Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:32:35 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> >Humble Philosopher wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> >> > Why didn't I see the 3, WWIII looks so much better, when will it be
> >> > launched?
> >>
> >> It's coming before the second coming of Jesus, so it'll be sooner than soon.
> >
> >I bet there will be a nuclear war within 10 years. But Jesus has been coming
> >for 2000 years.
>
> A lot of people would have made that bet 60 years ago.
>
> We're still here. And if we're betting on which horse of the apocalypse comes
> in first, don't forget the technological singularity.

Wait a minute, we shouldn't be feeding the military-industrial complex, particularly when WWIII ain't real. The real stuff is preparing for climate change.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you ready for the jungle?"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Andre Jute]

The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the climate.

Andre Jute
Realist

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure upset the balance. All the scientists agree.

The good news is you can easily fight climate change by riding a bike.

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 7:22:23 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 3:57:46 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> > The world needs another "good" war. Here in New Zealand they are
> > closing down many of the "Returned Services Associations" (basically
> > meeting halls that host events, have cheap meals, and hire out rooms)
> > due to being underused with almost all the World War I and II soldiers
> > now being gone, another big war would ensure a new supply of returning
> > soldiers and keep the RSAs going. ;-)
>
> Yeah, WWIII would create an "army of zombies" going back for help and support, filling the American Legion centers, telling stories about the "big flash," the obliteration of 99% of humanity, and the ensuing abundance of everything, all radioactive.
>
> I think there will always be a 1%...

All this hatred toward Russia spewing out of the mouth of Western politicians and the media will have consequences, hopefully being short of a nuclear holocaust. Now American hackers are trying to get back for a hack we are told the Russians did. Is it true? Last time we believed the politicians and the media we went into Iraq.

Moscow confirms ministry website attack after US hacker claim

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/moscow-confirms-ministry-website-attack-us-hacker-claim-172309488.html

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 6:45:02 AM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:

> El domingo, 23 de octubre de 2016, 16:00:03 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > Wait a minute, we shouldn't be feeding the military-industrial complex, particularly when WWIII ain't real. The real stuff is preparing for climate change.
>

> the real climate change would come out when the oil would be about to get
> depleted. That would be a real climate change. There would no be enough
> food for 7 billion people, that this would a sufficient cause for the
> WWIII to start. When people is about starving he joins some army or other.
>
> All the collapses of great empires and civilizations occurred when there was
> not enough rains to have harvests in sufficient amounts. Hungry people
> joins any army whatever, assuming that being an alive soldier guaranties
> some feeding.
>
> Then, the next climatic real threat we have is the next ice age coming. It
> cannot be so far off the next corner. For the moment we are lucky for the
> volcano Bardarbunga would be emitting chlorine for a few decades, This
> would be destroying the ozone layer that would keep the planet a little
> warmer for a few decades.
>
> eri

Climate change can work in subtle or violent ways. Mother Nature may decide to strike Miami with a cat 5 hurricane and do more damage that all terrorists put together.

They know it but they keep building high-rises for the rich and famous as well as the thieves and the corrupt. It's a direct challenge to her. We are already sinking and flooding, so she's using soft power too.

Money vs Nature, nature wins.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

https://cyclintom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/climate-change-for-scientists/

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://65.media.tumblr.com/1d5b4d182d4da6919fa2230e6274c5c9/tumblr_mw0kpdMbfB1su40qeo1_500.jpg

[DougC]

On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the climate.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Realist

> ,,,,

> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure upset the balance. All the scientists agree.

>...
Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.

Is it "global warming" or "another ice age" this year?
They change the coming apocalypse so often that I forget how it goes.

[sms]

On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
>>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
>>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
>>> climate.
>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Realist
>> ,,,,
>> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
>> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
>> ...
> Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.

There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
Trump blinders.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[DougC]

On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:
>
> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> Trump blinders.
>

Sure--in principal.

In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.

However as of 2016 hurricanes continue to occur at regular intervals,
and so far no butterflies have been apprehended.

?

Are the Donald Trump blinders any better than the Al Gore blinders?
Seems like one can't see much with either of them on.

[AMuzi]

So the dearth of tropical storms the past few years is
directly a result of that one lazy butterfly in some jungle
or other. Got it.

p.s. If we're going to ever have global warming, it can
start any time already. Cold ride today.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

I don't usually mind the cold so much but the wind here in Quebec has
been ridiculous. 3C and 70k winds is not very pleasant on a bike.

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

"The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years," ...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/a-major-climate-milestone-has-been-reached

***

Again, hit the road with your bike --if you dare. Remind the politicians we need LIVING SPACE. Oh wait, the revolution is coming soon.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:
>>
>> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
>> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
>> Trump blinders.
>>
> Sure--in principal.
>
> In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.

Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
temperatures.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Not many serious climate scientists? Perhaps not.

CO2 is solidly linked with an increase in temperature, the questions
are:

1) How much? Physics suggests something like 2C increase per
*doubling* of PC02, meaning that quadrupling PCO2 will give
approximately a 4C increase. This logarithmic dependence is hardly
ever explained to the public. In fact warmists hardly ever
sufficiently explain everything, they expect it taken on faith.

2) How bad is warming? History shows that humanity has prospered during
warm climates, and struggled during cold ones. Why should we believe
that returning to the conditions of the Minoan climate optimum (odd,
isn't it, that warm periods are called "optima") should be as
disastrous as suggested?

3) How costly is avoiding CO2 emissions? There are some popular and
rational treatments of this subject, for example
https://www.withouthotair.com . Unfortunately these are not much
heeded by those benefiting from irrational subsidies. At some point we
will run sufficiently short of fossil fuels that it becomes difficult
to base a civilization on them. In the mean time it seems a bit hard
hearted to try to prevent most of the rest of the world from developing
in the way that N. America and Europe have.

4) How about the benefits of CO2? Not much discussed in polite circles
either, but "global greening" is occurring. Plants love CO2, as
greenhouse operators have known for quite some time, and the world has
become significantly greener due to the increase in PCO2. With
sufficient CO2 plants, including food crops, are better able to deal
with drought and pests.


--

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:20:38 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:
> > On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
> >>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
> >>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
> >>> climate.
> >>>
> >>> Andre Jute
> >>> Realist
> >> ,,,,
> >> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
> >> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
> >> ...
> > Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.
>
> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> Trump blinders.

