[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's totally: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

[Richard Crowley]

"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

[Geoff]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

[Geoff]

geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

.... and then there's that 'round earth' conspiracy...

geoff (again)

[Richard Crowley]

"geoff" wrote ...
geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

... and then there's that 'round earth' conspiracy...

Take it up with Algore.
YOUR arguments have no bearing here.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 23, 1:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's totally: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

Richard Crowley wrote:
According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

Over here we hear more and more that, "Global warming is dead, long
live sudden climate change, up or down." When even Al Gore is
embarrassed by the lie, it is past shameless! -- Andre Jute

[landotter]

On Nov 22, 7:32*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[spamsnip]

You subscribe to hysteria that's over three years debunked. Don't they
have mental health services in your country where you can subscribe
for the fresh hysteria and FUD?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 23, 2:58*pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:32*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

[spamsnip]

You subscribe to hysteria that's over three years debunked. Don't they
have mental health services in your country where you can subscribe
for the fresh hysteria and FUD?

How can evidence under oath before the US Senate by the world's
leading statistician be either "debunked" or be "hysteria? A lie is a
lie is a lie and stands forever. Global warming is a lie, and this
explains how the lie was made. I give it to you again, Maxine,
straight between the eyes:

*********
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North on oath before US Senate agrees with
every word of Wegman Panel's condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey
Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

[landotter]

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:
On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

"realclimate" is a right wing disinformation site funded by industry.
We've been through this before.

All you do by linking to it is show how loyal you are to your
authoritarian brain infection.

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Ross McKirtrick? Do you ever check your sources?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Ross_McKitrick

He's a shill for the Fraser Institute--a right wing political
propaganda organization.



Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

Plenty of rebuttals? Really? I've yet to see anything that's not right
wing authoritarian propaganda driven purely by politics, fear, and
Sansabelt conventionalism.

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

"realclimate" is a right wing disinformation site funded by industry.
We've been through this before.

No realclimate is Michael Mann's mouthpiece. By the way, I find their
rebuttals unconvincing, but you should make up your own mind.

All you do by linking to it is show how loyal you are to your
authoritarian brain infection.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 4:28*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:



On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

"realclimate" is a right wing disinformation site funded by industry.
We've been through this before.

No realclimate is Michael Mann's mouthpiece. By the way, I find their
rebuttals unconvincing, but you should make up your own mind.

Indeed. Realclimate is legit--I read it as "climate audit" having many
tabs open here. The latter is the minerals industry funded
disinformation site.


All you do by linking to it is show how loyal you are to your
authoritarian brain infection.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Smell what? There is no evidence to bolster the paranoia of the
conspiracy minded folks. They're seeing the holy Madonna in a grease
stain more or less.

Believing in something strongly with no evidence is not a virtue. It's
a character flaw. Believing in lies to maintain a strong faith in the
absurd--is despicable.

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:28*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:



On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

"realclimate" is a right wing disinformation site funded by industry.
We've been through this before.

No realclimate is Michael Mann's mouthpiece. By the way, I find their
rebuttals unconvincing, but you should make up your own mind.

Indeed. Realclimate is legit--I read it as "climate audit" having many
tabs open here. The latter is the minerals industry funded
disinformation site.


All you do by linking to it is show how loyal you are to your
authoritarian brain infection.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Smell what? There is no evidence to bolster the paranoia of the
conspiracy minded folks. They're seeing the holy Madonna in a grease
stain more or less.

Believing in something strongly with no evidence is not a virtue. It's
a character flaw.

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

You just assume that because people are on your side, they must be
right. It's not that simple. Your enemy's enemy is not always your
friend.

Believing in lies to maintain a strong faith in the absurd--is
despicable.

Yes I certainly agree with you there!

[William Asher]

Ben C wrote in
:

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it?

--
Bill Asher

[Norman[_9_]]

On Nov 25, 4:18*pm, William Asher wrote:
Ben C wrote :

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it? *


If by "thousands of researchers" you're including the grad
students with rulers entering tree-ring data into notebooks,
then I guess there are thousands of researchers.

