info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
139 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Gwinn
Nov 29, 2021, 1:29:08 PM11/29/21
to
I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It
Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
Koonin, 320 pages.
The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
those claims.
Joe Gwinn
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org
Nov 29, 2021, 2:05:47 PM11/29/21
to
Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com:
I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early
space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com:
space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
Clifford Heath
Nov 29, 2021, 7:41:13 PM11/29/21
to
I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having
lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why
it is relevant to this discussion, please?
Clifford Heath
Anthony William Sloman
Nov 29, 2021, 9:03:39 PM11/29/21
to
"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. "
It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Joe Gwinn
Nov 30, 2021, 6:24:51 PM11/30/21
to
While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of
points, some material context has been omitted:
There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.
Joe Gwinn
Anthony William Sloman
Nov 30, 2021, 6:57:01 PM11/30/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >>
> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >>
> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >>
> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It
> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
> >> Koonin, 320 pages.
> >>
> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
> >> those claims.
> >
> >From the Amazon reviews
> >
> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. "
> >
> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.
>
> You are actually making Koonin's point.
Far from it.
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >>
> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >>
> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >>
> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It
> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
> >> Koonin, 320 pages.
> >>
> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
> >> those claims.
> >
> >From the Amazon reviews
> >
> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. "
> >
> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.
>
> You are actually making Koonin's point.
> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:
>
> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.
John Larkin thinks very highly of climate change denial propaganda that endorses his enthusiasm for denying climate change - it is called confirmation bias - and people who share his silly (if comforting) ideas do tend behave this way. You seem to be one more of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Anthony William Sloman
Nov 30, 2021, 7:08:12 PM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:41:13 AM UTC+11, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 30/11/21 6:05 am, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of
> >> interest.
> >>
> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >>
> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
Of course it would. The Murdoch media gets a lot of advertising income from the fossil carbon extraction industry, and keep them sweet by hyping climate change denial propaganda.
> On 30/11/21 6:05 am, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of
> >> interest.
> >>
> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >>
> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
The Murdoch media in Australia recently promised to stop doing it, but didn't look all that sincere about it their resident right-wing lunatic denialists weren't told to shut up.
> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >>
> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/d
> >> p/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >>
> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and
> >> Why It Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by
> >> Steve E. Koonin, 320 pages.
> >>
> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the
> >> original literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the
> >> drama from those claims.
> >
> > I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early
> > space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
> > helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
> > the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
> >
> > <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
> >
> All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.
>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having
> lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why
> it is relevant to this discussion, please?
The ozone hole was discovered shortly before anthropogenic global warming (in terms of newspaper coverage). The reaction to the existence of the ozone hole was a rapid phasing out of the chorofluorocarbon refrigants that were doing the damage.
> > space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
> > helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
> > the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
> >
> > <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
> >
> All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.
>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having
> lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why
> it is relevant to this discussion, please?
The people who made money out of making and selling them didn't like it much, but they weren't making as much money as the fossil carbon extraction industry does, and couldn't afford an ozone-hole denial propaganda machine.
That makes it a very relevant observation.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Nov 30, 2021, 11:40:54 PM11/30/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:28:58 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
--
Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.
wrote:
--
Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.
Anthony William Sloman
Nov 30, 2021, 11:57:40 PM11/30/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:40:54 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:28:58 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >
> >The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >
> >.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >
> >"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
> >Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
> >
> >
> >Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >
> >.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >
> >"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It
> >Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
> >Koonin, 320 pages.
> >
> >The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
> >literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
> >those claims.
More climate change denial propaganda,
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:28:58 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >
> >The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >
> >.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >
> >"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
> >Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
> >
> >
> >Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >
> >.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >
> >"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It
> >Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
> >Koonin, 320 pages.
> >
> >The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
> >literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
> >those claims.
> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
No climate scientist has ever said anything of the sort. The climate change denial industry trawls old newspapers for reporters mis-understandings of what scientist have said which they can tout as false predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance
is a respectable sample of what was being forecast back in 1992. Everybody being dead by now isn't in there.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org
Dec 1, 2021, 1:33:37 AM12/1/21
to
Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote in
news:16bc2c1d1c6cae61$1$3588101$26dd...@news.thecubenet.com:
You are an idiot.