Surely you can't blame poor Mr Trump for all those dinosaurs breathing out methane 65 million years ago, Scharfie. The Donald wasn't around then.

Andre Jute
Cyclist vote to BRING BACK GLOBAL WARMING

[AMuzi]

Hadrian's Roman garrisons exported iron nails and wine from
Brittania.
In the middle ages, Britons drank mead as it was too cold
for grapes.
William after 1066 had 70 vineyards on his tax rolls.
Today wine grapes don't flourish on The Isles but may well
again in the future.

Change is normal, Toyotas notwithstanding.

p.s. Under the retreating Greenland ice are stone borders of
former wheat fields. It was once green and may or may not be
again. We'll see.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 10-24-2016 16:19, sms wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:
>> On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
>>>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
>>>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
>>>> climate.
>>>>
>>>> Andre Jute
>>>> Realist
>>> ,,,,
>>> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
>>> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
>>> ...
>> Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.
>
> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> Trump blinders.

You don't get to call them "not scientists" just for disagreeing with
you. A scientist that's wrong is still a scientist.


--
Wes Groleau

[DougC]

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

The second problem is that it is mainly presented as a social
engineering issue: since wealthy countries "caused" this issue, they
must become poor again to "solve" it... while much of the rest of the
world isn't restricted by it, or will continue to ignore it entirely.
Even if there was a problem, that isn't really a useful solution.
And it will not even succeed in its actual/hidden effort, since making
the rich people poor won't make the poor people rich.

Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
human control {and that may be a good thing}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:
>
> The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
> dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
> the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution, my
insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Well, you can only blame Mr Trump for living in denial.

It's a strategy for survival among the ostriches.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

If anyone doubts climate change, let them come to Miami Beach...

"The Madness of Miami Beach -- Why Do Investors Keep Dumping Money in a City That Will Soon Be Under Water?"

https://plus.google.com/102583474140956257152/posts/hXEqxtuPxzT

[Radey Shouman]

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

It's the ultimate showdown: The arrogant rich vs mother nature.

They live in denial because they can afford it. The people will pay for the massive losses when a hurricane strikes and they'll just move to higher ground.

What I mean is they don't pay for flood insurance according to the risk. They may not buy in the first place if they had to pay for it.

The common people don't live in denial. They are humble by nature.

[AMuzi]

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the
first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for
industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring this about?”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of
State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions
of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty
[Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific
evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

At least Global Warming sounds positive. Before that, The
New Ice Age seemed just dreadful.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

They treated the same way the guy who discovered that bacteria cause ulcers.

And people who resisted the MYTH that we should all consume lots of
carbohydrates and shun fats.

And on and on.

I have no clue on global warming, and neither do 95% of the people
proclaiming it nor 95% of the people denying it. It's such a hot button
that many of the people who do know on both sides are willing to lie
about it.

--
Wes Groleau

[Radey Shouman]

One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
to truth.

RIP.

[1] Eg:
http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.org/2008/01/29/basic-concepts-the-norms-of-science/

--

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

you are what you eat

tomorrow, if farmers continue producing food

you will eat breakfast then come up with an idea to save the planet.

no one can rule: stop cutting trees down in the west for heat, railroad ties, and silver mine steam engines for personal wealth.

insulate the buildings. stop building railroads to cut down trees.

if the ruler did that he's be run out of town.

now, if you believe you can assemble a large majority united in insulating buildings let me know.

[AMuzi]

On 10/26/2016 2:29 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
>>>>> dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
>>>>> the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.
>>>>
>>>> It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
>>>> way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
>>>> if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
>>>> my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
>>>> bloodletting!
>>>>
>>>> Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!
>>>
>>> And selfish:
>>>
>>> We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
>>> data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
>>> wrong with it.
>>>
>>> -- Michael Mann
>>>
>>
>> Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first
>> U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed

>> the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving
>> the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t
>> it our responsibility to bring this about?â€

>>
>> Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard
>> Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State

>> Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented

>> even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]

>> greenhouse effect.â€

>
> One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
> happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
> have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
> observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
> to truth.
>
> RIP.
>
> [1] Eg:
> http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.org/2008/01/29/basic-concepts-the-norms-of-science/
>

Oh, that's merely science. pffft.
Global Climate Change is something entirely different:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html#ixzz4NtxXsjTi


Be sure to read down to Doctor Suckall's work. Apt, I say.

[Andre Jute]

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:

Post-Normal Science sounds to me awfully like Marxist Science, otherwise known as Lysenkoism: If you differ from the WILL of Michael Mann, you WILL become the star of your own show trial.

Andre Jute
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming

[AMuzi]

There's more money in Global Warming than even Scientology!

[John B.]

I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I've always thought it was strange that the base cause is never
mentioned. In 1950 the world population was estimated at 2.5 billion.
in 2000 it was 6.1 and the latest I find is 2015 - 7.3, which is dead
on track for a population of 10 billion in 2050. Or a gain of some
400% in a hundred years.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

We need a bicycle counter on every major road. The bicycle may come later.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

If you believe the scientists, then ask your politician or preacher to tell you. He will tell you what you want to hear.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

If there was much money in preventing climate change, then you would see capitalism invest in it.

Regrettably, the bicycle is not that much of a business.

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

> I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
> certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
> However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)

There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Andre Jute]

I think, my leetle banana, that you mean, "If you don't believe the scientists, then ask..."

But you're wrong about that too. I have no problem believing scientists who follow proper procedure and produce falsifiable, repeatable evidence by honest means. It's the cowboys who cook the data to "prove" a predetermined viewpoint that I have delighted at spitting on ever since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national paper. Too many of that scum, and their slimy hangers-on, infest global warming studies for us to invest a dime in their prognostications, never mind trillions. They should all be sued for unprofessional conduct amounting to fraud and jailed.

Your reference to religion is revealing. I don't know what you do for a living, what training you had, but it is clear to many people, and has been for a long time, that the belief in global warming is a religious substitute for weak minds, including some (Scharfie is an example) whose training should have immunized them against dumb claims that depend for persuasion on "consensus" rather than falsifiable, repeatable proof -- and the ability to predict what happens next, which the global warmies fail miserably to do. Global warming isn't science, sonny, it is demagoguery of a particularly malicious type.

