Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2026 5:49 PM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 1:56 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2026 2:30 PM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:23 PM, Lane W wrote:
multistrada wrote:
Climate Effect: These fluctuations in solar wind and activity do >>>>>>> not represent a large increase in the total radiant energy
warming Earth's surface. NASA notes that human-emitted greenhouse >>>>>>> gases have a warming influence more than 270 times larger than
any slight additional solar forcing since 1750"
I'm lost. What's your point?
For now (thankfully) our sun is not emitting increased radiation in >>>>> anything more than regular, sporadic CMEs.
No one wants a nova event.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh boy...
-a(Hint:-a A nova requires multiple stars, as in "at least two".)
Dawn
Nope.
https://physics.berkeley.edu/news-events/news/astronomers-capture-
evidence-of-micronova
The first known record of an exploding star comes from Chinese
astronomers in the second century. A radiant object, bursting with
color, appeared suddenly in the night sky and glowed for about eight
months before fading away. In the 11th century, the glow of an
exploding star hung around for two whole years, appearing brighter
than the moon in the beginning. A few centuries have passed since one
lit up the darkness above, but astronomers, with their modern-day
telescopes, can look for them far beyond Earth, deep in the cosmos.
The non-astronomers among us may not be familiar with the science-y
terms that describe massive stars running out of hydrogen, collapsing
in on themselves, and destructing in a burst of bright light, but
werCOre acquainted with the word that describes it all: supernova. The
name just sounds mystical and rL? sparkly rL?, and the pictures are
usually beautiful.
Now allow me to introduce you to a new term: micronova.
Astronomers have discovered a new kind of stellar explosion that
occurs on the surface of small, dense stars known as white dwarfs. So
far, the researchers have spotted these explosions on three white
dwarfs, each more than a thousand light-years from Earth. Micronovae,
as their name suggests, are far less powerful than supernovae, but
they still produce tremendous amounts of energy.
Micronovae might be common in the universe, but because they are so
short-lived, even astronomersrCO most sophisticated instruments can
miss them. Astronomers now better understand white dwarfs, which is
what stars like our sun become after theyrCOve run out of fuel. (White
stars are often described in popular media as rCLzombie starsrCY because >>> of their previous lives as sun-like stars. But I like to think
theyrCOre the most relatable stars in the universe, because they are,
quite literally, burned out.)
There are so many un-sun-like stars out there, and astronomers are
eager to understand what makes them tick. Red dwarfs, for example,
are cooler and dimmer compared with sun-like stars, and if you lived
on a planet revolving around one, the sky would resemble a perpetual
sunset. Neutron stars, left behind when a massive star goes
supernova, are so dense that a teaspoon of the material inside has
the same mass as a small mountain on Earth. Pulsars are absolute
weirdos; they spin rapidly and emit luminous, electromagnetic beams
like beacons. In 2017, astronomers discovered an unusual star that
went supernova, somehow survived, and then exploded again.
Astronomers may discover that stellar explosions come in still more
sizesrConanonova, perhaps? (Now thatrCOs cute.) The familiar pinpricks of >>> light in our night sky, and the many others beyond our view, are far
more quirky than anyone imagined.
Honey, our Star, the Sun, is in no danger whatsoever of undergoing any
sort of "nova" event, at least until it undergoes a helium flash in
the far future of its evolution, and such events do not fall into the
category of being "nova" events.
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.
Dawn
multistrada is a case of severe indoctrination. He's more of a curiosity
to be studied than a source of rhetoric. Maybe we should pity him. It's
not really free will is it now, if you are forced to follow whatever
masters taught him long ago. Practically grooming IMO.
On 9/22/2026 6:58 PM, Lane W wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2026 5:49 PM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 1:56 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2026 2:30 PM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:23 PM, Lane W wrote:
multistrada wrote:
Climate Effect: These fluctuations in solar wind and activity do >>>>>>>> not represent a large increase in the total radiant energy
warming Earth's surface. NASA notes that human-emitted
greenhouse gases have a warming influence more than 270 times >>>>>>>> larger than any slight additional solar forcing since 1750"
I'm lost. What's your point?