Did you get birthed through the same decending colon as John Larkin
did?
>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole,
> having lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but
> pray tell why it is relevant to this discussion, please?
So, in other words, you did not even watch the videos. Pathetic.
You're a real piece of...
news:16bc2c1d1c6cae61$1$3588101$26dd...@news.thecubenet.com:
Did you get birthed through the same decending colon as John Larkin
did?
>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole,
> having lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but
> pray tell why it is relevant to this discussion, please?
You're a real piece of...
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org
Dec 1, 2021, 1:44:10 AM12/1/21
to
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:15vdqgpe0gsiokeh8...@4ax.com:
> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
You were certainly brain dead that long ago or more even.
Larkin science tell us... fucking nothing... ever.
news:15vdqgpe0gsiokeh8...@4ax.com:
> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
Larkin science tell us... fucking nothing... ever.
whit3rd
Dec 1, 2021, 3:31:33 AM12/1/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
No, it doesn't.
> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken
which group 'we' are in?
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Dec 1, 2021, 10:20:19 AM12/1/21
to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.
Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a
boat?
wrote:
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.
Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a
boat?
John Doe
Dec 1, 2021, 10:53:04 AM12/1/21
to
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Not to a revisionist historian.
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
> No, it doesn't.
"February 2021 is seen to be the coldest February in Texas in the past 43
years" (NASA).
John Doe
Dec 1, 2021, 11:03:36 AM12/1/21
to
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
> No, it doesn't.
"US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA Today,
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>
> No, it doesn't.
March 2021).
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Dec 1, 2021, 11:38:13 AM12/1/21
to
pervasive 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.
Joe Gwinn
Dec 1, 2021, 5:31:13 PM12/1/21
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.
The book is short and well written, which might help with star
ratings.
What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
left much context and perspective out.
Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get
the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without
resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care
about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
Joe Gwinn
The book is short and well written, which might help with star
ratings.
What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
left much context and perspective out.
Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get
the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without
resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care
about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
Joe Gwinn
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 1, 2021, 8:59:37 PM12/1/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
> >
> >No, it doesn't.
> >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken
> >which group 'we' are in?
> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
> more.
>
> Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?
Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
> >
> >No, it doesn't.
> >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken
> >which group 'we' are in?
> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
> more.
>
> Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?
John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 1, 2021, 9:21:20 PM12/1/21
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
> left much context and perspective out.
> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Flyguy
Dec 1, 2021, 10:37:34 PM12/1/21
to
Hey SNIPPERMAN, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 1, 2021, 11:00:45 PM12/1/21
to
That's what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise.
Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there's no sigh that it has started happening yet.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Doe
Dec 2, 2021, 12:20:55 AM12/2/21
to
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bill Sloman)
"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo paraphrased)
A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...
--
> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5aa4:: with SMTP id u4mr10715778qvg.7.1638411677273; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:4cc5:: with SMTP id z188mr12115575yba.248.1638411677077; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:21:17 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 110
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654063
> T On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
(Bill Sloman)
"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo paraphrased)
A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...
--
> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5aa4:: with SMTP id u4mr10715778qvg.7.1638411677273; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:4cc5:: with SMTP id z188mr12115575yba.248.1638411677077; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:21:17 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 110
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654063
>
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interes
> t.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-cli
> mate-11619383653>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "ƒ ~Unsettledƒ T Review: The ƒ ~Consensusƒ
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interes
> t.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-cli
> mate-11619383653>
>> >> >>
> T On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P.
>> >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/d
> p/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why
> It
>> >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover ƒ " April 27, 2021, by St
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/d
> p/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why
> It
John Doe
Dec 2, 2021, 12:25:25 AM12/2/21
to
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> John Doe <alway...@message.header> wrote:
>> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> "US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA
>> Today, March 2021).
>
> What's different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive
> 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.
They are talking about same-place records in over 30 years.