Andre Jute
I often think that it is a failure of state and community care for the handicapped that anyone who believes in global warming is permitted to cross the street without adult supervision

[Radey Shouman]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
> wrote:
>
>> I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
>> certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
>> However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)
>
> There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
> absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
> often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
> transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
> from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
> he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

Hemochromatosis.

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/liver-disease/hemochromatosis/Pages/facts.aspx

Doesn't say whether the blood is usable for transfusion (or anything else).

--

[Andre Jute]

You can look it up for yourself in earlier threads before you arrived here, and since too, probably: I have several times on this group drawn the line connecting the Club of Rome (Maurice Strong among the executive directors) with its concern with ZPG (zero population growth, indeed advocacy of genocide to cut human population by some members), it's early seventies book saying that an environmental catastrophe even if invented (they first liked a new ice age; global warming came in only after the new ice age got too hot to handle...) was needed to scare people into behaving like the CoR (I'll leave the puns on the other fascist CoR to the Catholic renegades -- but it is no accident that the Club of Rome is headquartered in Italy) thinks they should behave. From there the link runs through UNEP (the UN Environmental Programme, chairman, you guessed it, Maurice Strong, who found the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change -- note that Climate Change is axiomatically assumed before a single study was done) and chartered it to find manmade climate change. Strong was (he died earlier this year) a Canadian oil billionaire...

Besides Strong, you might want to look into the membership of the Club of Rome and then follow through on individual members' views on the "permissible population" -- you will need a strong stomach (sorry! -- they're a murderous bunch).

***
All of this is so unnecessary. In the West and the erstwhile tiger economies of the Far East, all the important nations already have fecundity below replacement: anything below 2.1 children on average per every two of the population (not per couple, because not everyone marries) will not even maintain the population, never mind grow it. The only important exception is the United States, where fundamentalist Christians still have largish families, even if the elite already aren't replacing themselves.

Your forecasts are based on thinking that was already old in the early1960s when as a student I won a public debate against a famous statistician by describing the "population explosion" as "pap for the credulous and the corrupt" (we lived in a nation where the national policy on race, economics, military, everything, was based on a statistical report on which this guy had been a junior) and then asking the children of the elite in the audience for a show of hands of those who had more than one sibling -- there were almost none, and more than a third were only children.

See, every observant demographer in the world should know at least this much: with increasing wealth, birthrates decline. An additional factor is that socialist states like the EU and the richer Far Eastern democracies look after people from cradle to grave, so parents don't need many kids directly to ensure their comfort in their old age.

Far from a population explosion, the West is already almost past the so-called "low-low fertility rate", that is, breeding below the self-replacement rate, which can only result in shrinking nations. China, in part because of a stupid breeding restriction policy, will arrive there soon. The only available replacements are Muslims, who still breed like rabbits. Well, unless Europe and China can cut a deal with President Trump for him to export his Mexican illegals to them under the pretense that they're purebred Castilians... (That's a joke, by the way. Mexico doesn't actually have enough surplus population to make more than a small dent in Europe's problem, never mind the huge Chinese problem approaching like a runaway train.)

The overriding problem is that even Muslim fecundity is already on a downward curve. If you don't believe me, check Iranian birthrates since the ayatollahs took over; even in this most perfectly fundamentalist Islamic state, the link between increasing wealth and falling birthrates works equally under Shah and Mullah. Several studies have shown that Muslim birthrates in the plenty of the West is lower among the immigrant communities than back home where they came from...

Best guess currently is that the Muslim fecundity gap will disappear in less than half a century.

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the world population will actually reach 10bn, and even if it did, it would stabilize there briefly and then start falling.

***
In any event, only the unthinking and the ill-informed believe that the world cannot feed a population twice what we have now -- easily. The problem is not now, and hasn't been for a century or so, food production; any temporary scarcity has been because of ideological warping of the system (Russian grain shortages) or polical mismanagement (most of Africa) or dickswinging by greenies (the pointless banning of DDT to prove their "power" by American environmentalists, which has caused a genocide of hundreds of million of the poorest people on earth). There is plenty of surplus food being thrown into the sea as I write to you; the problem is not producing it but transporting and distributing the surplus to the hungry. Look into how many tomatoes you can grow on a square meter of water pan, or into American wheat or South African maize (what you call corn) or Russian wheat when well managed, for that matter, and be amazed. During the apartheid era I saw maize being thrown into the sea by continuous convoy because the regimes of starving nations to the north didn't want to accept food from white hands...

Andre Jute
The things I've seen -- from Blade Runner

[Phil Lee]

DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> considered Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:32:56

-0500 the perfect time to write:

>On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
>>>> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
>>>> Trump blinders.
>>>>
>>> Sure--in principal.
>>>
>>> In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.
>>
>> Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
>> nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
>> and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
>> temperatures.
>>
>The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
>dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
>the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
spherical earth!
Maybe you're still holding out against that as well.
And hold on to the ground, or you may drift away - after all, how sure
can you be about gravity?

>
>The second problem is that it is mainly presented as a social
>engineering issue: since wealthy countries "caused" this issue, they
>must become poor again to "solve" it... while much of the rest of the
>world isn't restricted by it, or will continue to ignore it entirely.

China is investing more in renewables than the rest of the world put
together. It doesn't seem to be holding them back much, and of
course, there's no reason the (already) developed world can't do the
same - except the pressure placed on governments by the fossil fuel
industry.

>Even if there was a problem, that isn't really a useful solution.
>And it will not even succeed in its actual/hidden effort, since making
>the rich people poor won't make the poor people rich.

If the already rich would only invest in the renewables, they could be
getting even richer, as they would lead the world in those
technologies and be able to charge others for that expertise.

>
>Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
>estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
>human control {and that may be a good thing}.

The problem is how much of the solar energy that hits the earth's
atmosphere is retained. It's a scientific fact that different mixes
of gases change that rate, and CO2 emissions have been responsible for
a huge increase in the energy retained in the atmosphere. Some of
that gets passed on to the oceans (although so does the CO2, which
causes acidification of seawater and kills off a lot of sea life) but
despite that, average global temperatures are increasing. This is a
measure of the total energy in the climate, so extremes of high winds,
high temperatures, and (because of the way in which currents in both
air and sea get changed) some places will actually get colder.

