[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.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Maxine Ott, after exposure by the Hadley Hack ( http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
)of way the IPCC and its scientists created global warming out of thin
air, whines::
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.

Andre Jute replied:
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

Ron Bales thinks:
I think you are too quick to throw words like "criminal" around.

Jute:
There's plenty of cause, Ron. These people knowingly conspired to
commit a fraud on the public and did commit a fraud on the public, a
very expensive fraud. They did financed this fraud with research grant
money. Each of their grant applications, especially if it cites one of
their lying papers as support for the application, is a separate
attempt to defraud the government. Their combined efforts are a
conspiracy.

I'm not the first to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
At
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ny-university/
you will find an article by the science ethicist Dr.Aubrey Blumsohn
explaining how Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of Atmospheric Sciences
Research Center at the University at Albany, New York cheated by
including imaginary readings in a paper; this paper and Wang himself
feature largely in the Hadley Hack, wherefrom it is clear they knew he
lied -- and said nothing to the authorities. In short, Wang is one of
the insiders whom Edward Wegman condemned before the US Senate as a
clique corrupting global warming studies. Hadley CRU capo di capo
tuti, Professor Jones, is a co-author of Wang...

The upshot was that Doug Keenan, a mathematician, accused Wang of
unscientific conduct and was brushed off by the University at Albany.
After trying to take the matter up through the university channels,
Keenan lodged a complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office
of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud,
The logic is in my first par above.

Bales:
The impression
I get are of true believers who cannot accept the evidence before them and are
sincerely trying to reconcile it to what they believe must, must be true.

Then they must be incredibly stupid, for they created "global warming"
out of nothing. *There was no global warming.* There was only the
entirely natural temperature uptrend from the Little Ice Age back to
temperatures, warmer than today, similar to those in the Medieval Warm
Period of several centuries; our present period, including the 1990s,
is actually *cold* in the historical perspective of interglacial
periods. These people with statistical lies turned a period natural
variability into the panic of "global warming". They knew what they
were doing. They knew all along it was a lie. Jones of the CRU
actually confesses to wanting global warming *still* to happen so they
can be proved right -- in short, he admits they know it hasn't
happened yet. (After years of such heavy publicity, I'm not surprised
that even an intelligent observer can thinks, Well, there must be some
global warming, or at least the possibility.)

Bales:
But then there's that stuff about dodging FOI requests.

That's criminal already.

As Doug Keenan says, “almost by itself, the withholding of their raw
data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists”.
But, more than that, withholding and even more, maliciously destroying
materials subject to FOI requests is clearly criminal activity. I hope
their universities act against them for that, for these are crimes
against learning, but I fear the universities will join in the cover-
up, as the U of East Anglia clearly already has.

Jute to Maxine Ott-Ott:
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.

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

Jute:
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?

Maxine:
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.

Jute:
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.

Bales:
You miss the interesting point, "global warming deniers are funded by huge
corporate interests" while the corporate and governmental interests who profit
from the global warming panic are seen as benevolent, somehow. This is something
you'll see over and over again in the modern left, but is most prominent here.

Jute:
Forget for the moment that Fat Al Gore was born to privilege and even
then he is an unlikely poster boy for the left. But it is beyond me
how his open advocacy of laws that will benefit a brokerage where he
is a partner by billions of dollars can fail to attract the
condemnation and disgust of any decent person. I conclude that the
left has simply become so cynical that decency has fled their house.
As if that isn't enough, Fat Al's refusal to debate these matters is
open contempt for democracy -- and still the left loves him, proving
their authoritarianism.

Bales:
There are of course many thousands of large companies who earn billions by
selling us things like electricity and heat and all the varied sources of
energy. We get that, they have something useful and desireable to sell and lobby
for the right to sell it. There are also companies with no useful product who
profit from the panic. Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
slaughter wildlife the way they do. They need the panic to exist at all, much
less get funded by government grants. The carbon credits syndicates are simply
crooked from the get go. Solar panel farms as environmentally sensitive, get
real.

Me, I'm more likely to trust the company that is selling a valued product for
profit than the one selling impractical, wasteful or nonexistent rubbish and
feel-good lies that depend on government mandates, subsidies and tax credits.