Exactly how many papers supporting AGW published since
1990 do _not_ cite Wang, Mann, Jones, Hansen, or any of the
other known frauds & fudgers? Any paper that cites them
should be treated as suspect, & any paper that uses them
for primary evidence should be summarily tossed out.
Further any paper that these fellows performed review on
should be rechecked. & any paper that these gentlemen
stifled, blocked, or contested should also be re-examined
in light of their perfidy.

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-25, William Asher wrote:
Ben C wrote in
:

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem,

You say "thousands of researchers". OK different facets of the problem,
but UEA name just three sources of global temperatures:

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change
since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and
two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature
measurements. There are no statistically significant differences
between the warming trends in the three series since the start of
the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data
series have been assembled by:

CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
Asheville, NC, USA.

The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the
National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New
York.

At least the first one stinks. Smoking gun or not, and whatever the
pnambic Phil Jones claims he meant by "hide the decline", just the tone
of those emails is enough to consider the work of that lot tainted.
Besides, one would be a fool to believe anything with Michael Mann
behind it for a second time.

As for the second two, how independent are they really? After all, as
far as I know Mann doesn't officially work for the Met Office Hadley
Centre.

with those scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by
others working in the field (including scientists who are skeptical of
the theory to begin with) and published in open journals,

What they don't seem to publish very often is the data and source code,
which seeing as most of the conclusions are based on computer models, is
the important stuff.

Instead I read an awful lot about "overwhelming scientific consensus".
Seems everyone just has a consensus that they have a consensus.

*and* with periodic review of the combined results being conducted by
an independent international body of experts

I trust "independent international bodies of experts" about as far as I
could spit them.

(that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing it
properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it?

In an ideal world, make all the data and source code public and fund
skeptic and non-skeptic research equally, and both a lot less. Throwing
too much money at the problem has made it worse.

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason, we'll
get to see what happens.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 8:55*pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:18*pm, William Asher wrote:





Ben C wrote :

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it? *

If by "thousands of researchers" you're including the grad
students with rulers entering tree-ring data into notebooks,
then I guess there are thousands of researchers.

Exactly how many papers supporting AGW published since
1990 do _not_ cite Wang, Mann, Jones, Hansen, or any of the
other known frauds & fudgers? *Any paper that cites them
should be treated as suspect, & any paper that uses them
for primary evidence should be summarily tossed out.
Further any paper that these fellows performed review on
should be rechecked. *& any paper that these gentlemen
stifled, blocked, or contested should also be re-examined
in light of their perfidy.

Just for the sake of comprehensiveness, let me throw in a couple more
necessary adjustments.

All papers refused in the last twenty years because their findings
differed from the prevailing hysteria of global warming require
reassessment on their merits rather than for their political
correctness.

There's a class of scientist that deserves special contempt. They
published papers containing data contrary to global warming which they
got published by prefacing them with a statement that they believe in
global warming, and usually concluding with some crap about how
they're sure their data indicates only a temporary glitch or an
anomaly in the glorious march of global warming. Along the way they
usually also submitted to editing to tone down their findings. These
scientists had their own data in their own hands and knew it was true,
and submitted to a form of mind control simply to stay in the game. I
think that once we finished making them fell our contempt for their
weakness, we should instantly make them heads of department (in the
place of the fired Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al) for their political
slyness in at least bringing some version of the truth to the table in
circumstance oppressive to the truth and dangerous to their careers.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Ben C wrote:

In an ideal world, make all the data and source code public and fund
skeptic and non-skeptic research equally, and both a lot less. Throwing
too much money at the problem has made it worse.

The original sin here was the establishment of a government bureau to
handle climate change under a mandate that presumed climate change
before it was founded. The IPCC consists of bureaucrats. You ever hear
of bureaucrats who didn't find whatever human failing they were
constituted to find? It would be entirely unnatural for bureaucrats to
work themselves out of a job.

