How privileged we were here on RBT...

[Andre Jute]

>
How privileged we were here on RBT to get all the true information on the Chinese COVID pandemic first from Tom Kunich while governments and the regime media and even medical institutions around the world persistently lied to us -- against the misinformation and obstruction and personal attacks and lies about Tom from the Scumbag Six (Krygowski, Scharf, Liebermann, Slowcumb, the coward who calls himself Funkmeister, and the queer bookkeeper who ran away whose name I've already forgotten).
>
And not a bleep of apology from any of them now that the truth is coming out.
>
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/04/12/elon-musk-leaves-bbc-reporter-sputtering-during-interview-about-twitter-n2621851
>
That was and is a microcosm of how the slimy Left works.
>
Andre Jute
Just the facts, Mam.
>

[Andre Jute]

More of the same, including government demanding that Big Tech censor the truth:
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2023/04/12/you-cant-say-that-n2621830
>
AJ
>

[Tom Kunich]

I am not at all sure that we have even begun to hear of the true injuries and deaths caused by the mRNA vaccines. While covid-19 was self limiting to the respiratory system., the vaccines have been found in every single organ in the body. I am of the opinion that like AIDS, this vaccine will eventually cause failure of the immune system of most of the people who received it. One of the chief causes of death from the vaccine appears to be dementia which Flunky has been showing for months. But the latest video from Dr. John Campbell on the death of a Japanese child unfortunately appears to tell a much larger story than the NIH or CDC will admit.

At what point do you suppose that the entire world is going to turn against Big Pharma or do you suppose that they will stand idly by while profits kill their very own children?

The only good thing I can think can result from this is the slow and painful deaths of the Stupid 6 (Beatie may already be dead since he hasn't made a posting in over a year)

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Beatie may already be dead since he hasn't made a posting in over a year

He seems to be alive and well and currently working:
<https://lindsayhart.com/Jay-Beattie>

It's interesting that you often mention that Jay might have moved or
has died. I've often suspected that you may also have died, with a
carbon fiber stake through the heart, and have been replaced by a
defective AI program.

01/06/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/K-cG5lehtd0/m/X3FtbYbXAAAJ>
"I am permanently disabled and so is the cop who managed to get me
back from the last step from death."


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

[Andre Jute]

And here's the proof of what I was saying above, a member of the Scumbag Six appearing immediately to run interference, ruin the thread, and smear Tom. -- AJ
>

[Andre Jute]

That's depressing: a cure worse than the disease, which after all 99% of those who contracted it survived. -- AJ
>

[Tom Kunich]

Why do you suppose that stupid fool Liebermann tells us all about how successful Jay is by referring to a 2015 advertisement? Hopefully Jay simply got tired of the bickering and moved on but Liebermann doesn't know it and could just as easily emailed him to make sure he was OK. Jay won't answer any email from me. He has me in a kill file that Krygowski and Liebermann tell us doesn't exist.

[Tom Kunich]

Virtually every day another paper is published in the medical or scientific journals showing ever worse side effects of mRNA vaccines. What caused Krygowski and the other far left wingers to close ranks and vote to kill themselves? I've got news for you morons - that in fact proves me right!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 5:06:03?PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Beatie may already be dead since he hasn't made a posting in over a year
>> He seems to be alive and well and currently working:
>> <https://lindsayhart.com/Jay-Beattie>
>>
>> It's interesting that you often mention that Jay might have moved or
>> has died. I've often suspected that you may also have died, with a
>> carbon fiber stake through the heart, and have been replaced by a
>> defective AI program.
>>
>> 01/06/2023
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/K-cG5lehtd0/m/X3FtbYbXAAAJ>
>> "I am permanently disabled and so is the cop who managed to get me
>> back from the last step from death."

>And here's the proof of what I was saying above, a member of the Scumbag Six appearing immediately to run interference, ruin the thread, and smear Tom. -- AJ

Ummm... Proof of what? I fail to see anything "above" written by you.
The comment about Jay was written by Tom, not you. As for "...run
interference, ruin the thread, and smear Tom", it would seem that you
consider smearing Tom to be unacceptable, while Tom doing the same to
those whom he finds disagreeable is perfectly acceptable.

I won't apologize for ruining your thread, especially when they are
used as a launch pad to attack me. It seems that your threads are
those where only your opinions and those of your supporters are
allowed. That tends to create a rather one sided discussion. Are you
suggesting the your threads should be considered proclamations are not
subject to correction or debate?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 5:06:03?PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Beatie may already be dead since he hasn't made a posting in over a year

>> > He seems to be alive and well and currently working:
>> > <https://lindsayhart.com/Jay-Beattie>

>Why do you suppose that stupid fool Liebermann tells us all about how successful Jay is by referring to a 2015 advertisement? Hopefully Jay simply got tired of the bickering and moved on but Liebermann doesn't know it and could just as easily emailed him to make sure he was OK. Jay won't answer any email from me. He has me in a kill file that Krygowski and Liebermann tell us doesn't exist.

Somehow, mentioning that Jay is "alive and well and currently working"
has morphed into describing Jay as "successful".

Law offices normally do not advertise on their web pages the services
of their employees or partners if they were dead. (Jay is a partner
in the firm). He's also currently listed in two directories:
<https://profiles.superlawyers.com/oregon/portland/lawyer/jay-w-beattie/c3d1e1d7-1a6a-45cd-8e93-1fd1226d63ce.html>
<https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/jay-beattie/69952>

I was wondering where you found that the "advertisement" was from
2015. It's on the bottom of:
<https://lindsayhart.com/Jay-Beattie>
"Jay was selected to appear on the Oregon Super Lawyers list every
year from 2011 through 2015". However, the two badges for
SuperLawyers on the same pages show that he's been listed for "10
years", which is more than the 4 years that 2011 - 2015 would suggest.
Probably Jay neglected to update the page.

Tom, if you really want to know if he's still alive and working, you
can easily call the law firm on the telephone and ask:
<https://lindsayhart.com/contact>

However, you list as a reference on your LinkedIn resume someone who
might be dead. The only evidence I can find of his existence is his
LinkedIn page. I vaguely recall that you once mention that he was
your mentor and that he was no longer alive. I don't recall the exact
discussion.

Please note that I'm really enjoying your comments about "kill files".
I never mentioned Jay having a kill file. It's you who claims to have
a functional kill file program for filtering rec.bicycles.tech using
Google Groups to read news. Too bad Google doesn't have such a
feature.

[John B.]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:38:30 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

Ho, you are replying to a chap named after a grain bag.... just treat
him the way anyone would treat a 70 years old jute bag. And even more
enlightening, with the advent of plastic receptacles there is less and
less requirement for jute bags (:-) although "Jute is still in demand
due to its cheapness".




--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/12/2023 10:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> ..."Jute is still in demand

> due to its cheapness".

Not here! If Jute never appeared again, nobody would mind.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Funny how anyone could ever consider a discussion started by jute to have any potential to be ruined. His discussions are already the lowest possible level of anything that could be consider discussion. Off topic non-nonsensical rants - much like kunich. You can't ruin something that's already useless garbage.

[Andre Jute]

And here's Krygowski, a pompous dimwit, with a dull joke. How's your campaign to be "a national spokesman for bicycles" going, Franki-boy?
>
Andre Jute
Bicycle whisperer
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:34:32 PM UTC-4, the angry ignorant arrogant fake-irish trll sharted:

> ̶B̶i̶c̶y̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶s̶p̶e̶r̶e̶r̶ sad useless little man
> >

Way better than your writing career, fuckwit.

[Frank Krygowski]

Here's Jute, still imagining little victories by imagining things I
never said.

Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:58:37 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:06:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2023 10:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> ..."Jute is still in demand
> >>> due to its cheapness".
> >> Not here! If Jute never appeared again, nobody would mind.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> > And here's Krygowski, a pompous dimwit, with a dull joke. How's your campaign to be "a national spokesman for bicycles" going, Franki-boy?
> Here's Jute, still imagining little victories by imagining things I
> never said.
>

What "victories", Franki-boy? Talking to you is a zero-sum game. You don't know anything I don't, and you're too dull by far to have any entertainment value. You're a waste of skin and oxygen.