As a very simplistic measure, just look at the amount of ice which
we've been losing over the last few decades, both glacial ice and
polar ice-caps. It's hard to explain how that could be happening
unless it is genuinely getting warmer, and we know that the increase
tracks the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere quite closely.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
We go through periods of increased sunspot activity on a fairly
regular basis. We don't have any record of this causing anything like
the amount of warming we are currently seeing during any former period
of high sunspot activity, despite looking extremely hard for it.

[Phil Lee]

"W. Wesley Groleau" <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> considered Tue, 25

Not when he is denying the scientific method.
Or worse, just plain lying, whether from personal conviction or for
remuneration.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

again, IF the TM followed 'SCIENCE' in Goo News then a vast march toward clean energy production is apparent. Multifaceted.

I was actively involved in energy planning research with the UF. However on site and in process we were stopped by the State and organized crime whom would rather control their non existent processes than allow my unregulated ie not a member, progress.

After all, there's a lot of money in it.

We completed a preliminary study of wide spread moisture production in the SW.

OC out of Las Vegas poisoned me 3 times, attacked me every hour at night with sonic guns, chase cars equipped with loudspeakers in the pouring rain (mine) across Nevada's gold fields at 2AM .....giving the opinion as I left for the east that OC was not interested in rain, I was forbidden to return to the SW or the Rockies.

get the picture ?

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
> spherical earth!

That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works is that
*everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off limits for
investigation, that isn't science.

The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired characteristics
*can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating this because
Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Just looked in Wikipedia for the spelling of Lamarck's name --- what
happened when fanboys grabbed one of Lamarck's least-important ideas
and ran amok with it reads a lot like the "global warming" mania.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

today

http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016162

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-atomics-breakthrough-enables-greater-fusion.html

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/27/2016 3:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
>> spherical earth!
>
> That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works is that
> *everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off limits for
> investigation, that isn't science.
>
> The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired characteristics
> *can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating this because
> Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Please don't pretend that global temperatures, atmospheric CO2, artic
ice mass, glacial recession etc. don't get re-measured all the time!

I don't think anyone is saying that skeptics shouldn't re-measure any of
the relevant data, any more than anyone is saying (for example) that
Relativity skeptics should not measure the speed of light, or Evolution
skeptics should not study DNA.

However, if someone is still saying that light is transmitted by
stationary, undetectable ether; that the earth was created 6,000 years
ago; and that today's measured changes in climate are due to completely
natural causes, then they need to bring some overwhelming and
incontrovertible data to the discussion.

Or, more likely, stop pretending that they are serious scientists.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

The major proponents of this religious hysteria don't
pretend it has anything to do with actual science. It's
about compulsion and power. The scientific staff[1] just
play along with the ruse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

[1] these are hardly scientists, dispassionate observers,
are they?

[John B.]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:34:42 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>wrote:
>
>> I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
>> certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
>> However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)
>
>There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
>absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
>often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
>transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
>from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
>he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

I've got a friend that has some unpronounceable disease, or maybe
condition, that results in his having too many red blood cells. The
treatment consists of taking some sort of "medicine" that kills red
blood cells :-(

I had always thought that the rest between blood donation was to give
the body time to make another pint of blood.
--
cheers,

John B.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 10-27-2016 10:34, Joy Beeson wrote:
> There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
> absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
> often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
> transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
> from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
> he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

When I went to donate, they took a finger sample, and dropped a little
into some clear fluid. Said they were checking for iron. Didn't say
whether they were looking for too little or for too much.

--
Wes Groleau

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:10:22 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> I think, my leetle banana, that you mean, "If you don't believe the scientists, then ask..."

Right.

>
> But you're wrong about that too. I have no problem believing scientists who follow proper procedure and produce falsifiable, repeatable evidence by honest means. It's the cowboys who cook the data to "prove" a predetermined viewpoint that I have delighted at spitting on ever since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national paper. Too many of that scum, and their slimy hangers-on, infest global warming studies for us to invest a dime in their prognostications, never mind trillions. They should all be sued for unprofessional conduct amounting to fraud and jailed.
>
> Your reference to religion is revealing. I don't know what you do for a living, what training you had, but it is clear to many people, and has been for a long time, that the belief in global warming is a religious substitute for weak minds, including some (Scharfie is an example) whose training should have immunized them against dumb claims that depend for persuasion on "consensus" rather than falsifiable, repeatable proof -- and the ability to predict what happens next, which the global warmies fail miserably to do. Global warming isn't science, sonny, it is demagoguery of a particularly malicious type.
>
> Andre Jute
> I often think that it is a failure of state and community care for the handicapped that anyone who believes in global warming is permitted to cross the street without adult supervision

So you mean the scientists are as credible as politicians and preachers. The difference is, however, that they are educated in that field. I don't need them to tell me it is true, it's common sense. Too many people, too many toys, too much waste. Politicians and preachers want MORE people. Their goal is to keep the masses feeding them. Scientists don't have that priority. They are free spirits, so to speak.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 4:05:25 PM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:

Going green can mean moving to electric cars (big bucks) or moving on bicycles (frugal approach), having the advantage of moving the masses and preventing disease. Actually the bikes can be electric too and they are an excellent idea for those who argue those massive batteries in cars are environmentally unfriendly.

The car in itself is the worst possible idea, unless you go further and go with a family. Only big oil and the automobile manufacturers themselves can defend the polluting car. It's something they pushed down our throat without concern for the environment.

Capitalism can be a blind beast or it can get smart and clean.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> ... if someone is still saying that today's measured changes in climate

Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming to match output of CO2. You should get a copy of the entire Climategate email series and read it; it is a horrifying story of scientists faking up an event that didn't happen -- that's why they have to perpetrate the "trick":

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann counted the same, most unsuitable trees, 161 times in order to give him his hockey stick, and for the last fifty years, because temperatures didn't rise, added the real measured temps to the forecast temps for an artificial boost.

There's something else wrong with scenario. You, Frank Krygowski, throw your weight around on RBT, trying to pretend that you can analyze statistics. In that case, why don't you know that it is unprofessional for any statistician to add a forecast and a measured series together even innocently, never mind with deceitful purpose as here?