A temporary commission to investigate and report would have discovered
what the scientists reported in the first IPCC report: no manmade
global warming, no CO2 links. A temporary commission would have
reported and that would have been the end of it, no further action
required. But a permanent, publicly funded body must find something to
do.

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason, we'll
get to see what happens.

I'm not encouraged by recent history to have any faith that anyone
will remember either the global warming scare or the monstrous cost.
As an exhibit, let me ask you a question: do you personally remember
the global freezing scare of the seventies? There was even a best-
selling book, recommending that we artificially warm the oceans to
alleviate the coming Ice Age. Imagine the unintended effects of that
if there were to be any kind of global warming, or just some sunspot
activity. It was quite as mindless as global warming, but now no one
except me remembers.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

If this entire global warming affair hadn't cost so much and damaged
the reputation of all science so much, it would have been funny in a
bizarre sort of way. Richard Condon, who wrote a novel presenting
Prohibition as a plot by some rich men to get richer, should be alive
today! Mind you, Tom Sharpe is alive and working and this farce is
right up his street too.

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

In spite of all the fuss, we're not really cutting CO2 and probably
won't-- and certainly not by enough if the alarmists are right-- so,
provided the world hasn't ended for a completely different reason,
we'll get to see what happens.

Some of it. Most of it will be seen by your children and your
grandchildren, if you have any. Sins of the fathers and all that.

So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've
been doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about
the isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human
activity. If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature
record, the only consequence of that seems to have been a growth
spurt of some bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in
Siberia.

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on. Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

d

[landotter]

On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?


Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

d

[landotter]

On Nov 26, 10:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter



wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

I'm an idiot because I require opinion to be served with evidence?
Laughable.

Your reasoning is just as retarded as creationists who find gods
wedged into each incomplete gap in the fossil record.

Occams razor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

You've not been paying attention, then. Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on. Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:27:22 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Nov 26, 10:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter



wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

I'm an idiot because I require opinion to be served with evidence?
Laughable.


The evidence was the post I was analysing. Nothing more was required.
Did you not see that I began my post "If that is a fact"?

Your reasoning is just as retarded as creationists who find gods
wedged into each incomplete gap in the fossil record.

Occams razor.

Exactly. When I am extrapolating reasoning from a claim in one post,
why would I needlessly multiply entities by introducing further
complications?

Try reading what is actually written, rather than what you would like
to have been written so you can argue against it.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:31:38 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

I don't think I'd ever do that.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:31:38 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

I don't think I'd ever do that.

Nor would I, but all those that followed up in this thread having names I
could not recall are in my bit-bucket now, this is not the place for that
thread.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:44:07 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:31:38 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Good that I didn't plonk via a topic rule ....

I don't think I'd ever do that.

Nor would I, but all those that followed up in this thread having names I
could not recall are in my bit-bucket now, this is not the place for that
thread.


My killfile is currently empty - its usual state. it takes a great
deal of personal rudeness to drop somebody in there. My policy with
threads is that if I am not interested in following one, I simply
click the "Ignore Thread" option, and I see no further posts in it.

d

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-26, Andre Jute wrote:
Ben C wrote:
[...]
So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

Actually I should say that M&M don't attribute the growth spurt of those
trees to CO2 fertilization. It's unknown what caused it. Since it only
affected a few groups of trees, it was presumably something local.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 8:42*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-26, Andre Jute wrote:

*Ben C wrote:
[...]
So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

Actually I should say that M&M don't attribute the growth spurt of those
trees to CO2 fertilization. It's unknown what caused it. Since it only
affected a few groups of trees, it was presumably something local.

Ah, all the times we heard the global warmies sneer that someone was
mistaking a little local weather for global climate, while they of
course did the same thing with monotonous regularly. Now we catch the
boss climate scientists out a) presenting a little local weather on an
obscure Colorado hilltop as global weather (Mann) and b) making out
that a few trees on an icy slope in Siberia is indicative of global
weather (Briffa). And in both cases they searched so hard for the
hockey stick (no, I tell you, it was Colonel Mustard in the library,
with the knife!) but found it not, except in the despicable,
unreliable bristle cones!