> John Doe <alway...@message.header> wrote:
>> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> "US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA
>> Today, March 2021).
>
> What's different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive
> 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 2, 2021, 1:19:31 AM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:20:55 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
<snip>
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653>
> >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from those claims.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >From the Amazon reviews
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. "
> >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from those claims.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >From the Amazon reviews
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point.
> >> >
> >> >Far from it.
> >> >
> >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:
> >> >>
> >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
> >
> >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.
> >> >
> >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.
> >>
> >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.
> >
> > I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> >
> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
> >
> >
> > And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
> >
> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary left much context and perspective out.
> >
> > But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
> >
> >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
> >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point.
> >> >
> >> >Far from it.
> >> >
> >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:
> >> >>
> >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
> >
> >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.
> >> >
> >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.
> >>
> >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.
> >
> > I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> >
> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
> >
> >
> > And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
> >
> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary left much context and perspective out.
> >
> > But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
> >
> >
> > A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
> >
> > https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
> >
> > starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
> >
> > Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
<snipped John Doe's usual irrelevancies>
> > A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
> >
> > https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
> >
> > starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
> >
> > Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
> A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...
He's just a nasty example of the right-wing lunatic troll, without anything useful to say.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Edward Hernandez
Dec 2, 2021, 6:06:25 AM12/2/21
to
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:20:49 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <so9l3g$ve9$4...@dont-email.me>.
gHxlyeyWQOEW
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:20:49 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <so9l3g$ve9$4...@dont-email.me>.
gHxlyeyWQOEW
whit3rd
Dec 2, 2021, 6:31:47 PM12/2/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:20:19 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
> more.
Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing
> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
> more.
of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?
Joe Gwinn
Dec 2, 2021, 7:37:57 PM12/2/21
to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
>
>And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's
claims.
>> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
>> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
>> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
>> left much context and perspective out.
>
>But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.
>> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
>
>A heroic task.
Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is
immense, which makes such an approach impossible.
One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the
cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all
that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC
as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
five years or so.
> Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
>
>https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
>
>starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.
Arrhenius solved it:
.<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
>Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
Joe Gwinn
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
>
>And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
claims.
>> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
>> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
>> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
>> left much context and perspective out.
>
>But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
>> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
>
>A heroic task.
immense, which makes such an approach impossible.
One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the
cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all
that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC
as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
five years or so.
> Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
>
>https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
>
>starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
Arrhenius solved it:
.<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
>Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
Joe Gwinn
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 2, 2021, 9:02:44 PM12/2/21
to
> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
> >
> >And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
>
> Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's claims.
> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
> >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
> >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
> >> left much context and perspective out.
> >
> >But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
>
> Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.
> >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
> >
> >A heroic task.
>
> Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.
> One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
> five years or so.
But first I'd have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I'd find.
> > Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
> >
> >https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
> >
> >starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
> Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.
>
> Arrhenius solved it:
>
> .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
>
> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980's it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance
in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
whit3rd
Dec 3, 2021, 2:09:22 AM12/3/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
Oh, no, that's an unacceptable slur; the '2500 reviewers' claim is clearly snake-oil,
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
on a par with the famous 'Hundred Authors Against Einstein'; if the
book's claims were really sound, it'd convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.
> >
> >And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
> Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's
> claims.
> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
> >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited
conclave, or a lonely individual, has missed something. I'd distrust the individual first.
> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
> gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
just distinction in labels, not differences.
Tom Gardner
Dec 3, 2021, 7:32:17 AM12/3/21
to
On 03/12/21 07:09, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>
> Oh, no, that's an unacceptable slur; the '2500 reviewers' claim is clearly snake-oil,
> on a par with the famous 'Hundred Authors Against Einstein'; if the
> book's claims were really sound, it'd convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
> Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>
> Oh, no, that's an unacceptable slur; the '2500 reviewers' claim is clearly snake-oil,
> on a par with the famous 'Hundred Authors Against Einstein'; if the
> book's claims were really sound, it'd convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
> Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
>
>
>> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
>> gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
>
> False claim, there. In the 1970's, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just
> a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
> basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
> just distinction in labels, not differences.