>
> Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.
>

Dakota who? It's not a common name, and the only Dakota I know is beautiful, clever, rich, witty, and a better engineer before she's fully awake in the morning than your were at any time in your entire life, Franki-boy.
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
> What a fuckwit.
>

[Tom Kunich]

You have to forgive Frank. His entire world is tumbling down as people realize the he is a touring bike rider that was never anything else. There's nothing wrong with that but why is he speaking about things he knows nothing about and pretending that the fact that he once was a mechanical engineering teacher gives him an advantage that people who have actually done these things don't have?

Not to mention that the only one that is interested in what Frank has to say is Flunky whose loins are aching with love for Krygowski. OK, Flunky is queer, but Frank doesn't need to feel a growing attraction for him because they have common enemies - that is also queer.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:21:53 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:58:37 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:06:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >> On 4/12/2023 10:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>> ..."Jute is still in demand
> > >>> due to its cheapness".
> > >> Not here! If Jute never appeared again, nobody would mind.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>
> > > And here's Krygowski, a pompous dimwit, with a dull joke. How's your campaign to be "a national spokesman for bicycles" going, Franki-boy?
> > Here's Jute, still imagining little victories by imagining things I
> > never said.
> >
> What "victories", Franki-boy?

Your entire life is reduced to nothing more than the RBT "victories" you've deluded yourself into thinking you've won.

> Talking to you is a zero-sum game.

Yet you keep doing it, and dedicating entire discussion threads to him.

> You don't know anything I don't

Says the idiot who wrote "batteries have lots of torque" (no, it wasn't a pun, it was a statement by an idiot who has no fucking clue what he's yabbering about).

> and you're too dull by far to have any entertainment value. You're a waste of skin and oxygen.

And yet you keep calling on him - sounds more that a _little_ obsessive.

> > Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.
> >
> Dakota who? It's not a common name, and the only Dakota I know is beautiful, clever, rich, witty, and a better engineer before she's fully awake in the morning than your were at any time in your entire life, Franki-boy.

LOL...Dakota doesn't exist. It's your femme alter ego, a pseudonym you wrote a couple of books under because your career was in the crapper after you committed career suicide with that POS hit piece on Stieg Larsson (using your other pseudonym andrew mccoy as a "co-author" lol) and you were looking for a new start. So desperate were you that you actually started conversations with her in your good reads forum and created a facebook account facebook account with a few male followers thinking you were a real woman.

https://www.facebook.com/dakota.franklin.923

Funny how now you're playing (playing?) dumb, you lying POS. What a fuckwit.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 11:33:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:21:53 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:58:37 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:06:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >> On 4/12/2023 10:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > >>> ..."Jute is still in demand
> > > >>> due to its cheapness".
> > > >> Not here! If Jute never appeared again, nobody would mind.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> - Frank Krygowski
> > > >>
> > > > And here's Krygowski, a pompous dimwit, with a dull joke. How's your campaign to be "a national spokesman for bicycles" going, Franki-boy?
> > > Here's Jute, still imagining little victories by imagining things I
> > > never said.
> > >
> > What "victories", Franki-boy? Talking to you is a zero-sum game. You don't know anything I don't, and you're too dull by far to have any entertainment value. You're a waste of skin and oxygen.
> > >
> > > Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.
> > >
> > Dakota who? It's not a common name, and the only Dakota I know is beautiful, clever, rich, witty, and a better engineer before she's fully awake in the morning than your were at any time in your entire life, Franki-boy.
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > > What a fuckwit.
> > >
> You have to forgive Frank. His entire world is tumbling down as people realize the he is a touring bike rider that was never anything else. There's nothing wrong with that but why is he speaking about things he knows nothing about and pretending that the fact that he once was a mechanical engineering teacher gives him an advantage that people who have actually done these things don't have?

Tell us again how dents in bike tubes magically pop out from road vibrations?

>
> Not to mention that the only one that is interested in what Frank has to say is Flunky whose loins are aching with love for Krygowski. OK, Flunky is queer, but Frank doesn't need to feel a growing attraction for him because they have common enemies - that is also queer.

Jute list #1 Repeatedly accusing people of being "queer". He's a closeted queer, afraid people will find out.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:21:51 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:58:37?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

>> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:06:53?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.

>Dakota who? It's not a common name, and the only Dakota I know
>is beautiful, clever, rich, witty, and a better engineer before
>she's fully awake in the morning than your were at any time in
>your entire life, Franki-boy.

Are you suggesting that Dakota Franklin is a real person? Then why
does your photo of her show the light coming from the left on the
visor, while the shadow next to her nose show the light coming from
the right? If she is a real person, there would not be any need to
fake the photo.
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=256265437823735>
<http://coolmainpress.com/Dakota%20Franklin.html>
Also, why can't I find her name mentioned in any online article on car
racing?

[Tim R]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 6:45:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Virtually every day another paper is published in the medical or scientific journals showing ever worse side effects of mRNA vaccines. What caused Krygowski and the other far left wingers to close ranks and vote to kill themselves? I've got news for you morons - that in fact proves me right!

That's new to me; I hadn't seen any. Source please? I'm interested, if it's really an actual journal. If they're every day there should be a lot of them.

I did notice your townhall links, but I don't regard them as credible.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 5:13:32 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:21:51 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:58:37?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:06:53?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Dakota (or whoever) requires a lot of imagination to feel adequate.
>
> >Dakota who? It's not a common name, and the only Dakota I know
> >is beautiful, clever, rich, witty, and a better engineer before
> >she's fully awake in the morning than your were at any time in
> >your entire life, Franki-boy.
> Are you suggesting that Dakota Franklin is a real person? Then why
> does your photo of her show the light coming from the left on the
> visor, while the shadow next to her nose show the light coming from
> the right? If she is a real person, there would not be any need to
> fake the photo.
> <https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=256265437823735>
> <http://coolmainpress.com/Dakota%20Franklin.html>
> Also, why can't I find her name mentioned in any online article on car
> racing?
> --

The troll seems to think everyone is a dumb as tommy.

[Tom Kunich]

Tim. of course you're not seeing it on NBC or CNN that is owned by Bill Gates as well as his capital stakes in Big Pharma. Precisely why do you suppose that they have forbidden mRNA vaccines in Australian and Switzerland? Now with the release of the Pfizer papers, we find that the 3rd most common side effect of the Pfizer vaccine is covid-19. That they KNEW that heart damage to young people was a common side effect. This shortens the life if it doesn't kill them. Remember how people like Frank tried to use "correlation doesn't mean causation" when young athletes were dropping dead after the second vaccination?

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2023/01/17/18/00/circulating-spike-protein

Why would you suppose that articles like this weren't screamed from the rooftops? Why did it take massive increase and speed of all dementias (most ending with death and NEVER attributed to the vaccine) and myo and peri-carditis, massive blood clotting and today's massive excess death rates from which the pharmaceutical companies are legally protected after it is determined that the cause was the vaccines?

I warned everyone on this group about the vaccines after Fauci started pushing them as the only possible cure for such a deadly disease. Firstly, Fauci paid for the development of this virus. Secondly, it was a VERY mild flu-like illness that most people that caught it were asymptomatic with. So why was vaccination over treatment pushed? The Democrats had a fun time dragging every word that Trump spoke about the disease through the gutter when he was entirely correct. Why did the CDC find no efficacy with medications that MANY hospitals were successfully using to treat the worst cases of covid-19? Then the CDC threatened the loss of licenses to anyone that used those medications instead of vaccination?

Didn't it bother you when Pfizer gave Fauci and the heads of the NIH a half billion dollars?

The one happy spot in all of this is that in order to make me look like a fool every one of the Stupid 5 ran out and got vaccinated and will no doubt end their days from the AIDS-like syndrome that the vaccine causes.

But you have to find humor in people like Liebermann who in an attempt to make me look foolish stated that he never had Chemotherapy (which temporarily shuts down your immune system), rather, he bragged he "only" had radiation treatments. (these destroy large areas of your immune system permanently). The overriding ignorance of this group who has spent their lives attempting to make me look foolish will result in their own lives being greatly shortened. Not that people like Flunky or Slocomb would be missed.