A little local weather up a deserted Colorado mountain, and a little
local weather on a deserted Siberian slope a thousand miles from
civilization, are setting global policy. I wonder if anyone has
explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. It still will
long after Man is gone.

[Clive George]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

I wonder if anyone has explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Why aren't you there Andre, rather than ranting away in a long-forgotton
corner of the internet?

You keep saying how you hang around in high places, hobnobbing with people
of stature - why aren't you talking to them?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 11:23*pm, "Clive George" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

I wonder if anyone has explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Why aren't you there Andre, rather than ranting away in a long-forgotton
corner of the internet?

You keep saying how you hang around in high places, hobnobbing with people
of stature - why aren't you talking to them?

Got any technical contribution, sonny? Or is are these petty attempts
to nip my ankles the total extent of your talent? -- AJ

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

My killfile is currently empty - its usual state. it takes a great
deal of personal rudeness to drop somebody in there.

My preferred method too, the most surprising guys can come up with relevant
stuff, but with the advent of the chinese spammers I made exceptions for
those and for mi5 and chung over in alt.support.diabetes.* and similar, this
because by backup newsserver in Australia has less good filtering than the
local one my isp has.

Server filtering of weirdos like mi5 is btw. quite problematic from a human
rights point of view, it is kinda like thinking that homelessness goes away
as soon as we get them away from the subway.

My policy with
threads is that if I am not interested in following one, I simply
click the "Ignore Thread" option, and I see no further posts in it.

Yes, but then a thread gets old and starts straying off in all kinds of
directions, so that also not efficient if one reads to gather knowhow.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:29:35 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

My killfile is currently empty - its usual state. it takes a great
deal of personal rudeness to drop somebody in there.

My preferred method too, the most surprising guys can come up with relevant
stuff, but with the advent of the chinese spammers I made exceptions for
those and for mi5 and chung over in alt.support.diabetes.* and similar, this
because by backup newsserver in Australia has less good filtering than the
local one my isp has.

Server filtering of weirdos like mi5 is btw. quite problematic from a human
rights point of view, it is kinda like thinking that homelessness goes away
as soon as we get them away from the subway.

My policy with
threads is that if I am not interested in following one, I simply
click the "Ignore Thread" option, and I see no further posts in it.

Yes, but then a thread gets old and starts straying off in all kinds of
directions, so that also not efficient if one reads to gather knowhow.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



Since I signed up with eternal-september's free news service, I don't
think I have seen a single piece of spam. I no longer bother using my
News Proxy download filter.

d

[AMuzi]

-snip-
Jobst Brandt wrote:
So what happened to our most consistent rude writer, aka "jim beam"?
-snip-


rec.autos.tech
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
AMuzi wrote:

-snip-
Jobst Brandt wrote:
So what happened to our most consistent rude writer, aka "jim beam"?
-snip-


rec.autos.tech

Seriously?

I have him killfiled so I wasn't much aware he was not active in r.b.t.
these days.

[AMuzi]

-snip-
Jobst Brandt wrote:
So what happened to our most consistent rude writer, aka "jim beam"?
-snip-

AMuzi wrote:
rec.autos.tech

Tim McNamara wrote:
Seriously?
I have him killfiled so I wasn't much aware he was not active in r.b.t.
these days.

Yes, but I think the "jim" accused of being "jim beam" on
RAT this week was another putz. Writing style is different.

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

[Michael Press]

In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

Server filtering of weirdos like mi5 is btw. quite problematic from a human
rights point of view, it is kinda like thinking that homelessness goes away
as soon as we get them away from the subway.

It does. Moving the homeless away from streams of people
dense with individuals predisposed to give money to
homeless decreases the homeless's income. Result:
fewer homeless.

--
Michael Press