Those are three solid observations.
>> gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
>
> False claim, there. In the 1970's, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just
> a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
> basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
> just distinction in labels, not differences.
Of course they won't convince someone whose beliefs are base
on emotions and/or their pay packet.
Joe Gwinn
Dec 3, 2021, 12:03:24 PM12/3/21
to
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
Koonin's claims are about how accurately and completely the IPCC's
summaries reflect the peer-reviewed articles cited by the IPCC. Koonin
makes no claim about the accuracy of this cited articles.
>> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
>> >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
>> >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
>> >> left much context and perspective out.
>> >
>> >But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
>>
>> Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.
>
>More work than the subject deserves.
>
>> >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
>> >
>> >A heroic task.
>>
>> Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.
>
>Climate scientists do have to read the entire literature, or at least a representative sample. Getting a Ph.D. in a subject involves writing a literature review, which takes a lot of work - mine certainly did,
As they may well have done. But the issue here is how an ordinary
citizen can cross check the claims made in the IPCC summaries.
>> One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
>> five years or so.
>
>But first I'd have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I'd find.
What a terrible burden.
>> > Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
>> >
>> >https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
>> >
>> >starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
>> Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.
>>
>> Arrhenius solved it:
>>
>> .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
>
>And if you had read a bit more, you'd realise that Arrhenius came up with a correct hypothesis, but not one that was supported by what was known about the infra-red absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in the gas phase at the time, which wasn't up to resolving the rotational fine structure of the spectrum - each vibrational absorbtion line can be resolved into a series of sharp lines - the P, Q and R branches - and those sharp lines have much higher extinction coefficients than the unressolved vibrational absorbtion appear s to have at lower resolution. Arrhenius's hypothesis didn't fit the data that was available at the time.
He solved the long-standing problem of why the Earth was not an ice
ball from what was then known, causing the IR transmission spectrum to
become the focus of scientific effort, and his predictions were
ultimately borne out.
>> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
>>
>> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
>
>Global Cooling wasn't a "worry". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.
Nahh. Global Cooling was being thundered from the rooftops in the
1970s, and the journalists echoed the thunder. There was talk about
Great Britain being reduced to the climate of Siberia. Opinion was
divided on if this would be a good thing or bad thing.
But, time for original sources. The NYT published a summary on 21 May
1975 titled "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing". Global
Cooling was a real scientific theory, but was being superseded.
.<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing - Major Cooling May Be
Ahead - Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing - a Major
Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
>Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980's it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance
>
>in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem.
Actually, Koonin has better scientific credentials than Al Gore, by a
country mile.
Well, we have achieved our usual cycle.
Joe Gwinn
summaries reflect the peer-reviewed articles cited by the IPCC. Koonin
makes no claim about the accuracy of this cited articles.
>> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
>> >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
>> >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
>> >> left much context and perspective out.
>> >
>> >But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.
>>
>> Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.
>
>More work than the subject deserves.
>
>> >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.
>> >
>> >A heroic task.
>>
>> Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.
>
>Climate scientists do have to read the entire literature, or at least a representative sample. Getting a Ph.D. in a subject involves writing a literature review, which takes a lot of work - mine certainly did,
citizen can cross check the claims made in the IPCC summaries.
>> One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
>> five years or so.
>
>But first I'd have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I'd find.
>> > Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now
>> >
>> >https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
>> >
>> >starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
>> Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.
>>
>> Arrhenius solved it:
>>
>> .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
>
>And if you had read a bit more, you'd realise that Arrhenius came up with a correct hypothesis, but not one that was supported by what was known about the infra-red absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in the gas phase at the time, which wasn't up to resolving the rotational fine structure of the spectrum - each vibrational absorbtion line can be resolved into a series of sharp lines - the P, Q and R branches - and those sharp lines have much higher extinction coefficients than the unressolved vibrational absorbtion appear s to have at lower resolution. Arrhenius's hypothesis didn't fit the data that was available at the time.
ball from what was then known, causing the IR transmission spectrum to
become the focus of scientific effort, and his predictions were
ultimately borne out.
>> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.
>>
>> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
>
>Global Cooling wasn't a "worry". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.
1970s, and the journalists echoed the thunder. There was talk about
Great Britain being reduced to the climate of Siberia. Opinion was
divided on if this would be a good thing or bad thing.
But, time for original sources. The NYT published a summary on 21 May
1975 titled "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing". Global
Cooling was a real scientific theory, but was being superseded.
.<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing - Major Cooling May Be
Ahead - Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing - a Major
Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
>Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980's it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance
>
>in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem.
country mile.
Well, we have achieved our usual cycle.
Joe Gwinn
whit3rd
Dec 3, 2021, 6:18:55 PM12/3/21
to
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
> >
> >Global Cooling wasn't a "worry". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.
> Nahh. Global Cooling was being thundered from the rooftops in the
> 1970s, and the journalists echoed the thunder. There was talk about ...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.
> >
> >Global Cooling wasn't a "worry". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.
> Nahh. Global Cooling was being thundered from the rooftops in the
The 'global cooling' thunder isn't science, it's popular press. Science comes from
observations, not journalists.
> But, time for original sources. The NYT published a summary on 21 May
> 1975 titled "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing". Global
> Cooling was a real scientific theory, but was being superseded.
>
> .<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>
Didn't read far before I found that... there was no agreement, dozens of things that might
be changing climate, in any and all directions, without any clear trend or prediction.
That's not a prediction scenario, it's the familiar 'we need more research' open question
discussion.
So, "global cooling" at that time wasn't a rational worry; it wasn't a prediction on a trusted base of knowledge.
John Doe
Dec 3, 2021, 6:33:20 PM12/3/21
to
Idiot...
--
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5510:: with SMTP id j16mr18326693qtq.664.1638515359657; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa14:: with SMTP id s20mr20914433ybi.7.1638515359466; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30...@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com> <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com> <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <9fbd7053-5edc-4608...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
> From: whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 07:09:19 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 37
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654130
--
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5510:: with SMTP id j16mr18326693qtq.664.1638515359657; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa14:: with SMTP id s20mr20914433ybi.7.1638515359466; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30...@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com> <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com> <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <9fbd7053-5edc-4608...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
> From: whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 07:09:19 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 37
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654130
John Doe
Dec 3, 2021, 6:48:05 PM12/3/21
to
Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> whit3rd wrote:
>> Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
>>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>>
MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...
Then there are your Globalist Propaganda Masters, like this one spewing
the climate change garbage and hiding behind staffers while exiting her
private jet, to fool you. Some people are so easily duped. Others are just
trolls...
> whit3rd wrote:
>> Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
>>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
>>
>> Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
> Of course they won't convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions
> and/or their pay packet.
Or someone who makes money from "global warming" while flying around in a
> and/or their pay packet.
MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...
Then there are your Globalist Propaganda Masters, like this one spewing
the climate change garbage and hiding behind staffers while exiting her
private jet, to fool you. Some people are so easily duped. Others are just
trolls...
John Doe
Dec 3, 2021, 6:51:46 PM12/3/21
to
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
>> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
>> more.
>
> Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing
> of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?
Sure. Lots of political careers based on spewing such garbage. Half of
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
>> still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
>> more.
>
> Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing
> of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?
California politicians depend on that.
John Doe
Dec 3, 2021, 6:53:20 PM12/3/21
to
The nym-shifting stalker Corvid/Edward/others is upset because it will
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed.
Corvid perpetually proves why it must nym-shift.
Its mission, as always... annoy everybody.
see also...
=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <b...@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <ni...@cows.moo>
Banders <sn...@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <alway...@message.header>
Corvid <b...@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <b...@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <co...@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <m...@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <ni...@cows.moo>
dogs <do...@home.com>
Edward H. <dtga...@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pum...@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcu...@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2r...@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtga...@gmail.com>
Sea <fres...@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <stan...@poodle.com>
triangles <bu...@home.com>
and others...