Tim, you have been lied to by the CDC and the NIH about the vaccines and their safety. The vaccines DIRECTLY killed 10% of the people who took them. And the rates of excess death from all causes (not covid related) has shot up signaling just what I had been warning about - an AIDS-like syndrome that is incurable. Using radiation marked vaccines they have found that the vaccine does not stay in your arm as a vaccine is supposed to do but instead has been found in large number multiplying in every organ of the body including the brain causing inclusions and death.

But perhaps you should listen to "factcheckers" who tell you that everything is just peachy and that the vaccines at worst just doesn't protect you enough from that "killer disease covid-19".

[Andre Jute]

Townhall is pretty good at giving links to the originals. Did you check their links? And where they don't give links, they tell you which other publication they're quoting, which usually has the links. Did you check the chain of reportage? Furthermore, Townhill always names people who make statements, did you check those names through? Demanding links is just a way for the RBT losers to pretend they are serious academics, a laughable posture. Of course, if you merely want to establish your "credentials" with the pinkocommiefellowtravellers with prissy mouth statements like "I don't consider [Townhall] credible", that is your privilege, but it does lay you open to demands that you prove they aren't credible, in which you cannot expect any help for what Tom calls the "Stupid Five" because they don't have the intellectual wherewithal to make a reasoned case, just as you haven't.
>
Andre Jute
"Andre is never more brutal than he has to be." -- Nelson Mandela
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 10:20:24 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 6:58:02 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 6:45:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Virtually every day another paper is published in the medical or scientific journals showing ever worse side effects of mRNA vaccines. What caused Krygowski and the other far left wingers to close ranks and vote to kill themselves? I've got news for you morons - that in fact proves me right!
> > That's new to me; I hadn't seen any. Source please? I'm interested, if it's really an actual journal. If they're every day there should be a lot of them.
> >
> > I did notice your townhall links, but I don't regard them as credible.
> Tim. of course you're not seeing it on NBC or CNN that is owned by Bill Gates as well as his capital stakes in Big Pharma. Precisely why do you suppose that they have forbidden mRNA vaccines in Australian and Switzerland? Now with the release of the Pfizer papers, we find that the 3rd most common side effect of the Pfizer vaccine is covid-19. That they KNEW that heart damage to young people was a common side effect. This shortens the life if it doesn't kill them. Remember how people like Frank tried to use "correlation doesn't mean causation" when young athletes were dropping dead after the second vaccination?
>
> https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2023/01/17/18/00/circulating-spike-protein
>
> Why would you suppose that articles like this weren't screamed from the rooftops?

Probably because, as usual, you're completely wrong the the extent that you post links that completely contradict your statements:

" The implications of this finding are unclear, since it is yet unknown how the spike protein evades cleavage or clearance, especially in the setting of a normal adaptive immune response, or whether in itself is pathogenic. Given myocarditis also occurs after other vaccines, it is likely that the presence of circulating spike is a biomarker rather than the causal agent."

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 2:32:07 PM UTC-4, the ignorant arrogant angry little afro-irish troll sharted:

> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 2:58:02 AM UTC+1, Tim R wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 6:45:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Virtually every day another paper is published in the medical or scientific journals showing ever worse side effects of mRNA vaccines. What caused Krygowski and the other far left wingers to close ranks and vote to kill themselves? I've got news for you morons - that in fact proves me right!
> > That's new to me; I hadn't seen any. Source please? I'm interested, if it's really an actual journal. If they're every day there should be a lot of them.
> >
> > I did notice your townhall links, but I don't regard them as credible.
> >

It's hilarious seeing andre/dakota/andrew lecturing anyone on credibility.

> Townhall is pretty good at giving links to the originals. Did you check their links? And where they don't give links, they tell you which other publication they're quoting, which usually has the links. Did you check the chain of reportage? Furthermore, Townhill always names people who make statements, did you check those names through?

The first link you posted cherry picks interactions between Clayton and Musk. No links to any of musks claims about "BBC misinformation" are provided.

The second article you linked has only one link which doesn't support the Stossels claims:
- Claim: a big study failed to find evidence that wearing even good masks stops the spread of viruses.
- The study states "Authors' conclusions - The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. "

and his references to other sensationalist claims don't withstand scrutiny either
- Claim: " U.S. Department of Energy says the pandemic most likely came from a lab leak."
- Sure they did. What you and your other magatard sheep deceitfully leave out is that they explicitly stated they had low confidence in that statement, and this from their conclusion "“Some elements of the intelligence community have reached conclusions on one side, some on the other, a number of them have said they just don't have enough information to be sure...right now, there is not a definitive answer that has emerged from the intelligence community on this question.”

- Claim: "FBI director Christopher Wray now says the origin of the pandemic is "most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan."
- Wait, now all of a sudden you trust Biden's FBI director? I certainly do, and am confident his conclusion was reached based on his interpretation of the intelligence he had access to. Of the eight U.S. government agencies investigating the source of COVID-19 none of them are certain about the cause. Four lean toward natural causes. Two haven't taken a position, and two lean towards a lab leak - one of which was stated with the caveat of "low confidence". In the meantime the evidence produced by the scientific community points overwhelmingly to a natural cause via exposure to an infected animal.

> Demanding links is just a way for the RBT losers to pretend they are serious academics, a laughable posture.

You want laughable you fuckwit? How about "Sir Karl Popper, under whom I had the privilege of working for six months for a large section in my dissertation.". Even if you did (and we know you didn't), the only thing you learned from the interaction was how to spell his name, especially in light of the fact that you think "good science" is restricted to that which supports your perverted world view.

> Of course, if you merely want to establish your "credentials" with the pinkocommiefellowtravellers with prissy mouth statements like "I don't consider [Townhall] credible", that is your privilege, but it does lay you open to demands that you prove they aren't credible, in which you cannot expect any help for what Tom calls the "Stupid Five" because they don't have the intellectual wherewithal to make a reasoned case, just as you haven't.

To this date, you haven't once establish any level of credibility on any subject. From "batteries have lots of torque" to "tom is an articulate polymath", You display a constant complete lack of any intellectual rigor whatsoever.

So now you're going to come back with some vapid pathetic threat about your polemic skillz and how you're not done with me, after which you'll slink away with your tail between your legs like you always do:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/DqCb-ESz57s/m/ymcyNzG-BwAJ

> >
> Andre Jute
> "̶A̶n̶d̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶b̶r̶u̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶.̶"̶ ̶-̶-̶ ̶N̶e̶l̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶M̶a̶n̶d̶e̶l̶a̶ ̶
> a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous.
> >

[Tom Kunich]

Since Google often doesn't allow you to see what they consider politically incorrect articles (remember they DEMANDED that their employees be vaccinated) you often have to look quite deeply to get answers. This is why I use DuckDuckGo as a search engine.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since Google often doesn't allow you to see what they consider
>politically incorrect articles (remember they DEMANDED that
>their employees be vaccinated) you often have to look quite
>deeply to get answers. This is why I use DuckDuckGo as a
>search engine.

DuckDuckGo offers privacy, but uses 400 sources which include Bing and
Wikipedia but not Google:
<https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sources/>
"Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search
results too, which we largely source from Bing."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo#Search_results>
"DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources
according to itself, including Bing, Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram
Alpha, Yandex, and its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot); but none
from Google. It also uses data from crowdsourced sites such as
Wikipedia, to populate knowledge panel boxes to the right of the
search results."

[Tim R]

https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-townhall-reliable/

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:03:05 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-townhall-reliable/

Virtually ALL of the "fact check" sites that my friend the cop invariably uses to "prove me wrong" are so violently leftist that nothing from them can be trusted for even a small amount of truth.

The writer of that article Philip Meylan often will show charts showing all of the leftist sites like CNN and NBC to be very reliable. Get this absolute bull shit from him: "CNN scored an average Factual Grade of 52.8%, placing it in the 13th percentile of our dataset. The site’s low scores can be attributed to several factors, particularly poor sourcing. CNN has a tendency to almost always link to other CNN content rather than external sources. " CNN hasn't made the slightest effort to tell the truth about anything let alone Trump. He also rates Reuters as reliable and factual. Just look them up for covid.