Jute:
We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

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

[Peter Wieck]

Writing to yourself again, Andre?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Writing to yourself again, Andre?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

He and Ron (a regular poster) were having an exchange. If you think he's
using a sock puppet, then why the need to delete (all) the dialog?

[landotter]

On Nov 23, 7:28*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
Writing to yourself again, Andre?

Seems like it. He never actually provides any legitimate evidence for
his delusions.

So bottoms up folks--it's the irrational skeptic drinking game!

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 1:51*am, landotter wrote:
He never actually provides any legitimate evidence for
his delusions.

So bottoms up folks--it's the irrational skeptic drinking game!

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

They why is it necessary to delete *all* my references and argument?
Spin me that one, Maxine? Here it is again, straight between the eyes,
dear Maxine:

*******
Maxine Ott, after exposure by the Hadley Hack ( http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
)of way the IPCC and its scientists created global warming out of thin
air, whines::
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.

Andre Jute replied:
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

Ron Bales thinks:
I think you are too quick to throw words like "criminal" around.

Jute:
There's plenty of cause, Ron. These people knowingly conspired to
commit a fraud on the public and did commit a fraud on the public, a
very expensive fraud. They did financed this fraud with research grant
money. Each of their grant applications, especially if it cites one of
their lying papers as support for the application, is a separate
attempt to defraud the government. Their combined efforts are a
conspiracy.

I'm not the first to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
At
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ny-university/
you will find an article by the science ethicist Dr.Aubrey Blumsohn
explaining how Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of Atmospheric Sciences
Research Center at the University at Albany, New York cheated by
including imaginary readings in a paper; this paper and Wang himself
feature largely in the Hadley Hack, wherefrom it is clear they knew he
lied -- and said nothing to the authorities. In short, Wang is one of
the insiders whom Edward Wegman condemned before the US Senate as a
clique corrupting global warming studies. Hadley CRU capo di capo
tuti, Professor Jones, is a co-author of Wang...

The upshot was that Doug Keenan, a mathematician, accused Wang of
unscientific conduct and was brushed off by the University at Albany.
After trying to take the matter up through the university channels,
Keenan lodged a complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office
of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud,
The logic is in my first par above.

Bales:
The impression
I get are of true believers who cannot accept the evidence before them and are
sincerely trying to reconcile it to what they believe must, must be true.

Then they must be incredibly stupid, for they created "global warming"
out of nothing. *There was no global warming.* There was only the
entirely natural temperature uptrend from the Little Ice Age back to
temperatures, warmer than today, similar to those in the Medieval Warm
Period of several centuries; our present period, including the 1990s,
is actually *cold* in the historical perspective of interglacial
periods. These people with statistical lies turned a period natural
variability into the panic of "global warming". They knew what they
were doing. They knew all along it was a lie. Jones of the CRU
actually confesses to wanting global warming *still* to happen so they
can be proved right -- in short, he admits they know it hasn't
happened yet. (After years of such heavy publicity, I'm not surprised
that even an intelligent observer can thinks, Well, there must be some
global warming, or at least the possibility.)

Bales:
But then there's that stuff about dodging FOI requests.

That's criminal already.

As Doug Keenan says, “almost by itself, the withholding of their raw
data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists”.
But, more than that, withholding and even more, maliciously destroying
materials subject to FOI requests is clearly criminal activity. I hope
their universities act against them for that, for these are crimes
against learning, but I fear the universities will join in the cover-
up, as the U of East Anglia clearly already has.

Jute to Maxine Ott-Ott:
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.

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

Jute:
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?

Maxine:
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.

Jute:
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.

Bales:
You miss the interesting point, "global warming deniers are funded by huge
corporate interests" while the corporate and governmental interests who profit
from the global warming panic are seen as benevolent, somehow. This is something
you'll see over and over again in the modern left, but is most prominent here.

Jute:
Forget for the moment that Fat Al Gore was born to privilege and even
then he is an unlikely poster boy for the left. But it is beyond me
how his open advocacy of laws that will benefit a brokerage where he
is a partner by billions of dollars can fail to attract the
condemnation and disgust of any decent person. I conclude that the
left has simply become so cynical that decency has fled their house.
As if that isn't enough, Fat Al's refusal to debate these matters is
open contempt for democracy -- and still the left loves him, proving
their authoritarianism.