--
Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com>
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com> <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com> <so9l3g$ve9$4...@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <KM1qJ.741529$RMW1....@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:06:18 UTC
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:06:18 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1482
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654096 free.spam:16583
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed.
Corvid perpetually proves why it must nym-shift.
Its mission, as always... annoy everybody.
see also...
=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <b...@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <ni...@cows.moo>
Banders <sn...@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <alway...@message.header>
Corvid <b...@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <b...@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <co...@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <m...@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <ni...@cows.moo>
dogs <do...@home.com>
Edward H. <dtga...@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pum...@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcu...@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2r...@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtga...@gmail.com>
Sea <fres...@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <stan...@poodle.com>
triangles <bu...@home.com>
and others...
--
Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtga...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
> References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433...@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap4...@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7...@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvm...@4ax.com> <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680...@googlegroups.com> <so9l3g$ve9$4...@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <KM1qJ.741529$RMW1....@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:06:18 UTC
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:06:18 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1482
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654096 free.spam:16583
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 3, 2021, 8:04:15 PM12/3/21
to
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 10:48:05 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > whit3rd wrote:
> >> Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> >>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
> >>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
> >>
> >> Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
> > Of course they won't convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions
> > and/or their pay packet.
>
> Or someone who makes money from "global warming" while flying around in a
> MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...
Strictly speaking, CO2 emissions aren't pollution - CO2 is a perfectly normal components of the atmosphere, though the current level is higher than we'd like
> Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > whit3rd wrote:
> >> Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> >>> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
> >>> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.
> >>
> >> Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
> > Of course they won't convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions
> > and/or their pay packet.
>
> Or someone who makes money from "global warming" while flying around in a
> MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...
> Then there are your Globalist Propaganda Masters, like this one spewing
> the climate change garbage and hiding behind staffers while exiting her
> private jet, to fool you. Some people are so easily duped. Others are just
> trolls...
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Edward Hernandez
Dec 3, 2021, 11:28:29 PM12/3/21
to
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:33:13 -0000
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
(UTC) in message-id <soe9fp$rv6$1...@dont-email.me>.
kg99FjHm0Be5
Edward Hernandez
Dec 3, 2021, 11:28:31 PM12/3/21
to
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:53:13 -0000
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
(UTC) in message-id <soeal9$rv6$4...@dont-email.me>.
This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.
LKcEjgCejT6j
whit3rd
Dec 4, 2021, 5:12:34 PM12/4/21
to
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:51:46 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
> Sure. Lots of political careers based on spewing such garbage. Half of
> California politicians depend on that.
Oh, yeah, that'll fly on a newsgroup that isn't followed by California politicians.
> Sure. Lots of political careers based on spewing such garbage. Half of
> California politicians depend on that.
You could have filled in Newfoundland fishers, or Mississippi Baptists, or
Detroit beer-drinkers, with just as little thought.
The 'such garbage' is equally generic, vague, dismissive.
Scorn for others is a sentiment that has many expressions, but no positive
value.
Flyguy
Dec 4, 2021, 7:48:36 PM12/4/21
to
Hey SNIPPERMAN, a broken water main can flood a highway - this is not a particularly insightful prediction. So, NO, Hansen was talking flooding by sea-level rise.
BTW, you are such an "idiot" that you can't even SPELL THE FUCKING WORD, imbecile!
Anthony William Sloman
Dec 4, 2021, 8:07:40 PM12/4/21
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 11:48:36 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snip>
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > > > > Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?
> > >
> > > > Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).
> > > >
> > > > John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.
> > >
> > > Hey Sloman, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.
> >
> > That's what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise.
> >
> > Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there's no sigh that it has started happening yet.
>
>
Hurricane Sandy did raise the local sea level quire a bit - enough to submerge bits of the west side highway in Manhattan. That's a lot more water than a burst water main.
It;s called a "storm surge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
is and example. It killed 1836 people in the Netherlands, 307 in England, 28 in Belgium and 19 in Scotland. Sandy only killed 233.
> BTW, you are such an "idiot" that you can't even SPELL THE FUCKING WORD, imbecile!
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
0 new messages