He also holds the strong opinion that the police are systemically racist and the fact that 13% of the population commit over half of all crimes and particularly violent crimes bears no weight with him.

So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions. They are perfectly welcome to have opinions but NOT to present them as factual.

[Andre Jute]

I'm big on DuckDuckGo myself. It is amazing how many of my correspondents who are big on privacy rights recommend DDG. -- AJ

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:03:05 PM UTC+1, Tim R wrote:
> https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-townhall-reliable/
>

It's your right to surrender your judgement to idiots who want to fact-check the opinions of political commentator with well-publicised leanings. Do the worker bees at "the factual" publicize their biases? I read everything from Slade on the left through the sad Never Trumpers on Nation Review to Townhall on the right, and make up my own opinion in the light of the biases of the inputs. It's not hard to do, and I certainly don't need mindlessly biased self-appointed "fact checkers". You should try doing it for yourself. -- AJ

[Tim R]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.

So look at a fact check site that leans right.

Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.

Meanwhile, the wackier the idea, the less you feel the need to fact check at all.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.
>
> So look at a fact check site that leans right.
>
> Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.

It tells you that reality itself is biased against the right wing! :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim R]

That is a possible interpretation but I'm not sure it's correct, or at least it's not complete. I think the reality is that all humans are easily fooled, and currently the right enjoys that status more than the left, but that may be a matter of luck and timing.

The question is how to know what information sources to trust. Degreed scientist in agreement with 99.9% of his peers, vs some random dude on a sketchy youtube site? You can see my bias by how I phrased it. Others inherently distrust "intellectuals" and will always reject mainstream knowledge of any kind.

99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Tim R
<timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:10:27?PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:

>> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.
>> >
>> > So look at a fact check site that leans right.
>> >
>> > Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.
>> It tells you that reality itself is biased against the right wing! :-)
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>That is a possible interpretation but I'm not sure it's correct, or at least it's not complete. I think the reality is that all humans are easily fooled, and currently the right enjoys that status more than the left, but that may be a matter of luck and timing.
>
>The question is how to know what information sources to trust. Degreed scientist in agreement with 99.9% of his peers, vs some random dude on a sketchy youtube site? You can see my bias by how I phrased it. Others inherently distrust "intellectuals" and will always reject mainstream knowledge of any kind.
>
>99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.

It's important to understand that regardless of who is presenting the
"facts," it' a near certainty that they will be skewed by the
presenter's agenda.

[Tom Kunich]

Tim, why do you suppose there aren't any right leaning "fact checker" sites? Could it be that they respect your ability to think for yourself and not tell you what to think or heaven forbid, what not to think?

[Tom Kunich]

And I think that you've hit it square on the head - AGENDA - why do people who think for themselves need and agenda? The answer is that they don't which is why the leftists hate you with a passion impossible to match on the right.

[Frank Krygowski]

That question - how to know what information sources to trust - is
almost identical to one I posted not long ago. What standards does one
use to evaluate someone else's expertise?

Internet posts make it obvious that for many people, any expert who
disagrees with them absolutely must be wrong. It doesn't matter if that
expert has had years of training, reams of certified qualifications and
decades of successful professional experience.

As long as they can find a suitable Youtube video that agrees with their
crackpot views, their confidence is unassailable. The educators,
certification granters and record keepers must be wrong!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Here's one clue: if kunich or the fake-irish troll agrees with it, it's most likely wrong.

[Frank Krygowski]

Some may think that's a joke, but when Tom posts something factual, I do assume it's wrong until
proven otherwise. He's got an amazing record of consistent mistakes.

- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 8:38 AM, Tim R wrote:

> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:

>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.
>>>
>>> So look at a fact check site that leans right.
>>>
>>> Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.
>> It tells you that reality itself is biased against the right wing! :-)
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> That is a possible interpretation but I'm not sure it's correct, or at least it's not complete. I think the reality is that all humans are easily fooled, and currently the right enjoys that status more than the left, but that may be a matter of luck and timing.
>
> The question is how to know what information sources to trust. Degreed scientist in agreement with 99.9% of his peers, vs some random dude on a sketchy youtube site? You can see my bias by how I phrased it. Others inherently distrust "intellectuals" and will always reject mainstream knowledge of any kind.
>
> 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
>

99.9% of scientists who reply strongly wish to not disturb
their funding stream.

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

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:43:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/17/2023 9:38 AM, Tim R wrote:

> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:10:27?PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:

> >>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are
>nothing more than far left opinions.
> >>>
> >>> So look at a fact check site that leans right.
> >>>
> >>> Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.
> >> It tells you that reality itself is biased against the right wing! :-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > That is a possible interpretation but I'm not sure it's correct, or
>at least it's not complete. I think the reality is that all humans are
>easily fooled, and currently the right enjoys that status more than the
>left, but that may be a matter of luck and timing.
> >
> > The question is how to know what information sources to trust.
>Degreed scientist in agreement with 99.9% of his peers, vs some random
>dude on a sketchy youtube site? You can see my bias by how I phrased
>it. Others inherently distrust "intellectuals" and will always reject
>mainstream knowledge of any kind.
> >
> > 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist
>preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
>
>That question - how to know what information sources to trust - is
>almost identical to one I posted not long ago. What standards does one
>use to evaluate someone else's expertise?

Evidence of what they have done, helps, but, as I said elsewhere,
knowing their agenda is important.

>Internet posts make it obvious that for many people, any expert who
>disagrees with them absolutely must be wrong. It doesn't matter if that
>expert has had years of training, reams of certified qualifications and
>decades of successful professional experience.

Nope, doesn't matter at all to me.

>As long as they can find a suitable Youtube video that agrees with their
>crackpot views, their confidence is unassailable. The educators,
>certification granters and record keepers must be wrong!

Not necessarily wrong, but not necessarily correct, either. I need
verifiable evidence, not someone's opinion.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:16:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/17/2023 8:38 AM, Tim R wrote:

>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:

>>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.
>>>>
>>>> So look at a fact check site that leans right.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.
>>> It tells you that reality itself is biased against the right wing! :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> That is a possible interpretation but I'm not sure it's correct, or at least it's not complete. I think the reality is that all humans are easily fooled, and currently the right enjoys that status more than the left, but that may be a matter of luck and timing.
>>
>> The question is how to know what information sources to trust. Degreed scientist in agreement with 99.9% of his peers, vs some random dude on a sketchy youtube site? You can see my bias by how I phrased it. Others inherently distrust "intellectuals" and will always reject mainstream knowledge of any kind.
>>
>> 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
>>
>
>99.9% of scientists who reply strongly wish to not disturb
>their funding stream.

+1

Exactly..

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 10:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/17/2023 9:38 AM, Tim R wrote:

> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-4, Frank

> Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2023 7:28 PM, Tim R wrote:

> >>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom

Again, it looks pretty even.
You get Paul Krugman and Greta Thunberg and The Algore.

[Tom Kunich]

Krygowski claims that I'm wrong and then openly lies that 99.9% of "scientists" believe in global warming. This is more proof of his extreme expertise at everything. The fact is that "99.9% of scientists" included almost NO actual climate scientists and their "agreement" is nothing more than baseless opinion. It is also noteworthy that "climate scientists" who agree with global warming are all on the government payroll and those who disagree are not. Yet more proof that Krygowski hasn't even a clue what is happening. It must be awful clutching at any straw to prove me wrong.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1#ivar-giaever-5

Here is what happens in Krygowski's mind - It doesn't matter that NOAA has actually changed the temperature records to "prove" man-made Climate Change. It doesn't matter that the originator of man-made global warming, Dr. Michael Mann made not ONE single correct prediction? It doesn't matter that all of the global warming predictions came not from DATA but from predictive modeling and none of the models have even come close to modeling anything. In fact the actual REAL temperature record shows very slight and normal temperature deviations. And while the national weather records show only normal temperature variation NOAA claims each succeeding year to be the "hottest on record".

It must be wonderful to be Krygowski and believe yourself an expert whose opinion is valuable when he is lying about everything.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

[Tom Kunich]

Imagine the vast science expertise of Thunberg and Al Gore! These are people that Krygowski is celebrating for the special knowledge.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:49:22?AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:43:14?AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >
>> > That question - how to know what information sources to trust - is
>> > almost identical to one I posted not long ago. What standards does one
>> > use to evaluate someone else's expertise?
>> >
>> Here's one clue: if kunich or the fake-irish troll agrees with it, it's most likely wrong.