For now (thankfully) our sun is not emitting increased radiation
in anything more than regular, sporadic CMEs.
No one wants a nova event.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh boy...
-a(Hint:-a A nova requires multiple stars, as in "at least two".)
Dawn
Nope.
https://physics.berkeley.edu/news-events/news/astronomers-capture-
evidence-of-micronova
The first known record of an exploding star comes from Chinese
astronomers in the second century. A radiant object, bursting with
color, appeared suddenly in the night sky and glowed for about eight
months before fading away. In the 11th century, the glow of an
exploding star hung around for two whole years, appearing brighter
than the moon in the beginning. A few centuries have passed since
one lit up the darkness above, but astronomers, with their modern-
day telescopes, can look for them far beyond Earth, deep in the cosmos. >>>>
The non-astronomers among us may not be familiar with the science-y
terms that describe massive stars running out of hydrogen,
collapsing in on themselves, and destructing in a burst of bright
light, but werCOre acquainted with the word that describes it all:
supernova. The name just sounds mystical and rL? sparkly rL?, and the >>>> pictures are usually beautiful.
Now allow me to introduce you to a new term: micronova.
Astronomers have discovered a new kind of stellar explosion that
occurs on the surface of small, dense stars known as white dwarfs.
So far, the researchers have spotted these explosions on three white
dwarfs, each more than a thousand light-years from Earth.
Micronovae, as their name suggests, are far less powerful than
supernovae, but they still produce tremendous amounts of energy.
Micronovae might be common in the universe, but because they are so
short-lived, even astronomersrCO most sophisticated instruments can
miss them. Astronomers now better understand white dwarfs, which is
what stars like our sun become after theyrCOve run out of fuel. (White >>>> stars are often described in popular media as rCLzombie starsrCY because >>>> of their previous lives as sun-like stars. But I like to think
theyrCOre the most relatable stars in the universe, because they are, >>>> quite literally, burned out.)
There are so many un-sun-like stars out there, and astronomers are
eager to understand what makes them tick. Red dwarfs, for example,
are cooler and dimmer compared with sun-like stars, and if you lived
on a planet revolving around one, the sky would resemble a perpetual
sunset. Neutron stars, left behind when a massive star goes
supernova, are so dense that a teaspoon of the material inside has
the same mass as a small mountain on Earth. Pulsars are absolute
weirdos; they spin rapidly and emit luminous, electromagnetic beams
like beacons. In 2017, astronomers discovered an unusual star that
went supernova, somehow survived, and then exploded again.
Astronomers may discover that stellar explosions come in still more
sizesrConanonova, perhaps? (Now thatrCOs cute.) The familiar pinpricks >>>> of light in our night sky, and the many others beyond our view, are
far more quirky than anyone imagined.
Honey, our Star, the Sun, is in no danger whatsoever of undergoing
any sort of "nova" event, at least until it undergoes a helium flash
in the far future of its evolution, and such events do not fall into
the category of being "nova" events.
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.
Dawn
multistrada is a case of severe indoctrination. He's more of a
curiosity to be studied than a source of rhetoric. Maybe we should
pity him. It's not really free will is it now, if you are forced to
follow whatever masters taught him long ago. Practically grooming IMO.
He's coming across as a preteen brat, and in my opinion, he's not too
old to have Mom and/or Dad swat him on his bottom two or three times,
stand him in a corner for an hour or two, assign 500 to 1000 "I will not
do this, but will do that" sentences, take away his phone & Internet for
2 or 3 weeks, and revoke some other privileges at least until there is a definitive change in his attitude & behavior.
Dawn
P.S.-a I hope that Mom and/or Dad are reading this!
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 1:42 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:12:10 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 7:28 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:36 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>
On 9/21/26 2:45 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:32:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 9/18/26 8:21 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:Hey, asswipe YOU left that unclear.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 16:04:42 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 9/17/26 4:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:51:03 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 2:56 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 12:29:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 12:10 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118h4j8$fl1j$1@dont-email.me:
On 9/16/26 8:27 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118ekm6$3jroq$1@dont-email.me:
How about we admit that the bulk of science is peer-herded and grant
compensated and leave it right there.
What is your objection to peer-reviewed science? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well?