Bales:
There are of course many thousands of large companies who earn billions by
selling us things like electricity and heat and all the varied sources of
energy. We get that, they have something useful and desireable to sell and lobby
for the right to sell it. There are also companies with no useful product who
profit from the panic. Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
slaughter wildlife the way they do. They need the panic to exist at all, much
less get funded by government grants. The carbon credits syndicates are simply
crooked from the get go. Solar panel farms as environmentally sensitive, get
real.

Me, I'm more likely to trust the company that is selling a valued product for
profit than the one selling impractical, wasteful or nonexistent rubbish and
feel-good lies that depend on government mandates, subsidies and tax credits.

Jute:
We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

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

[landotter]

On Nov 23, 8:17*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
drivel

Your source is the blog of a right wing television weatherman?

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 2:32*am, landotter wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:17*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

drivel

Your source is the blog of a right wing television weatherman?

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

You don't have any answers to the confessions of criminal destruction
of data and conspiracy to defraud the public purse by your heroes, do
you Maxine von Ottbott?

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

[landotter]

On Nov 23, 8:49*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[[chirp chirp chirp]

Still can't link to a legitimate source for your paranoid delusions?
How long do you want to play this game? You can get the last word in
as many times as you'd like--if you don't mind proving the point over
and over again that you're mentally unstable.

If I needed to convince you and your buddy right wing Ron of something
that's accepted science, like natural selection--I could link you to
thousands of sites--but you need to upload "secret turds" to a web
hosting site?

GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG!

[William Asher]

Andre Jute wrote in
:

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does.

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

--
Bill Asher

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 9:14*pm, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7


8 wind turbines killing 250,000 birds per year would be
85 dead birds per day on the ground under each turbine.
The stench must be incredible
(incredible = not credible).

Ben

[Tom Sherman °_°]

William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote in
:

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does.

Jute's 685 bird deaths per turbine per day would lead to fields full of
rotting carcasses, no?

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7


Don't be bringing facts into the debate!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

aka Ben Weiner wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:14 pm, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.
This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does.

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7


8 wind turbines killing 250,000 birds per year would be
85 dead birds per day on the ground under each turbine.
The stench must be incredible
(incredible = not credible).

No, Jute was claiming 250,000 bird deaths per year PER TURBINE.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 23, 11:14*pm, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

--
Bill Asher

Again, you are wasting your time debating with invincible ignorance.
Andre cannot count - accordingly no one else can count either.

A modern 200' (60m) turbine turns at something around 16 RPM, with a
tip-speed of something like 115mph (184kph), and makes approximately 2
meg of power under design-wind conditions. Given also that most of
them have three blades, that means a blade passes any given point
about every 1.25 seconds. The 55 turbines of this size along SR 61 in
Centralia, PA are calculated to have a vanishingly small effect on
bird populations even though they are along a significant raptor
migratory route. If they were doing even anything like 20 birds per
day in total, you can bet that the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary nearby
would be all over the news. They don't and they aren't.

http://www.hawkmountain.org/

Given that this is crossposted in the tube group so his position in
the bicycle group is fair-game, and as long as we are in the realm of
wild speculation given Andre's general credibility has anyone he

a) Actually seen Andre on a bicycle?
b) Actually seen Andre with a bicycle?

It has been established that he does lead a rich and full fantasy life
- and given his fantasies about non-existent tube projects, non-
existent audio accomplishments and so forth and his near-complete
retreat from the tube groups (at least as on-topic posts are
concerned) I expect that his life on the bicycle groups is equally
rich and fantastic.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

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

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 10:02*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 23, 11:14*pm, William Asher wrote:



Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

--
Bill Asher

Again, you are wasting your time debating with invincible ignorance.
Andre cannot count - accordingly no one else can count either.


Invincible ignorance? Brilliant! Jute does have a bit of an Ignatius
J. Reilly thing going on!


*Given that this is crossposted in the tube group so his position in
the bicycle group is fair-game, and as long as we are in the realm of
wild speculation given Andre's general credibility has anyone he

a) Actually seen Andre on a bicycle?
b) Actually seen Andre with a bicycle?

It has been established that he does lead a rich and full fantasy life
- and given his fantasies about non-existent tube projects, non-
existent audio accomplishments and so forth and his near-complete
retreat from the tube groups (at least as on-topic posts are
concerned) I expect that his life on the bicycle groups is equally
rich and fantastic.