>Some may think that's a joke, but when Tom posts something factual, I do assume it's wrong until
>proven otherwise. He's got an amazing record of consistent mistakes.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Yep. Tom even admitted that he does everything wrong.

08/03/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/cJi96AJ2A3k/m/JEyDC0TDBgAJ>
"I'll bet that there wasn't anything I didn't do wrong"

To be uncharacteristically fair, this was in reference to Tom setting
up the brakes on his Moser bicycle.

I don't trust any information source. They all make mistakes and most
have an agenda hidden somewhere. So, I'm stuck with sources that are
usually correct or at least provide a trail of URL's the lead back to
the original source of the information. If the trail of URL's ends in
an article that fails to disclose their sources, then the data and
conclusions are likely contrived.

Tom is unique in that he provides very few sources for his claims. The
URL's he does provide often contradict his claims or use data known to
be unreliable such as VAERS.

Another method I use is to follow the money. If the source of
information has a financial interest in having people believe and
follow their information, the information is likely to be unreliable.
I ran into this when researching my various medical maladies. I found
quite a high percentage of the research papers to be selling drugs,
procedures, books, lectures, health spas, and other money makers.
What's left is mostly government and university funded research, which
also has problems, but not as bad as the modern snake oil salesmen.
<https://retractionwatch.com>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing>

If you're thinking that expertise can be evaluated using the
reputation and batting average of the author, this list might change
your mind:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
Even the great men and women in science can make mistakes. I would
make a list of "amazing facts" by Tom, if I thought it would help.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

That's from Mar 29, 2018

Investors Business Corp is owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). News
Corp switched from climate change denial to climate change delay in
Nov 2021. They also promised to pursue a more "green" position.
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/14/news-corp-climate-campaign-pledged-positive-stories-only-also-excluded-any-mea-culpas>
In other words, News Corp was losing subscribers and advertisers with
their former climate denial position and wanted to attract more
readers from the opposition. The investors.com editorial is from
before that change and would therefore be expected to lean heavily
toward climate change denial.

No sources in the investors.com article. All the links point to other
investors.com editorials. Checking some of those, most lead to
<https://wattsupwiththat.com> by Anthony Watts, a long time climate
change denier.

[Frank Krygowski]

I suppose we could discuss Krugman's qualifications compared to those of
your competing economist of choice. We could also discuss their views on
specific issues. I'm not tremendously interested in details of national
economics (and those do seem unconnected with bike tech) but I'm willing
to read a bit.

Regarding Gore and Thunberg: In a sense, they're advertisers, not
authorities. They're saying "Look at this!" or "Something must be done!"
in a similar manner to Tucker Carlson. I don't take any of the three to
be authorities. I prefer to dig into relevant data. If they provide
data, I'll look into it. Ditto for Lomborg, in case you prefer him.

>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Imagine the vast science expertise of Thunberg and Al Gore! These are
people that Krygowski is celebrating for the special knowledge.

:-) Precisely wrong, yet again! Tom, you're a wonder!

I have never used Thunberg or Gore as a source or justification for any
views I've posted here. As always, you're free to prove me wrong by
direct citations of one of my posts.

But as usual, you're arguing against what you pretend I said, rather
than what I've actually said.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/17/2023 12:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Krygowski claims that I'm wrong and then openly lies that 99.9% of "scientists" believe in global warming.

You're lying, Tom. I've never ever posted such a "99.9%" claim.

Yet again, you're arguing against what you pretend I said, not what I've
actually said.

Feel free to prove me wrong by a direct link to one of my posts. But you
can't do that.

If you had any class you'd apologize for your repeated lies about me.
But you won't do that either.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:58:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Krygowski claims that I'm wrong

He's right.

> and then openly lies that 99.9% of "scientists" believe in global warming. This is more proof of his extreme expertise at everything.

Frank didn't write that, dipshit.

> The fact is that "99.9% of scientists" included almost NO actual climate scientists

No, that's not a fact. "Near 100 percent of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans" - https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html

> and their "agreement" is nothing more than baseless opinion.

nope, wrong again: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

> It is also noteworthy that "climate scientists" who agree with global warming are all on the government payroll and those who disagree are not.

Not even close:

> Yet more proof that Krygowski hasn't even a clue what is happening. It must be awful clutching at any straw to prove me wrong.
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1#ivar-giaever-5
>

From 2009? pulleeeeze!...https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 - "From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers ....we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. ..... we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical."

28 out of 3000...can ya figure that math out, sparky?

> Here is what happens in Krygowski's mind - It doesn't matter that NOAA has actually changed the temperature records to "prove" man-made Climate Change. It doesn't matter that the originator of man-made global warming, Dr. Michael Mann made not ONE single correct prediction? It doesn't matter that all of the global warming predictions came not from DATA but from predictive modeling and none of the models have even come close to modeling anything. In fact the actual REAL temperature record shows very slight and normal temperature deviations. And while the national weather records show only normal temperature variation NOAA claims each succeeding year to be the "hottest on record".

Completely wrong, as usual.....Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118.

The new graph confirms the reliability of the original. Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London states “The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years. The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.”

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 12:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
>
> That's from Mar 29, 2018
>
> Investors Business Corp is owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). News
> Corp switched from climate change denial to climate change delay in
> Nov 2021. They also promised to pursue a more "green" position.
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/14/news-corp-climate-campaign-pledged-positive-stories-only-also-excluded-any-mea-culpas>
> In other words, News Corp was losing subscribers and advertisers with
> their former climate denial position and wanted to attract more
> readers from the opposition. The investors.com editorial is from
> before that change and would therefore be expected to lean heavily
> toward climate change denial.
>
> No sources in the investors.com article. All the links point to other
> investors.com editorials. Checking some of those, most lead to
> <https://wattsupwiththat.com> by Anthony Watts, a long time climate
> change denier.
>
>

Be that as it may the 1992 Rio and later Kyoto, Paris etc
congregations openly advocated a socialist world order and
viewed 'save the earth' as a useful media message vehicle to
accomplish their socialist utopia by extra-political means.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 12:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
>
> That's from Mar 29, 2018
>
> Investors Business Corp is owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). News
> Corp switched from climate change denial to climate change delay in
> Nov 2021. They also promised to pursue a more "green" position.
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/14/news-corp-climate-campaign-pledged-positive-stories-only-also-excluded-any-mea-culpas>
> In other words, News Corp was losing subscribers and advertisers with
> their former climate denial position and wanted to attract more
> readers from the opposition. The investors.com editorial is from
> before that change and would therefore be expected to lean heavily
> toward climate change denial.
>
> No sources in the investors.com article. All the links point to other
> investors.com editorials. Checking some of those, most lead to
> <https://wattsupwiththat.com> by Anthony Watts, a long time climate
> change denier.
>
>

More of the same:

https://thenewamerican.com/socializing-at-rio-socialists-run-the-earth-summit/

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 12:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/17/2023 1:00 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:38:30 AM UTC-7, AMuzi

> > Imagine the vast science expertise of Thunberg and Al
> Gore! These are people that Krygowski is celebrating for the
> special knowledge.
>
> :-) Precisely wrong, yet again! Tom, you're a wonder!
>
> I have never used Thunberg or Gore as a source or
> justification for any views I've posted here. As always,
> you're free to prove me wrong by direct citations of one of
> my posts.
>
> But as usual, you're arguing against what you pretend I
> said, rather than what I've actually said.
>

And I never used crackpot youtube stars as a reference.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Because socialist protests at a climate conference 30 years ago are so relevant now......

[Tom Kunich]

And Frank doesn't acknowledge a Nobel Prize Winner and an expert in his field. Oh, wait, Frank didn't actually SAY that, he implied it so that he could claim he didn't say it. When you're a sack of shit that states things that your college denies, exactly how trustful do you think that Krygowski is? And WHY did the college change what Frank taught from industrial engineering WHICH IS NOT mechanical engineering to engineering technology which again is not mechanical engineering.