It's just below...read it again:
What is your necessity for giverment-compensated herd disinformation?
What does government have to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private foundations supporting the work of
private professors working at private
universities?
Are you serious?
Where do you think grant funding for this junk 'science' comes from?
There are economic interests at play for climate change deniers as
well.
Big oil, blah...blah...blah...
Send up another industry to villify.
And you're not trying to vilify science?
As a whole?
So you don't believe scientists are scientists because they're >>>>>>>>> following the gravy trail of more and more grants and government >>>>>>>>> money?
Their actions (wilful or in erratum) do not negate their bona fide >>>>>>>> academic credentials, so quit trying to besmirch me for specious >>>>>>>> conclusions YOU have reached and falsely attributed to ME, dipshit. >>>>>>>
No.
I left their actions to speak for themselves.
By leaving it unclear what you were talking about.
Only to a pestilent long term troll in need of constant dissembling.
Like you Jonathan.
Oh, so *I'm* dissembling and you're the one making up alters without
evidence?
All in.
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Grant money is funding, not actual science.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from >>>>>>> joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)? >>>>
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding --
they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes?
Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence.
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well?
Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes.
We were talking about profits, not pantries.
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who
mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going
and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved
in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
AI Overview
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in
penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean
Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.?
Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of
violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in
October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.?
Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on
specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why
It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy
black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media."
I have no burden to support small business.
It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil. >>>>>>
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial >>>>> agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out
global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it >>>> even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about.
Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture."
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general?
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and >>>> food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa.
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily
relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply
domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as
integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply
domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through
small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic
nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquaculturerCoincluding
rice-paddy fish farmingrCoto support local food supplies and rural
livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national
population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial
fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports
are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on
external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to >>>> be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have Dropped
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) >>>> reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in
module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new >>>> pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with
traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs."
Compared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
So what's your reason for not buying a hybrid?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
And diesel at
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it?
I'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
Personally I have issues with anyone
citing "AI Overview" as a source.
It is owned by Google, famous for
groveling before all of Trumps'
"Gulf of America", "Lake America"
and "New America" renaming demands.
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/21/26 4:28 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/21/2026 11:38 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/18/26 9:15 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
I remember way back when maybe 5y back on a.g-w we used to talkPrecambrian. Though CO2 concentrations briefly peaked 320,000 years >>>>>> ago at 300 ppm, the average for the past 800,000 years was 230 ppm >>>>>> (Luthi 2008). The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600
about the UN's moinitoring of CO2 levels and emissions.
Some guy piped up and said CO2 and the UN was all lies and bullshit. >>>>>>> Everyone was non-plussed.-a Mr nitwit continued the UN didnt even >>>>>> Contrary to the oft-repeated mantra that todayrCOs CO2 concentration is >>>>>> unprecedentedly high, our current geologic period, the Quaternary, has >>>>>> seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide since the
million years was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current >>>>>> amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100. >>>>>> Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO2 >>>>>> concentration in more than 600 million years.
Problem with the above analysis is that our beloved Star, the Sun, is >>>>> brighter, hence, more luminous than it was 600 Mya.
Dawn
Why yes, yes it is!
However this may only be an apparent change in lumens
It is not. The sun radiates more energy than it did 600Mya.
Neither you nor I were around then to judge its appearance and apparent
coloration, so...
...so, what?
So you're saying there's no way to know how big
and how hot the sun was 600Mya, so you get to make up
whatever story you like?
...so there's no evidence of Sol's past life before you were
born?
So there are no other G-type main sequence dwarf stars
in the galaxy whose life cycle we can observe in detail?
...so, if sciency stuff makes a fool of you then it must all
be lies?
(snip childhood memory detour)
Meanwhile:
"600 Million Years Ago: The Sun's energy output was about 4% to 5% lower
Butbutbut... you just tried to suggest no one was around
600mya, therefore we know nothing about that time.