Also, you clearly haven't understood that these socalled scientists point the finger at CO2 -- which is plant food! -- because otherwise their models don't work. In other words, they have no positive evidence that CO2 is the enabler, merely the negative evidence that their models, which anyway can't even forecast five years ahead, cannot explain anomalies, nor even rearcast known history (which must be the acme of incompetence in statistics!), don't work without the multiplier of CO2. If you had read, and understood, the full reports of the IPCC -- I have -- you suddenly discover that they have very low confidence in their own models.

You must get your information on global warming -- and your faith in it too, Franki-boy -- from television.

Andre Jute
Don't lecture us, moron. We know better.

(1) From my Cambridge days, I have the usual connections at the University of East Anglia and one of them is the drinking buddy of a tech for the climate "scientists" at the Hadley CRUT, where these crimes were committed. For years this poor guy tore out his hair at the mess in which the "scientists's" self-serving, crooked adjustments left the master historical record, and it is widely suspected by insiders that it is the tech who, exasperated, finally blew the whistle on these fraudsters.

[Frank Krygowski]

If you dig into the history, you'll find lots of impolite quotes and
accusations between scientists of renown. Try some of the remarks by and
about Isaac Newton, for example. The image of a scientist as a monkish,
disinterested lab rat who's perfectly impartial and diplomatic is a
naive cartoon.

But out of the bickering, the personality clashes, the contrary
theories, truth does tend to emerge. The winning theories are the ones
that correctly predict the facts that are found to occur - as with
Einstein's prediction that the path of a star's light would be affected
by gravity.

So, how about facts on the ground? Are you pretending this isn't happening?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/disintegrating-rockies-glacier-sends-strong-message-on-climate/article26945443/

Nations are investing heavily to take advantage of the rapid reduction
in polar ice. Are they wasting money by imagining things?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303330204579250522717106330

Are companies that are doing the same making imaginary profits?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/crystal-serenity-luxury-cruise-arctic-northwest-passage/

Is this conspiracy so pervasive that the vast majority of scientists
working in relevant fields, in countries all around the world, speaking
countless different languages, have all signed on to it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/asia/china-climate-change-global-warming.html?_r=0

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8299ef005f8143c5bafe6aa74dee2dba/study-climate-change-warming-asian-waters-altering-monsoon

If it's about money: It's been pretty conclusively shown that scientists
disputing climate change have taken in rather large sums from those
selling fossil fuels. NASA and NOAA don't pay salaries nearly as high
as, say, Exxon can afford. Why don't many more jump on that band wagon
and stop producing data like this?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

Yes, it's possible all the above (and much more) is wrong. It's also
possible that we'll find proof that stones actually fall to the earth
only because they are "of the earth," as was once believed (before
Newton began using the term "gravity"). It's possible that all those
dinosaur bones were planted 6,000 years ago, just to test our faith,
when God created the universe. And I suppose it's still possible that
we'll find Saddam's huge (huge!) cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ralph Barone]

Too little. Canadian Blood Services used to use that method, where a drop
of blood is dropped into a vial of Copper Sulfate dissolved in water. If
the drop sinks, your hemoglobin levels are high enough, and if it floats,
your iron levels are too low to donate.

[John B.]

AIDS positive?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
> Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Juteshit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Terms like ecological genocide and ecocide describe the present quite well:

https://ecocidealert.com/?tag=ecological-holocaust

http://www.nesseq.com/the-ecological-holocaust/

[John B.]

I stopped reading the famous author years ago and strangely I have no
feelings of loss.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 4:19:30 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >
> > Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...
>
> That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
> earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

Well then, Franki-boy, why don't you produce the original, unaltered record of spot terrestial temperature readings. Oh, by the way, we notice you sneer automatically before you even ask me to specify which "historic record" referring to. In short you sneer without even knowing what you're sneering at.

When you're that easily caught out, time and again, I'm not surprised that you pretend not to read what I write:

> I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
> bother reading much Juteshit.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I quite understand, Franki-boy. You have no answers, and I catch out your stupidies, like the one above, every time, so you pretend not to see the questions.

Andre Jute
Scourge of third-raters and other global warmies

[Andre Jute]

Pity that, Slow Johnny, as further up the thread I was in fact at least partly agreeing with you, and in surprise at you getting something half right, overlooking the half that you got wrong.

Never mind, you're probably too old to learn anything new.

Andre Jute
Jesus, save me from jumped-up mechanics who know everything

[Radey Shouman]

I have found they will disqualify you if they find too little. It would
not surprise me to find that too much also disqualifies.

--

[Radey Shouman]

Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

> DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> considered Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:32:56
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
>>>>> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
>>>>> Trump blinders.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure--in principal.
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.
>>>
>>> Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
>>> nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
>>> and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
>>> temperatures.

[ ... ]

>>Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
>>estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
>>human control {and that may be a good thing}.
>
> The problem is how much of the solar energy that hits the earth's
> atmosphere is retained. It's a scientific fact that different mixes
> of gases change that rate, and CO2 emissions have been responsible for
> a huge increase in the energy retained in the atmosphere. Some of
> that gets passed on to the oceans (although so does the CO2, which
> causes acidification of seawater and kills off a lot of sea life) but
> despite that, average global temperatures are increasing. This is a
> measure of the total energy in the climate, so extremes of high winds,
> high temperatures, and (because of the way in which currents in both
> air and sea get changed) some places will actually get colder.

The change in PCO2 can only explain about a quarter of the predicted
catastrophic changes in the global energy balance -- the remainder is
explained by "feedbacks", in humidity, cloud cover, and so forth. It's
not impossible that some of these positive feedback effects actually
exist, but there hasn't been any evidence presented for them either.

Note that the feedbacks are of temperature, not of PCO2.

The climate models that use them show no skill, that is, have made no
falsifiable predictions that have stood the test of time, whatsoever.
They're not science, they're more like ouija boards.

The oft repeated butterfly allusion is to the fact that the global
climate is chaotic; a change in initial conditions too small to be
represented in any global climate model can cause a large deviation in
the future trajectory.

It doesn't follow that simulation of chaotic systems is always useless.
For example, numerical weather prediction has improved a great deal in
the past 40 years or so. The reason it has improved is that failure has
been punished hence lessons from the real world have been repeatedly
incorporated into the models.