Now I don't doubt for a moment that Frank taught mechanical engineering but some one at Youngstown doesn't like Francis and has made that very clear. So his bullshit has strongly affected other people. When you lie for a living it comes back to haunt you.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif?w=640&h=480

Frank - does your wife know about Flunky?

[Radey Shouman]

A few continue to say what they think regardless, cf Judith Curry or
Roger Pielke Jr. Pielke in particular doesn't say anything that far out
of the alarmist orthodoxy at all, but any deviation is enough to deserve
ostracism, deplatforming, and probably death.

I was struck by the phrase "earth scientists". As far as I know no one
has published a survey of earth scientists in particular, they usually
try for the largest tent possible. It's my impression that geologists and
meteorologists seem to be likelier to quibble than, say, biologists.

Finally, there is an actual scientific test for whom to credit. Those
that make surprisingly successful predictions win. I just don't see a
lot of climate science successes here.

[Jeff Liebermann]

With all due respect, that has nothing to do with my comments. I
wasn't commenting on the content of the investors.com and
businessinsider.com articles. I was commenting on who was delivering
the investors.com point of view and their probable position on climate
change.

Meanwhile, I have a dilemma. I believe that socialism is a lousy
solution to most problems while I'm partially living on SSI
(Supplemental Security Income) and Medicare. For now, it doesn't get
more socialist. I suspect a partial answer will arrive this summer.
If we continue with last summers heat waves and wildfires, it will be
obvious that climate change is real. To fix the climate, we will need
to make some rather major sacrifices for the general good. Right now,
socialism looks like the least disgusting answer to get people to do
something they really don't want to do. It won't be a people's
republic, but might be a democratic socialist approximation:
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/democratic-socialism>
Hopefully, I won't be around to see it happen.

[Tom Kunich]

Remember that Liebermann is the person who claimed that if you weren't living on disability payments you were not disabled. This gives you a really good idea of where his head is at - in a toilet.

[Tom Kunich]

https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/1200-scientists-claim-that-climate-change-is-not-real-heres-the-truth This in fact are MOST of the climate scientists on Earth. So where is this 99.9% of the world's scientists? There are no lies too large that the Democrats will not use them to control our population.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

lol....tommy thinks that link proves him right....

"DeSmog analysed the list of signatories and ambassadors under Clintel and "found a commercial fisherman, a retired chemist, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists."

A number of the supporters of this group also have ties to fossil fuel lobbyists and free-market groups that have previously been against green policies and climate action.
In the list of 1200 signatories of this particular declaration, a number of signatories are from the oil and gas industry, and eight have been found to be former or current shell corporation employees, according to David Vetter, Forbes Sustainability Senior Contributor.

The Declaration itself has decided to focus on a few issues regarding climate change, but has failed to provide any scientific or statistical backing to their own claims."

And once again, tommy posts a link that states the opposite of what he thinks it does.

Hey tommy, does your wife know about your fetish for me and Frank?

[Andre Jute]

Good points, Radey.
>
Michael Mann, the inventor of the now totally discredited "hockey stick" which was supposed to "prove" global warming, is dendrochronologist -- you can bet he knew he was using the wrong sort of trees to "prove" that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never existed, and too few of them, and he certainly deliberately screwed the statistics. He was condemned for these crimes under oath before the US Senate by Drs Wegman and North, respectively the chairmen of their eponymous committees, the North Committee specifically constituted by the NAS to defend Mann from the US Senate! Under oath, mark that. With the MWP and the LIA still extant, there can be no proof whatsoever of so-called manmade global warming. Here are their condemnations of Mann, under oath, to the United States Congress, quoted from the official record.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/EeSWWCMU-fE/m/IqLYM4z8DwAJ
>
The origin of the "97% of all earth scientists agree with manmade global warming" is the master's thesis of Margaret Zimmermann, whose foolish statistical and immoral stupidities you won't believe, on a sample pared down from over 3000 responses to just 75 respondents actually included in the survey... But the global warmies were stuck with her 97% number and have been running madly to prove it ever since. Description and links right here on RBT at
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/N7vzv1Hdk-w/m/b5U2Va65AQAJ
>
Andre Jute
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.
>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/17/2023 5:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> If we continue with last summers heat waves and wildfires, it will be
> obvious that climate change is real.

I give much less credit to a particular heat wave or wildfire than to
long term data. And there are now mountains of long term data confirming
the ongoing changes, from countless different sources.

The first one I recall encountering was decades ago, before climate
became a hot topic. It was a short article about an examination of
British farmers' personal records. As I recall, the article said farmers
were obviously concerned with the dates of each year's final frost, and
noted it in their journals. Someone had examined hundreds of those
journals and found that final frosts had grown consistently later and
later in years since the 1800s. I recall thinking "That doesn't sound
good."

But to me, the most obvious long term data is the size of glaciers
around the world. There is no serious doubt that almost all glaciers are
receding. I've hiked in Banff (Valley of Six Glaciers) and seen historic
photos to compare with modern scenery, and I've seen countless photos of
similar situations around the world.

And while it's local, our best weatherman has commented on changing
temperature records. If we were in a steady state situation, the random
changes in weather would mean new record low temperatures would be as
common as new record high temperatures. But as he's pointed out, almost
all of our new daily records for a given date (including two set in the
past few days) are record highs. We're seldom seeing new record lows for
a date.

There are countless other indicators, but I don't see how those three
simple facts above are hard to understand. If someone says those and
countless other data that point in the same direction indicate nothing,
it must be willing and dedicated disbelief.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That's good. Tom, however, has linked to such people to justify his views.

>
> And Frank doesn't acknowledge a Nobel Prize Winner and an expert in his field. Oh, wait, Frank didn't actually SAY that...

What in hell are you talking about?

> WHY did the college change what Frank taught from industrial engineering...

Hah! Tom, they NEVER said I taught Industrial Engineering. That is
apparently your own private fantasy.

You should drop in on the real world once in a while, just for a visit!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I don't know. Truly, I do not. Nor do you.

But there are daily, seasonal and annual cycles above spiky
seemingly chaotic 'events'. There are solar 11-year
sunspot/energy cycles and probably other cyclic variations.

Predicting anything 100 years hence is unlikely at best,
given known historical(within human history) anomalies
(various Warm Periods, various Little Ice Ages) and known
major climate fluctuations (where did those glaciers come
from anyway? Why is there coal? Why do the plentiful frozen
mammoths in Siberia have fresh buttercups in their stomachs?)

[Frank Krygowski]

That's true only if one moves into the realm of mysticism. "All is
mystery. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm..."

At some point, a mountain of data cannot be ignored, unless one gives up
pretending to be rational and scientific.

> But there are daily, seasonal and annual cycles above spiky seemingly
> chaotic 'events'. There are solar 11-year sunspot/energy cycles and
> probably other cyclic variations.

There are lots of influences. The data we have is showing the aggregated
effects of them all. The effects are essentially all moving in the same
direction.

> Predicting anything 100 years hence is unlikely at best, given known
> historical(within human history) anomalies (various Warm Periods,
> various Little Ice Ages) and known major climate fluctuations (where did
> those glaciers come from anyway? Why is there coal? Why do the plentiful
> frozen mammoths in Siberia have fresh buttercups in their stomachs?)

One thing you imply is true: We can't predict with certainty the
ultimate effects of this unintended global experiment. There are serious
concerns about the potential for a sudden weakening of the Gulf Stream,
which might freeze Europe. There are similar concerns regarding
Antarctic ocean currents. If we move earth's climate into a new regime,
there could conceivably be frozen bison with buttercups in their bellies.

That does not mean our current situation and/or our current practices
are just fine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:09:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/17/2023 5:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >
> > If we continue with last summers heat waves and wildfires, it will be
> > obvious that climate change is real.

>I give much less credit to a particular heat wave or wildfire than to
>long term data.

I would normally do the same and wait for a trend to be obvious.
Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of waiting. If we ever
cross the mythical tipping point, we're screwed. Show me the tipping
point and I'll wait.

>And there are now mountains of long term data confirming
>the ongoing changes, from countless different sources.