Creationists often use the same lame claim. You may not even
believe there was an earth 600 million years ago. Are you by
any chance a Genesis creationist?
https://science.nasa.gov/astrobiology/learning-resources/alp/sun-when-it-formed/
"The young Sun was a little different than the Sun we see today. The
young Sun was not as bright and didnrCOt give off as much heat as it does
today. But the young Earth was also a very different place than it is
now. Sometimes we talk about the air around Earth like itrCOs a blanket.
But some blankets are better at making you warm, and the air around the
young Earth was probably pretty good at keeping the planet warm."
Butbutbut... that's just what the last 2 posters just tried
to tell you. It's swell that now you've suddenly discovered
that all by yourself.
(our magnetosphere
is way down and letting more solar radiation in) as opposed to an actual >>>> increase in solar output.
No. The earth's magnetic field has no effect on incoming
sunlight. It only diverts cosmic radiation (charged
particles) towards the poles.
Nope:
"The only link between the two is evolutionary: over billions of years,
the magnetosphere has protected Earth's atmosphere from being slowly
stripped away by the solar wind (a process that occurred on Mars).
Oh, no you don't.
You're being taken to the woodshed for
your false claim that the geomagnetic field blocks sunlight.
You don't get to duck that by changing the subject to how the
wonderful geomagnetic fields are protecting the atmosphere.
Admission of wrongness nonetheless accepted as a step forward
in your doomed effort at rehabilitation.
Without the magnetosphere's protection, Earth would have a drastically
thinner atmosphere, which would heavily reduce the medium required for
Rayleigh scattering to take place."
No atmosphere would be close to the Martian scenario, and NASA can't
make up its mind which color filter to apply to their observations
without letting too much out of the bag regarding how Mars lost its
atmosphere.
Hooboy, here come the conspiracy theories -- a sure sign of a
rickety narrative that's incompatible with reality.
Do not contradict your betters. This ng is littered with
nutters whose asses still bear the indelible imprint of
Dawn's liberally fenestrated paddle.
"AI Overview
Yes, Earth's magnetosphere strongly impacts incoming solar radiation,
but specifically particle radiation and charged solar wind, rather than
light or ultraviolet (UV) rays.
That sounds a lot like what I just told you above.
Are you happy to be right for once?
(snip more AI regurgitation of what I already told you)
However:
https://www.space.com/the-universe/sun/is-solar-maximum-over-solar-cycle-25
Could Solar Cycle 25 exhibit a second peak, delaying solar maximum until >>>> later in 2025? It is certainly possible, although some may argue that
we've already experienced two peaks, in 2023 and 2024, respectively.
These peaks are not as clearly separated as in previous solar cycles,
but they do produce a clear inflection in the smoothed solar cycle
curve. Ultimately, we will have to wait another year or so to know when >>>> the true peak of the solar cycle occurred.
If we don't know where the "true peak" of the solar cycle is,
then there is not yet a "clear inflection" point, is there?
Of course we know where it is, historically the cycle has some small
variance, but the 11 year up and down is confirmed.
It's technically a 22 year cycle, but that's minor when we're
talking about a guy who thinks magnets block sunlight.
In retrospect we wait for the full establishment of the down leg of a
given solar cycle to go back and identify the "true peak":
If we don't know the "true peak", then we don't know where
the inflection point is, either, do we?
Here:
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-cycle-progression-and-forecast/
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle/historical-solar-cycles.html
You can see we had our "true peak" for solar cycle 25 in August-October
of 2024.
Did and done.
Solar cycle 24 peaked in February of 2014, so we're just shy the 11 year
cyclic expected top.
For that matter, how do you know we are "in the declining
portion of solar cycle 25"?
The data cRudey, use the data:
https://www.space.com/astronomy/sun/where-are-we-in-the-current-11-year-solar-cycle
Published September 9, 2025
"The current peak of this smoothed curve (purple in the above graphs)
occurred in October 2024, the current solar maximum of Solar Cycle 25.
Now you claim it's been known for a year when the "true peak"
happened.
Then go ahead and tell us, where on the curve was the
inflection point?
And why is it important?
"AI OverviewThat sounds a lot like what I just told you above.
Yes, Earth's magnetosphere strongly impacts incoming solar radiation,
but specifically particle radiation and charged solar wind, rather than
light or ultraviolet (UV) rays.
Are you happy to be right for once?