This has not and is not happening with climate models. Long term
simulation of chaotic systems without theoretical understanding or
actual observation is nothing more than machine-assisted mental
masturbation.

> As a very simplistic measure, just look at the amount of ice which
> we've been losing over the last few decades, both glacial ice and
> polar ice-caps. It's hard to explain how that could be happening
> unless it is genuinely getting warmer, and we know that the increase
> tracks the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere quite closely.

And yet ice cover has waxed and waned many times over history and
prehistory. No one sane claims that it has not become warmer over the
last 150 years, the discussion is over what that means, and what might
happen.

>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>
> We go through periods of increased sunspot activity on a fairly
> regular basis. We don't have any record of this causing anything like
> the amount of warming we are currently seeing during any former period
> of high sunspot activity, despite looking extremely hard for it.

Actually the recent solar cycle 24 and the current cycle 25 have been
periods of remarkably low solar activity. What this bodes remains to be
seen.

--

[AMuzi]

+1 nice summary

[W. Wesley Groleau]

If it's wrong, convince us.
Having a similarity to an unrelated issue is neither a valid refutation
nor valid support.


--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

Hundreds of people are ridiculing it. Therefore it must be false.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sto&sid=BENC1&num=72&raw=0


is this relevant ? well, its not not raining is it ?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/28/2016 4:29 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> On 10-27-2016 22:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh
>>> gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away
>>> the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global
>>> warming...
>>
>> That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
>> earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."
>>
>> I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
>> bother reading much Juteshit.
>
> If it's wrong, convince us.

:-) And while I'm at it, convince a dedicated socialist that Trump
would be the best president? And convince a neo-Nazi that Clinton would
be the best president?

Again, I don't read much Juteshit, so I'm not going to wade through it
for point by point rebuttals. As I said, I prefer facts on the ground.
I recently posted about half a dozen links with evidence of
unprecedentedly rapid changes that seem convincingly tied to human
activity. If you think those are all wrong, I won't be able to convince
you.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 4:32:25 PM UTC-4, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> Hundreds of people are ridiculing it. Therefore it must be false.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, are ridiculing the scientists, so the scientists must be wrong.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:20:38 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:
> > On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
> >>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
> >>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
> >>> climate.
> >>>
> >>> Andre Jute
> >>> Realist
> >> ,,,,
> >> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
> >> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
> >> ...
> > Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.

>
> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> Trump blinders.
>
>

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

This is complete and total BS. Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change. That's why the government and NASA did their cute little two-step and changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". The rest either think that there is no such thing or are silent because there is insufficient data. So only 60% at most think that there IS climate change and most of those do NOT attribute it to man.

The BS is knee deep - for instance: "the warmest year ever" refers ONLY to the global weather satellite information that has ONLY been gathered since the 1980's. And this "warmest ever" is about 5% of the error bars. So it is meaningless.

As a scientist I knew that you couldn't get two scientists to agree on the color of red so I've been seeking out where a 97% number could ever have come from. I finally discovered it. After Dr. Mann made his preposterous "hockey stick" prediction there was a paper that mentioned, "97% OF THE PUBLISHED PAPERS BY CLIMATOLOGISTS". Well, at that time it was impossible to GET a research grant that did not appear to look for global warming and it could not be renewed without a positive finding.

As I said elsewhere the absolute lying of the government through a cooperative media is at the bottom of this and the articles in the October issue of Scientific American reports that.

https://cyclintom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/climate-change-for-scientists/

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 7:38:18 AM UTC-7, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> > The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the climate.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Realist
> >

> > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:08:22 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:32:35 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibet...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> > > > >Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > > >> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> > > > >> > Why didn't I see the 3, WWIII looks so much better, when will it be
> > > > >> > launched?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's coming before the second coming of Jesus, so it'll be sooner than soon.
> > > > >
> > > > >I bet there will be a nuclear war within 10 years. But Jesus has been coming
> > > > >for 2000 years.
> > > >
> > > > A lot of people would have made that bet 60 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > We're still here. And if we're betting on which horse of the apocalypse comes
> > > > in first, don't forget the technological singularity.
> > >
> > > Wait a minute, we shouldn't be feeding the military-industrial complex, particularly when WWIII ain't real. The real stuff is preparing for climate change.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "Are you ready for the jungle?"
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> "The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years," ...
>
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/a-major-climate-milestone-has-been-reached
>
> ***
>
> Again, hit the road with your bike --if you dare. Remind the politicians we need LIVING SPACE. Oh wait, the revolution is coming soon.

There we go again with "first time on record" when we really haven't had any records until the last 80 years or so.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 1:51:57 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 3:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:20:38 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:

> >>> On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
> >>>>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
> >>>>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
> >>>>> climate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andre Jute
> >>>>> Realist

> >>>> ,,,,
> >>>> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
> >>>> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
> >>>> ...
> >>> Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.
> >>
> >> There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> >> change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> >> Trump blinders.
> >

> > Surely you can't blame poor Mr Trump for all those dinosaurs breathing out methane 65 million years ago, Scharfie. The Donald wasn't around then.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Cyclist vote to BRING BACK GLOBAL WARMING
> >
>
> Hadrian's Roman garrisons exported iron nails and wine from
> Brittania.
> In the middle ages, Britons drank mead as it was too cold
> for grapes.
> William after 1066 had 70 vineyards on his tax rolls.
> Today wine grapes don't flourish on The Isles but may well
> again in the future.
>
> Change is normal, Toyotas notwithstanding.
>
> p.s. Under the retreating Greenland ice are stone borders of
> former wheat fields. It was once green and may or may not be
> again. We'll see.

>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew - don't cha know that the environmentalists are telling us that naming it "Greenland" was nothing more than an advertising ploy.

[AMuzi]

Who are you going to believe, communist agitators or your
own lying eyes?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:41:34 AM UTC-7, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:35:44 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:

> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:11:41 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:20:38 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > > > On 10/24/2016 12:21 PM, DougC wrote:
> > > > > On 10/23/2016 9:34 PM, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote:
> > > > >> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > >>> The one constant throughout the Earth's history has been climate
> > > > >>> change. It is a particularly dim form of hubris (look it up) to
> > > > >>> believe that puny man can upset, never mind influence or control, the
> > > > >>> climate.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Andre Jute
> > > > >>> Realist
> > > > >> ,,,,
> > > > >> Over 7 billion of us, with all SUVs, waste and farmlands, can sure
> > > > >> upset the balance. All the scientists agree.
> > > > >> ...
> > > > > Sure, all the scientists that you agree with.
> > > >
> > > > There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
> > > > change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
> > > > Trump blinders.
> > >
> > > Surely you can't blame poor Mr Trump for all those dinosaurs breathing out methane 65 million years ago, Scharfie. The Donald wasn't around then.
> > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Cyclist vote to BRING BACK GLOBAL WARMING
> >

> > Well, you can only blame Mr Trump for living in denial.
> >
> > It's a strategy for survival among the ostriches.
>
> If anyone doubts climate change, let them come to Miami Beach...
>
> "The Madness of Miami Beach -- Why Do Investors Keep Dumping Money in a City That Will Soon Be Under Water?"
>
> https://plus.google.com/102583474140956257152/posts/hXEqxtuPxzT

Give us some more of your knowledge

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.agOuti3X.dpbs

Don't you think you should change your pseudonym to "Just Another Stupid Monkey"?

[AMuzi]

On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
>> man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in
>> climate change.
>
> Cite?
>
>

Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic.

Then again he's a statistician not a politician.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.
>
> Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

So man is contributing to climate change? What is that saying? In fact nothing. The near extinction of the American Bison probably made more impact than CO2.

In my quoted paper it showed graphs that have been purposely distorted to hide the fact that water vapor and oxygen have a hundred or more times the impact of CO2.

Remember that the time when we generated MORE CO2 than at any other time - WW II - there was a total cessation of global warming. Also remember that we started heating in 1886, long before man generated significant CO2 - in fact almost none.

The natural warm period occur every thousand years or so. We have the Minoan, the Roman, the Medieval and today's. All spaced at about 1,000 years. And our present period is cooler than the others.

As I've explained elsewhere there is all kinds of BS floating around. We are told that we can tell the difference between CO2 naturally occurring and man-made. That is not true. It relies upon the percentage of carbon 14 isotope. But volcanoes have been erupting all over the globe over the last 50 or so years. These burn though layers of carbon fossil fuel. releasing CO2 with the same proportions as man. The latest crap about "melting" in the Antarctica in the (if memory serves) Ronne Ice Sheet turns out to be another unknown undersea volcanic eruption melting ice only in the immediate area.

Just as we've been seeing large fault lines breaking the Earth has been pretty quiet for the last couple of thousands of years and now is trying to catch up. Although we are told that San Francisco isn't due for another hundred years I expect a large quake within 30 years. The fault line that follows through New Zealand and has a side vein through Italy is connected to the South and North American plate.

And to make the point yet again - it has been almost impossible to get government research grants for any project not specifically designed to PROVE global warming.

And yet not ONE single prediction has proven to come true. Unless you count the re-election of Obama. However - 2008 to 2016 The End of An Error.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/20/2016 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
>>> man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in
>>> climate change.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>>
>
> Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic.
>
> Then again he's a statistician not a politician.

I know he's written a lot on climate change. And it seems his views
have changed over the years:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile

But that's not a citation proving "Only a tiny percentage of

climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them
believe in climate change."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Why Miami Beach is sinking? Divine justice against the corrupt elites?

[Phil Lee]

cycl...@gmail.com considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:05:21 -0800 (PST)

the perfect time to write:

In that case, "the future" arrived some time ago!
The UK produces some fine and even award winning wines, although not
in great quantity.
And new vineyards are being planted almost every year.

[Phil Lee]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016

It's hard to find any scientist that disagrees that climate change is
happening.
Even those funded by the fossil fuel industry have given up on that
lie as completely untenable, pretending instead that it has nothing to
do with pollution. This despite the huge incentives offered by that
industry, which of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the
pollution.

It's mad, because I've SAVED money by changing to an energy supplier
which produces all electricity, and as much gas as possible, from
completely renewable sources. This is despite the fact that they are
building new generating capacity as fast as they can, the cost of
which has to be largely met from operating revenue. They only take on
new customers when they have the capacity to supply them with 100%
clean electricity, and the anaerobic digesters for methane production
are catching up with demand.
So not only can it be done, it's actually cheaper than using fossil
fuels - by about 30% according to my utility bills.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
> Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Bertrand]

>>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
>>> man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in
>>> climate change.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic.
>
> Then again he's a statistician not a politician.

Lomborg has degrees in political scientist, with some background in
statistics. But he's not a climatologist, meteorologist, or physicist.

[John B Slocomb]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:24:07 +0000, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

Proof positive of global warming. Or perhaps British Warming :-)

[John B Slocomb]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are they using as a feed stock to generate the
methane? It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago
using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure
as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough
electricity for these remote villages.

However, that may well have been civilization in action - your
neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-)

[Phil Lee]

John B Slocomb <sloc...@inop.org> considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016

Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household
waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I
don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet,
which is another untapped resource.
The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have
been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is
effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be
disposed of anyway.

> It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago
>using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure
>as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough
>electricity for these remote villages.
>
>However, that may well have been civilization in action - your
>neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-)

If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient
collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant
doesn't smell if it is enclosed!

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I have spent a great deal of time on this subject since I designed gas chromatographs and none of the claims of CO2 made the slightest sense. When hundreds of climate predictions have been made and every one concerning effects of CO2 has failed miserably you would think that someone would start getting the message. The climate is not difficult to predict. It is stable and effected only by the Milankovitch Cycles and sunspot activity. The variations in the climate from these sources is only a percent or so. The reaction of the climate from these changes can be dramatic but most assuredly CO2 changes of one hundredth part of one percent is not effecting anything but the vastly increased plant growth all over the world.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
>>> Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.
>>
>> If you're referring to
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
>>
>> (which is where I find your quote)
>> you seem to be interpreting it backwards.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as "climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to "predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

[Duane]

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/
“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of
unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that
humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of
nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
that may forever change life on Earth."