I was reading some of that last night:
"1,500 Years Of Heatwaves"
<https://realclimatescience.com/1500-years-of-heatwaves/>
Of course it failed a fact check but I read a few pages anyway. I
prefer to read both so I can effectively straddle both sides of an
argument:
<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/>

>The first one I recall encountering was decades ago, before climate
>became a hot topic. It was a short article about an examination of
>British farmers' personal records. As I recall, the article said farmers
>were obviously concerned with the dates of each year's final frost, and
>noted it in their journals. Someone had examined hundreds of those
>journals and found that final frosts had grown consistently later and
>later in years since the 1800s. I recall thinking "That doesn't sound
>good."

Sure. A few volcanoes every few years, where the shading effect last
for decades and sometimes on a global scale, could produce something
that looks like a long term frost, drought, flooding, etc. For
example, the winter of 536 lasted for "several" years:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536>
"536 AD: The Year That The Sun Disappeared"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbwyR5jLSUQ>
The original predictions from the 1970's was that we would slide back
into another ice age. Global Cooling (yet another conspiracy):
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>

>But to me, the most obvious long term data is the size of glaciers
>around the world. There is no serious doubt that almost all glaciers are
>receding. I've hiked in Banff (Valley of Six Glaciers) and seen historic
>photos to compare with modern scenery, and I've seen countless photos of
>similar situations around the world.

Not everywhere:
"New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice"
<https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice>
"Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which,
despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past
40 years."

However, you're right about losing sea ice.
"Antarctic sea ice extent"
<https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent>

>And while it's local, our best weatherman has commented on changing
>temperature records. If we were in a steady state situation, the random
>changes in weather would mean new record low temperatures would be as
>common as new record high temperatures. But as he's pointed out, almost
>all of our new daily records for a given date (including two set in the
>past few days) are record highs. We're seldom seeing new record lows for
>a date.
>
>There are countless other indicators, but I don't see how those three
>simple facts above are hard to understand. If someone says those and
>countless other data that point in the same direction indicate nothing,
>it must be willing and dedicated disbelief.

Because few people want to believe that the climate is actually
changing. That includes me, who initially was a global warming
skeptic. I want things to return to normal, therefore I believe the
theory that supports my beliefs. Despite all the research, I keep
looking for the evidence, data or error that demonstrates that climate
change isn't real. So far, I haven't found it, but I'll keep looking.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:21:36 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Why do the plentiful frozen
>mammoths in Siberia have fresh buttercups in their stomachs?

Incidentally, those small flowers made up a significant part of the
mammoth's diet. When the flowers died, possibly from climate change,
the mammoths soon followed:

"When flowers died out in Arctic, so did mammoths"
<https://www.sciencenews.org/article/when-flowers-died-out-arctic-so-did-mammoths>

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 8:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:21:36 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> Why do the plentiful frozen
>> mammoths in Siberia have fresh buttercups in their stomachs?
>
> Incidentally, those small flowers made up a significant part of the
> mammoth's diet. When the flowers died, possibly from climate change,
> the mammoths soon followed:
>
> "When flowers died out in Arctic, so did mammoths"
> <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/when-flowers-died-out-arctic-so-did-mammoths>
>

There are tens of thousands of them spanning hundreds of
miles of area with fresh flowers undigested. People (braver
than I) have actually eaten mastodon meat which was
preserved flash-frozen. That doesn't mesh with 'climate
change' to me but rather a sudden catastrophic event.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:15:02 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> The original predictions from the 1970's was that we would slide back
> into another ice age. Global Cooling (yet another conspiracy):
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>

Yes, I remember reading that. It's amazing how a 50-year-old magazine article becomes THE reference for people people on one side of a modern scientific question!

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

But why should he? After all you have been referring to anyone that
owns a AR as some sort of want to be soldier or as a "Rambo" (was it?)
and when I questioned your experiences that qualified you to make
those statements you ran away and hid your head.

If the shoe fits it can fit others too.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 12:46:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:03:05?PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>> https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-townhall-reliable/
>
>Virtually ALL of the "fact check" sites that my friend the cop invariably uses to "prove me wrong" are so violently leftist that nothing from them can be trusted for even a small amount of truth.
>
>The writer of that article Philip Meylan often will show charts showing all of the leftist sites like CNN and NBC to be very reliable. Get this absolute bull shit from him: "CNN scored an average Factual Grade of 52.8%, placing it in the 13th percentile of our dataset. The site’s low scores can be attributed to several factors, particularly poor sourcing. CNN has a tendency to almost always link to other CNN content rather than external sources. " CNN hasn't made the slightest effort to tell the truth about anything let alone Trump. He also rates Reuters as reliable and factual. Just look them up for covid.
>
>He also holds the strong opinion that the police are systemically racist and the fact that 13% of the population commit over half of all crimes and particularly violent crimes bears no weight with him.
>
>So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing rmore than far left opinions. They are perfectly welcome to have opinions but NOT to present them as factual.


Err.... While you didn't say it, I assume from you frequent mention of
"left" that all "right" fact checkers must be 100% true. Is that what
you are trying to say?

If so then you must be wrong as you are about as right" as it is
possible to get, short of the "National Socialist German Workers'
Party" (1920 - 1945) and your lies are, to say the least, overwhelming
in volume. What was the current count? 4 truths in 17 years? Or was it
5?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:32:57 PM UTC-4, the ignorant arrogant angry little fake-irish troll bloviated his usual bullshit:

>
> >
> Michael Mann, the inventor of the now totally discredited "hockey stick" which was supposed to "prove" global warming, is dendrochronologist -- you can bet he knew he was using the wrong sort of trees to "prove" that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never existed, and too few of them, and he certainly deliberately screwed the statistics. He was condemned for these crimes under oath before the US Senate by Drs Wegman and North, respectively the chairmen of their eponymous committees, the North Committee specifically constituted by the NAS to defend Mann from the US Senate! Under oath, mark that. With the MWP and the LIA still extant, there can be no proof whatsoever of so-called manmade global warming. Here are their condemnations of Mann, under oath, to the United States Congress, quoted from the official record.
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/EeSWWCMU-fE/m/IqLYM4z8DwAJ

Completely wrong, as usual.....Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118.

“The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years. The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.” - Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London

> >
> The origin of the "97% of all earth scientists agree with manmade global warming" is the master's thesis of Margaret Zimmermann, whose foolish statistical and immoral stupidities you won't believe, on a sample pared down from over 3000 responses to just 75 respondents actually included in the survey... But the global warmies were stuck with her 97% number and have been running madly to prove it ever since. Description and links right here on RBT at
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/N7vzv1Hdk-w/m/b5U2Va65AQAJ

Once an ignorant arrogant troll, always an ignorant arrogant troll:

.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 - "From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers ....we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. ..... we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical."


> >

> Andre Jute
> a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous.
> >

[Tim R]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:23:54 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:

> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:46:38 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >
> > > So I will repeat - almost ALL of the "fact check" sites are nothing more than far left opinions.
> > So look at a fact check site that leans right.
> >
> > Oh wait, there aren't any. Hmm. Guess that tells you something.

> > In > > Meanwhile, the wackier the idea, the less you feel the need to fact check at all.
> Tim, why do you suppose there aren't any right leaning "fact checker" sites? Could it be that they respect your ability to think for yourself and not tell you what to think or heaven forbid, what not to think?

None of my right leaning friends do any fact checking at all. While I try to be polite, occasionally one of their claims is so wacko that I gently explain the facts. Generally they are honestly shocked - it had never occurred to them to question what they had been told, no matter how crazy the claim or crackpot the source.

In contrast, my left leaning friends are less likely to fact check depending on A) how far left they are and B) how indignant the claim makes them. But there is a distinct difference if you have the conversation with them. They are less resistant to changing their mind, and often embarassed they had been fooled.

In any field there are crackpots who defy the common wisdom. Occasionally they are right. But it is so rare you can safely disregard them most if not all of the time.

[Tim R]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
> >
> 99.9% of scientists who reply strongly wish to not disturb
> their funding stream.
>

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

Nope. Any scientist who could present data to overturn any popular theory would win the Nobel, be courted by every major university, win fame and fortune. A biologist who could overturn evolution, a climate scientist who could overturn global warming, could write their own ticket. The catch is they would have to have actual verifiable repeatable data, not opinions from some random crackpot on the internet.

