

Both groups are reprehensible.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:42:26 AM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:09:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 4:57:59 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists..


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.

Antifa seems to be an invention of the right-wing press. It's easy enough to buy actor-time and get them to do stuff on camera that fits the expectations of right-wing readers.

The last left-wing demonstration that I took part in - against the the Vietnam war, so quite a while ago - had bunch of left-wing monitors watching out for hot-headed kids who might do things that wouldn't look good if reporters managed to photograph them.

It's public relations 101.

From what I can see Antifa is real. They have their own organization and activities although they are not terribly active.

But are they grass-roots or astro-turf? The Tea Party activists that gutted the Republican party seem to have been paid for by the Koch brothers - James Arthur seems to have got some of their money, though his right-wing views seem to be congenital. Antifa could be another such right-wing invention.

The anti-fascists I've known (not many) were very careful to be non-violent, precisely because it plays better in the media.

It's funny that while very real, the extreme right wing groups seem to have little actual support. Many of the protesters who joined them in Charlottesville were just doing it as a lark. They had never been in any right wing action before.

Both groups are reprehensible.

But are they both spontaneous?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:04:17 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 7/13/19 10:48 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more evidence than crying "rain forest".


The obvious conclusion is that CD is simply a sharper data analyst than
the bulk of climate scientists in the world, who are engaged in a
massive cover-up they have all been sworn to secrecy about.

This passes Occam's Razor test for plausibility very well.

self interest is more credible. Climate 'scientists' can be on the front burner or the back - naturally they make more money at the front of public awareness.


NT

 

On Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:11:47 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".


Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

The world is ever full of naive youngsters that think they know better.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 1:16:51 PM UTC+2, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:11:47 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".


Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Happily Australia has a lower population density than even the US, so my brain was less damaged than John Larkin's (at least when I was growing up in rural Tasmania. NT would have been even worse off than John Larkin.

> The world is ever full of naive youngsters that think they know better.

Now that gasoline is unleaded there are fewer of them.

But there's also no shortage of ill-informed geriatic cases who suffer from exactly the same delusion, and NT is a remarkably ill-informed sample of the breed.

He seems to be as vain as John Larkin, so he really isn't likely to admit this to himself or anybody else.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 1:15:24 PM UTC+2, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:04:17 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/13/19 10:48 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more evidence than crying "rain forest".


The obvious conclusion is that CD is simply a sharper data analyst than
the bulk of climate scientists in the world, who are engaged in a
massive cover-up they have all been sworn to secrecy about.

This passes Occam's Razor test for plausibility very well.

self interest is more credible. Climate 'scientists' can be on the front burner or the back - naturally they make more money at the front of public awareness.

Actually, they don't.

The self-interest that drives climate change denial is much more obvious - a small but remarkably wealthly bunch of people make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel.

Any effective action to slow down climate change is going to reduce the volume of fossil carbon they can sell, and diminish their cash flow.

They've got quite enough money to buy loads of denialist propaganda from the organisations that were orginally set up to tell that smoking didn't seriously damage your health.

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

NT is the kind of half-wit that thinks that the amount of extra money an academic can make by getting newspaper column inches is going to be big enough to persuade them to risk their academic careers by publishing nonsense.

There's a lot more money to be had by publishing nonsense that denies anthropogenic climate change - which does wreck your academic crediblity, but if you didn't have much to start with this isn't quite so important.

Cursitor Doom recently posted a pile of steaming twaddle from a lecturer in physics at Duke Univeristy - a Roger Brown - which is a representative sample.

Cursitor Doom told us that he was a "leading physicist" - which would perhaps be an abbreviated form of "leading people up the garden path physicist" or perhaps merely the truncated version of "misleading physicist".

Google suggests that the only public attention that he has got has been from the denialist propaganda machine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 13:51:17 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:

> NT is the kind of half-wit that thinks that the amount of extra money an academic can make by getting newspaper column inches is going to be big enough to persuade them to risk their academic careers by publishing nonsense.

Lol. Bill's just lost in his bull.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

tirsdag den 16. juli 2019 kl. 12.23.27 UTC+2 skrev Bill Sloman:

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:42:26 AM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:09:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 4:57:59 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:00:08 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Antifa and the like do that already.

Antifa seems to be an invention of the right-wing press. It's easy enough to buy actor-time and get them to do stuff on camera that fits the expectations of right-wing readers.

The last left-wing demonstration that I took part in - against the the Vietnam war, so quite a while ago - had bunch of left-wing monitors watching out for hot-headed kids who might do things that wouldn't look good if reporters managed to photograph them.

It's public relations 101.

From what I can see Antifa is real. They have their own organization and activities although they are not terribly active.

But are they grass-roots or astro-turf? The Tea Party activists that gutted the Republican party seem to have been paid for by the Koch brothers - James Arthur seems to have got some of their money, though his right-wing views seem to be congenital. Antifa could be another such right-wing invention.

I think your tinfoil hat is restriction your bloodflow

The anti-fascists I've known (not many) were very careful to be non-violent, precisely because it plays better in the media.

antifa is anti-fascists just like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "Germans Democratic Republic" is/was democratic

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

antifa is anti-fascists just like "Democratic People's Republic of
Korea", "Germans Democratic Republic" is/was democratic

From what I've seen, they're just a bunch of brainwashed, anarchist
property-destroyers. They clearly hate America so why don't they fuck off
to some 3rd world shit-hole country where they'll feel right at home?



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 1:31:19 AM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

antifa is anti-fascists just like "Democratic People's Republic of
Korea", "Germans Democratic Republic" is/was democratic

From what I've seen, they're just a bunch of brainwashed, anarchist
property-destroyers. They clearly hate America so why don't they fuck off
to some 3rd world shit-hole country where they'll feel right at home?

Cursitor Doom sees stuff on the media he choses to pay attention to, which are all obviously designed to give right-wing nitwits a picture of the world which fits their prejudices.

And of course the US is rapidly becoming a 3rd world shit-hole country for everybody but the top 1% of the income distribution. Check out their health-care system, which performs wonders for the rich and bankrupts the less well-off if they have the misfortune to get ill.

Reagan started the process, and Trump is prosecuting it with enthusiasm, if not all that effectively.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney