[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 4:48 pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic wrote:

Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
itself.

Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
hacker

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../heraldsun/com...

Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.

Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.

Ron

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?

I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
genocide right there. They hung lesser genocides at Nuremberg on much
less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.

If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
opinion directly.)

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

[landotter]

On Nov 22, 1:44*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 20, 4:48 pm, landotter wrote:



On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic wrote:

Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
itself.

Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
hacker

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../heraldsun/com....

Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.

Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.

Rhttp://start.ubuntu.com/9.10/on

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?

I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
genocide right there. They hung lesser genocides at Nuremberg on muchon

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.

If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
opinion directly.)

Andre Jute
*A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

In the ****storm of lies--neither you nor Ron [fingermustache:bellamy]
nor anyone else have actually provided any evidence of a worldwide
conspiracy. Because there is none.

It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.

As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
authoritarian brain.

The authoritarian brain doesn't do nuance and has a big throbbing New
Jersey roadmap of a hardon for facile blame. It's always "X is the
cause of societies ill." "We must get rid of X!!!"

Just yesterday I was trying to tune the Grundig in the the garage to
NPR and right next to it on the dial, among the endless hysterical
shows about religion, a deep belief also held with no evidence, was a
woman shrieking and crying as she called into one of these religious
shows--about how our current president is exactly like Hitler and
ruining her life, even though that's historically not true and she
could provide no evidence. It didn't matter--her hysteria was proof
enough and it was time to blame.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

rec.bicycles.tech
rec.audio.tubes

News in the world of Global Warming

landotter wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:44*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 20, 4:48 pm, landotter wrote:



On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic wrote:

Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
itself.

Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
hacker

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../heraldsun/com...

Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.

Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.

Rhttp://start.ubuntu.com/9.10/on

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?

I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
genocide right there. They hung lesser genocides at Nuremberg on much
less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.

If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
opinion directly.)

Andre Jute
*A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

In the ****storm of lies--neither you nor Ron [fingermustache:bellamy]
nor anyone else have actually provided any evidence of a worldwide
conspiracy. Because there is none.

This is a straw man. No one claimed that global warming is a worldwide
conspiracy. It is widely known that many, many nations and scientists
reject the very concept of global warming and carbon emissions control
as a pseudo-scientific substitute for politically incorrect racism,
the urge to hold down the browns and the yellows.

Now see the file you can download at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
What these e-mails -- the very words of the plotters from their own
mouths -- prove beyond doubt is that there is a conspiracy among the
Anglo-American-Australian axis of global warming "scientists" who are
leading writers of IPCC reports. Since it is also clear that they form
a claque of mutual support and admiration *and a circle of undue
influence* on the media, it is sufficient to prove only a small
conspiracy. In fact, the very size and open viciousness of the
conspiracy shocked me -- how can adults be as stupid as to think that
sort of conspiracy against the public won't be discovered?

What sort of "scientist" behaves so arrogantly?

It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.

I'm not a conspiracy buff. I believe in the ****up theory of history,
among other reasons because criminals, including criminals of state
and science, are almost always flawed by arrogance, which is first
cousin to stupidity. These "climatologists" clearly conspired
criminally to defraud the taxpayer, and insulted our intelligence by
lying to us, and then bragged to each other about how they lied to us,
swapping tips and tricks to pull more wool over our eyes. Read all
about it in the files at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

As for the global warming skeptics being in a "minority", as you
claim, bull****. 65 per cent of the populace in the States no longer
believed the global warmies' ever more hysterical lies even before the
liars were so publicly exposed in their smug gloating.

As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.

Who? The global warmies or the rationalist who have all along asked
for proper proof, not precautionary crap and uncosted waste in
swingeing attempts at government by accident?

Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
authoritarian brain.

Maxine, you are so deliciously ignorant, you must have taken the
evening off to dye your hair blonde. What you're accusing me of is in
fact merely that I am a rationalist who prefers science backed by
facts to stoking up irrational panics based on lies and playing on
people's emotions, which is what the global warmies do all the time.

The authoritarian brain doesn't do nuance
and has a big throbbing New
Jersey roadmap of a hardon for facile blame. It's always "X is the
cause of societies ill." "We must get rid of X!!!"

What's to "nuance" with a bunch of crooks who lied to get bigger
grants?

Criminals can be identified as individuals. Even a conspiracy is made
up of individuals. Each individual among these self-style "scientists"
told individual lies and committed individual frauds in grant
applications and in telling lies to the public.

Just yesterday I was trying to tune the Grundig in the the garage to
NPR and right next to it on the dial, among the endless hysterical
shows about religion, a deep belief also held with no evidence, was a
woman shrieking and crying as she called into one of these religious
shows--about how our current president is exactly like Hitler and
ruining her life, even though that's historically not true and she
could provide no evidence. It didn't matter--her hysteria was proof
enough and it was time to blame.

Quite my point. You global warmies behave like religious fundies.
That's not science, that's hysteria.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 22, 9:39*am, landotter wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:44*am, Andre Jute wrote:





On Nov 20, 4:48 pm, landotter wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic wrote:

Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
itself.

Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
hacker

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../heraldsun/com...

Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.

Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.

Rhttp://start.ubuntu.com/9.10/on

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?

I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
genocide right there. They hung lesser genocides at Nuremberg on muchon

How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?

Moo!

Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.

less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.

If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
opinion directly.)

Andre Jute
*A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

In the ****storm of lies--neither you nor Ron [fingermustache:bellamy]
nor anyone else have actually provided any evidence of a worldwide
conspiracy. Because there is none.

It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.

As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
authoritarian brain.

The authoritarian brain doesn't do nuance and has a big throbbing New
Jersey roadmap of a hardon for facile blame. It's always "X is the
cause of societies ill." "We must get rid of X!!!"

Just yesterday I was trying to tune the Grundig in the the garage to
NPR and right next to it on the dial, among the endless hysterical
shows about religion, a deep belief also held with no evidence, was a
woman shrieking and crying as she called into one of these religious
shows--about how our current president is exactly like Hitler and
ruining her life, even though that's historically not true and she
could provide no evidence. It didn't matter--her hysteria was proof
enough and it was time to blame.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't try reason or fact - Andre is impervious to either.

Note that he and his proxies are stuttering again. On the assumption
that any reasonable person will simply give up and go away leaving
them with the last word. What is so sad is that they are so caught up
in having the LAST WORD in a tiny little backwater of Usenet with
about as much potential for impact on the entire world as they have
for bettering their own sad, limited, empty little lives. Let it rest.
You will be giving them a gift of momentary victory - more than they
have any right to expect and more than they deserve but none-the-less
a gift.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.