[Tom Kunich]

Where do you suppose that those motor vehicles and huge jet aircraft spewing contaminants and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere came from to cause global warming and later frosts were in the 18th century? We know that this is caused by orbital mechanics but even though there hasn't been ANY unusual heating whatsoever, Greenland has again iced over and the Northsea Passage NEVER melted on command from Michael Mann, we have Krygowski citing the supposed weather diaries of of English farmers (most of whom were illiterate and could not tell you the exact time of year). You see, the Stupid 5 simply do not care if they are lying or stupid or uneducated. Krygowski has already told us that if a man with a degree says something it is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

This entire group should be slapped silly. But someone else has already beaten me to it - their own stupid leadership. An ass by any other name still passes crap.

[Tom Kunich]

Tim where do you get 'the facts"? Do you believe that you should have been vaccinated? The fact is that there are large increases in deaths only in vaccinated people. Do you think that the Big Pharma dream of turning your own body into a drug factory was a good idea? Big Pharma well knew the dangers and so they used the pandemic to ask for and get legal immunity for mistakes. In a 2017 paper Pfizer tried mRNA development and everything died. You know that nothing changed - they were just protected while they "developed" it.

[Tom Kunich]

Tim, do you have ANY idea of what was going on? Any scientist that went against the Fauci desires was fired or expelled. Period. End of story.

[AMuzi]

On 4/17/2023 9:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There were several similar warnings from about 1950 through
the late 1970s about 'impending new ice age.' Then the
narrative flipped to 'global warming' which also hasn't
happened.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:59:14 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/17/2023 9:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:15:02 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> The original predictions from the 1970's was that we would slide back
>>> into another ice age. Global Cooling (yet another conspiracy):
>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
>>
>> Yes, I remember reading that. It's amazing how a 50-year-old magazine article becomes THE reference for people people on one side of a modern scientific question!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
>There were several similar warnings from about 1950 through
>the late 1970s about 'impending new ice age.' Then the
>narrative flipped to 'global warming' which also hasn't
>happened.

I remember that. I didn't change anything because of it then, and I'm
not going to change anything because of the global-warming propaganda
now.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/18/2023 10:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Where do you suppose that those motor vehicles and huge jet aircraft spewing contaminants and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere came from to cause global warming and later frosts were in the 18th century? We know that this is caused by orbital mechanics but even though there hasn't been ANY unusual heating whatsoever, Greenland has again iced over and the Northsea Passage NEVER melted on command from Michael Mann, we have Krygowski citing the supposed weather diaries of of English farmers...

Gosh, Tom, your mythical email correspondent has been doing a _great_
job of informing you about the content of all the posts you claim are in
your kill file! :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Is that what you remember?

Did you somehow forget the links I posted to videos of middle-aged,
pot-bellied men demonstrating their combat prowess with their AR? They
did that by shooting at man-shaped targets, running a few steps to
shelter of a building, shooting another target, running to more cover,
shooting another target.

After posting those, I asked what you thought the dweebs in question
were doing, if not pretending to be Rambo. You never answered.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 11:55:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Some people call that practice, not unlike the "dweebs" I see on the
bike trails, with their heads down and their asses up pretending to be
Lance Armstrong. (He's the only bike racer's name I know.)

[Frank Krygowski]

+1

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/18/2023 10:52 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Tim where do you get 'the facts"? Do you believe that you should have been vaccinated? The fact is that there are large increases in deaths only in vaccinated people. Do you think that the Big Pharma dream of turning your own body into a drug factory was a good idea? Big Pharma well knew the dangers and so they used the pandemic to ask for and get legal immunity for mistakes. In a 2017 paper Pfizer tried mRNA development and everything died. You know that nothing changed - they were just protected while they "developed" it.

Wow. It's obvious where Tom gets his "facts." To state it as politely as
possible, they are internally generated.

But Tom, feel free to prove me wrong. Show us your citation for "there

are large increases in deaths only in vaccinated people."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

[raises hand]


I'd call that normal target practice. LE actually requires
that at regular intervals with minimum standards for
accuracy on center of mass. (note most LE, as most firearms
owners overall, never point a weapon at a human in their
lifetime.)

Or would you rather have firearms owners utterly unfamiliar
with their equipment?

[Frank Krygowski]

If the equipment is something designed for rapidly killing multiple
people, I'd rather have them pointing it at themselves.

Mass killing. What a weird thing to practice!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I think you missed the point. Perhaps purposefully.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim R
<timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:16:49?PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> > 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
>> >
>> 99.9% of scientists who reply strongly wish to not disturb
>> their funding stream.

>Nope. Any scientist who could present data to overturn any popular theory would win the Nobel, be courted by every major university, win fame and fortune. A biologist who could overturn evolution, a climate scientist who could overturn global warming, could write their own ticket. The catch is they would have to have actual verifiable repeatable data, not opinions from some random crackpot on the internet.

That's not what has happened in the past. Scientists, who were ahead
of their times by offering what was then considered crackpot theories,
were usually marginalized, denounced or ignored.

"Scientists Who Were Ahead Of Their Time"
<https://www.grunge.com/408585/scientists-who-were-ahead-of-their-time/>

"7 Scientists whose ideas were rejected during their lifetimes"
<https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/>

Incidentally, Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. There are a
examples of scientists, who should have received a Novel Prize, but
who died before it could be presented.
<https://www.famousscientists.org/rosalind-franklin/>

[Radey Shouman]

You should rejoice. Most firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

[Radey Shouman]

Ha ha. Sounds like you haven't been personally involved in a lot of
science.

There is a whole discipline of the philosophy of science, eg Thomas
Kuhn, explaining why it's not quite that simple. Or, for the tldr
version, "Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck

[Roger Meriman]

I think sometimes stuff brings it home, probably not climate change at
least planetary but habitat, I remember the valley I grew up in would fill
and darken on flying ant afternoon, still happens but it’s something that
you could miss rather than being a event.

Or insects splattered on cars and so on.

That not to say all signs are bad, the non common land (grazing open hills)
is returning ie the woods are retaking back first with scrub land and then
with trees.

Most if not all of the Welsh hills should be forest not barren Heath lands
for grazing sheep.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

In the last ten years some 357 people including children were killed in mass murders. During that 10 years period a third of a million people were killed by guns. Frank with his crawling on his belly like a reptile logic uses 1/10th of a percent of the gun deaths to justify his position of taking all guns away from everyone.

[Tom Kunich]

I was approached by a woman that wanted me to sign a petition to stop cutting down 165,000 trees a day world wide. She LIVES in a wooden house in an Earthquake area in which stone houses are death traps. But she wants to eliminate lumber! Most of the world used wood as a source of cooking fuel. And without a thought in her head she would end the lumber business. It angered me so much I could only be polite to her and say no thankyou.

If you wish for the return of forests you have to replant native species. They grow remarkably fast, especially the evergreens. Around in California they replanted with Australian Eucalyptus which cause massive forest fires even when wet. Make a contract with loggers - for every tree they cut down they are required to plant two. This causes regrowth and large business for the laborers and the nurserymen.

[John B.]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:29:52 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 11:55:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski

>So shooting at paper targets is bad? Really?
>
>What about people riding around on a motorcycle imagining that they
>are really a big, bad, member of the Hells Angels?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:54:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:22:23?AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:

>> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:16:49?PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > 99.9% of earth scientists believe in global warming; 99% of Baptist preachers reject it. So the probabilities are equal.
>> > >
>> > 99.9% of scientists who reply strongly wish to not disturb
>> > their funding stream.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Muzi
>> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> Nope. Any scientist who could present data to overturn any popular theory would win the Nobel, be courted by every major university, win fame and fortune. A biologist who could overturn evolution, a climate scientist who could overturn global warming, could write their own ticket. The catch is they would have to have actual verifiable repeatable data, not opinions from some random crackpot on the internet.
>
>Tim, do you have ANY idea of what was going on? Any scientist that went against the Fauci desires was fired or expelled. Period. End of story.

Proof Tommy! Proof! It's what you provide to convince people that you
really, truly, aren't liar.

Sadly lacking in your posts.
--
Cheers,

John B.