Ask him about the hermaphrodite he rides that's accented with coach
lines!

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 24, 11:52*am, landotter wrote:

Ask him about the hermaphrodite he rides that's accented with coach
lines!

I doubt Mr. Jute is able to manage one sex - much less two in
combination.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 4:14*am, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

--
Bill Asher

A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:

“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

Overpeck over-reached? LOL

Bill "insert (so to speak) own joke here" S.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 6:15*am, "
wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:14*pm, William Asher wrote:





Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

8 wind turbines killing 250,000 birds per year would be
85 dead birds per day on the ground under each turbine.
The stench must be incredible
(incredible = not credible).

Ben

A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, Ben
Weiner, and that other lying global warmie Bill Asher out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

I just lurf the way you clowns can spend a ton of bandwidth on me
adding a couple of noughts to birdkills at fewer than a double handful
wind turbines, but you have nothing to say about the scummy, crooked
and unscientific behaviour of the leaders in the so-called science of
climatology.

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer, all-round honest chappie

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 1:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:14*am, William Asher wrote:



Andre Jute wrote :

We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.

This is nonsense. *It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. *The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does. *

e.g.,

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/...environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/

http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7

--
Bill Asher

A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
*http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

Andre Jute
*“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

Why is this thread so long without you presenting any legitimate
evidence yet?

BTW, the midieval warm period was a regional, not global phenomenon.
It's popularly brought up by ignorant dooshbags--serving as a memetic
warning cry of dumbassery.

[William Asher]

Andre Jute wrote:


A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

The problem with that tactic is that you'll never convince me that was what
you were trying to do, and likely a lot of other people will feel the same
way as me. So while it may feel like a victory to you, it's only damaged
your reputation.

Whenever you want to talk about the physics of climate, and problems you
see therein, I'm here. Otherwise, you don't really have much to say that's
of interest.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Andre Jute wrote:

I just lurf the way you clowns can spend a ton of bandwidth on me
adding a couple of noughts to birdkills at fewer than a double handful
wind turbines, but you have nothing to say about the scummy, crooked
and unscientific behaviour of the leaders in the so-called science of
climatology.

You can find my public comment on "The Hack" posted at RealClimate.org.
Happy hunting.

--
Bill Asher

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 8:10*pm, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
*http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

The problem with that tactic is that you'll never convince me that was what
you were trying to do, and likely a lot of other people will feel the same
way as me. *So while it may feel like a victory to you, it's only damaged
your reputation. *

You still haven't got it, have you, Asher? What good can the opinion
of a bunch of gullible tenth-raters do me? I don't care **** for your
opinion, and the opinion of the rest of the little tenth-rate
trendies, because I don't have to, sonny.

But what I've proved with the post is important: that you, William
Asher, and Ben Weiner, lurk in the shadows biting your tongues when
something adverse to global warming is reported and discussed but rush
out to get your kicks in when you see an opportunity for character
assassination. Have I said yet that the pair of you are worthless
scum, not worthy of the name scientist?

Whenever you want to talk about the physics of climate, and problems you
see therein,

The only problem I see is manmade global warming created by Mann,
Jones and that crowd of liars, frauds and crooks who have the cheek to
call themselves scientists.

I'm here. *

Yes, but, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, you don't know ****,
Asher. You're worthless.

Otherwise, you don't really have much to say that's
of interest. *

That's good. Get off the pavement when you see me coming, touch your
forelock, and I won't analyze your lies in public.

Andre Jute
I learned my polemics in places where second prize is a bullet in the
back of the neck. Where did you learn yours?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 7:37*pm, landotter wrote:

BTW, the midieval warm period was a regional, not global phenomenon.
It's popularly brought up by ignorant dooshbags--serving as a memetic
warning cry of dumbassery.

The Medieval Warm Period is firmly established in interdisciplinary
science as girdling the globe. See http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
That is why the Medieval Warm Period is so unpopular with the global
warming impressionables, because it is incontestable, proof positive
that global warming not only didn't happen in the 1990s but is very,
very, very^47 unlikely to happen in any foreseeable future. That is
why so many climate "scientists" such as Mann and Jones and Briffa
have ruined their reputations concocting spurious statistical "tricks"
to lie the Medieval Warm Period out of existence. But the historical
truth is a hardy breed that refuses to die.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html