--
duane

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 8:08:22 AM UTC-7, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:32:35 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> > >On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

> > >Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> > >> > Why didn't I see the 3, WWIII looks so much better, when will it be
> > >> > launched?
> > >>
> > >> It's coming before the second coming of Jesus, so it'll be sooner than soon.
> > >
> > >I bet there will be a nuclear war within 10 years. But Jesus has been coming
> > >for 2000 years.
> >
> > A lot of people would have made that bet 60 years ago.
> >
> > We're still here. And if we're betting on which horse of the apocalypse comes
> > in first, don't forget the technological singularity.
>
> Wait a minute, we shouldn't be feeding the military-industrial complex, particularly when WWIII ain't real. The real stuff is preparing for climate change.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Are you ready for the jungle?"
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

Monkey - I should apologize for you. Climate change is a hot button for me. All of my life's work shows that it is nothing more than forced research into a new form of taxation.

Frank believes that all or most countries believing in man-made climate change somehow gives it validity. Actually it only shows that the media is gullible everywhere.

By using ridiculous ideas they can pass on the idea that AGW has been known about for a long time ("predicted in 1824 by Joseph Forier"). All this was is that rough calculations showed that the Earth is much warmer than it should be considering the Sun's emission and the day/night lengths.

Obviously it is the atmosphere and predominantly water vapor that causes what they CALL a greenhouse effect. Moderation of world-wide temperature via a blanketing effect is hardly earth shattering thought.

There is a claim that 15 of the the hottest years occurred since 2000. When examined these were of levels of about 5% of the possible measurement errors. This makes these claims inconsistent with science.

What's more, the "temperature" data they have now is derived from orbiting weather satellites that have only been since 1986 I believe. They have used THEORY to adjust actual temperature readings for almost 200 years. By actual readings the year 1908 was the hottest year on record.

In any case as I pointed out, I suggest you read the October issue of Scientific American and discover that the media accepted ONLY government "scientific" data and never used any independent data questioning it.

Think very heavily upon that. If this was scientific fact why would the government fear alternative interpretations?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Unfortunately Stephen Hawking is a particle physicist whose life work has been proven inaccurate. So instead of retiring quietly he makes predictions entirely outside of his line of expertise. Perhaps he is using the "shotgun" approach in where if you make enough predictions some of them are statistically liable to come true.

There is almost no chance of nuclear war coming from anywhere but North Korea and Iran. NK is China's concern and for them to take care of. Chain has made VAST strides into the 21st Century and they are NOT going to return to rice and tea. We can expect sooner or later for them to take matters into their own hands regarding a maniacal dictator and a people dying for freedom.

As for Iran - Israel is only going to take just so much since Iran issues threats to them almost daily. But they too are in a position where the overwhelming majority of Iranians are extremely unhappy that their everyday lives are dictated by a religious maniac.

As I continue to insist - climate change is a naturally occurring event that is nothing more than part of the normal weather pattern of Earth.

[AMuzi]

On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Duane wrote:
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global
>>>>>>>> warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
>>>>>> Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed

>>>>>> scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global

> “As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of

> unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
> once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that

> humanity faces,†he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of

> nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
> human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
> that may forever change life on Earth."
>
>

The very same Stephen Hawking who admonishes not to contact
aliens because they might eat us? He's an expert in his
field but this isn't it.

[jbeattie]

Does this mean we have carte blanche to cut down the rain forest? I sure hope so, because I love that shitty furniture from Pier One.

I am firmly convinced that any policy that prevents me from doing whatever the f*** I want is wrong and part of a conspiracy to enslave the world. Everywhere I turn, it's ZOG, or the Trilateralists or the Illuminati. I am sure that the Knights Templar stole my Sunday Oregonian. I can't wait for Trump to drain the swamp -- and fill it, and build a hotel!

-- Jay Beattie.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

When the only way that you can make a living is by getting a science grant from the government that you can ONLY get by trying to prove AGW it isn't surprising how many scientists are willing to stab their own mothers in the back. Let's remember that "science" per se is usually ONLY funded by government grants.

The work I did was specifically aimed at commercial use and none of it was directed at general research. But luckily you HAD to do some general research in order to get your special cases for commercial products. While there were ideas for "heart-lung machines" before the one I was working on, they could ONLY be used for very short periods of time because they were constant flow. e only got part-way through that project before running out of money but the research we did was used to produce the first actual working machines so that you could remove a patients heart and maintain his life. You can imagine my fumbling around and quickly teaching myself Calculus in order to calculate the expansion factor of the carotid artery. I probably would have felt foolish save I actually had a result whereas most of the others got little progress beyond outlining the work necessary. Who needs any more than a GED?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Here is a what AGW is all about: "On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth” and that “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources will be negotiated"

We can read in dozens of places on the Internet about how 1& of the world's population own 80% of the wealth.

Now what is that supposed to mean? Do you suppose they keep it in a lock box under their beds? This is nothing more than communist propaganda. Who CARES what someone ostensibly "owns"? This money DIES if it is not working. And it works by providing jobs to the rest of the entire world. If you were to take ALL of the world's complete wealth and equally distribute it to all on this globe each person would recieve $7500 and ONLY $1,000 would be in cash. How long do you suppose you could survive on a grand in cash and 3 1/2 square inches of San Francisco property?

Without these tycoons NO ONE would have the money to even die.

[jbeattie]

I don't know. I think 3 1/2 square inches of San Francisco property is worth more than my house. I could get a reverse mortgage and live comfortably for the rest of my life -- which would be short because of my imminent murder by the sinister globalists. I can hear them now . . . circling . . . in my head.

> Without these tycoons NO ONE would have the money to even die.

I'm not even going to bother listing the tycoons who have sodomized this country. Not that there aren't good tycoons. Some of my best friends are tycoons, and one day they just refused to show up to tycoon work. It was terrible. I and the other little people had to go foraging for nuts and berries -- whatever we could find to keep us alive until the world was rid of oppressive regulation and ready for the return of the tycoons.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/22/2016 5:12 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period.

Ah. Some, of course, still insist that there is a question. I don't
know where they think the glaciers are hiding.

>The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT

believed by the vast majority of scientists ...

Oh, those dummies at NASA!
http://www.space.com/34637-global-warming-natural-vs-manmade-causes-compared-by-nasa-video.html

> Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

I certainly have a question about that latter statement. It disagrees
with everything I've seen - except, perhaps, Breitbart. Even Faux News
and that rude guy with the funny hair seem to have accepted the idea.

--
- Frank Krygowski