(snip more AI regurgitation of what I already told you)
DawnDuring a sunrise or sunset, the sun sits very low on the horizon, which
P.S.-a I hope that Mom and/or Dad are reading this!
Practically grooming IMO.During a sunrise or sunset, the sun sits very low on the horizon, which
--
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.
On 9/22/26 9:55 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/21/26 4:28 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Problem with the above analysis is that our beloved Star, the Sun, is >>>>> brighter, hence, more luminous than it was 600 Mya.
Dawn
Why yes, yes it is!
However this may only be an apparent change in lumens
It is not. The sun radiates more energy than it did 600Mya.
Neither you nor I were around then to judge its appearance and apparent
coloration, so...
...so, what?
So we'll have to take others words for the procession of solar and
celestial events to come then:
There are clear discussions of what was and will be again:
Revelation 6:12-7:4
Creationists often use the same lame claim. You may not even
believe there was an earth 600 million years ago. Are you by
any chance a Genesis creationist?
What I may or may not believe is irrelevant.
I do know that the Essenes and the Dogon report of a time before earth
had a moon, so...
It's also irrelevant to the change (apparent) in how we see the sun's coloration today.
We can posit it may also have looked more yellow then, but we don't have hard data, do we?
What we know now - it is bright white to the terrestrial viewers - same
as the ISS sees it.
(our magnetosphere
is way down and letting more solar radiation in) as opposed to an actual >>>> increase in solar output.
No. The earth's magnetic field has no effect on incoming
sunlight. It only diverts cosmic radiation (charged
particles) towards the poles.
Nope:
"The only link between the two is evolutionary: over billions of years,
the magnetosphere has protected Earth's atmosphere from being slowly
stripped away by the solar wind (a process that occurred on Mars).
Oh, no you don't.
Too late, I Just did, and:
https://www.livescience.com/space/mars/grand-canyon-size-scar-on-mars-revealed-like-never-before-in-striking-new-satellite-photos
Looks like evidence of a massive arc discharge, said to be a remnant of micronovae events.
You're being taken to the woodshed for
your false claim that the geomagnetic field blocks sunlight.
It certainly blocks solar "lights" at night = Auroras.
You don't get to duck that by changing the subject to how the
wonderful geomagnetic fields are protecting the atmosphere.
They're down over 35% now, so...
Hooboy, here come the conspiracy theories -- a sure sign of a
rickety narrative that's incompatible with reality.
And here come the denials, but then Never A Straight Answer loves to
play that game with us and make patches to mock us with:
If we don't know where the "true peak" of the solar cycle is,
then there is not yet a "clear inflection" point, is there?
Of course we know where it is, historically the cycle has some small
variance, but the 11 year up and down is confirmed.
It's technically a 22 year cycle, but that's minor when we're
talking about a guy who thinks magnets block sunlight.
When you find that strawman, marry it.
Rayleigh scattering is driven by changes in our magnetic fields.
Now you claim it's been known for a year when the "true peak"
happened.
Or a bit more, true.
Graphs are un-ambiguous,
Then go ahead and tell us, where on the curve was the
inflection point?
Read the charts for yourself, lazy troller.
And why is it important?
Because it allows us to determine the intensity and duration of regular repeating sun cycles, duh!
Are you that much of a moron, little man Ball?
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 9:55 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/21/26 4:28 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Problem with the above analysis is that our beloved Star, the Sun, is >>>>>>> brighter, hence, more luminous than it was 600 Mya.
Dawn
Why yes, yes it is!
However this may only be an apparent change in lumens
It is not. The sun radiates more energy than it did 600Mya.
Neither you nor I were around then to judge its appearance and apparent >>>> coloration, so...
...so, what?
So we'll have to take others words for the procession of solar and
celestial events to come then:
There are clear discussions of what was and will be again:
Revelation 6:12-7:4
So, you don't know how we can know the sun's temperature in
the past, so you're falling back on bible verses to postdict
it. You're a true creationist.
(snip bible verse diversion)
(snip 'we can't know the past' diversion)
Creationists often use the same lame claim. You may not even
believe there was an earth 600 million years ago. Are you by
any chance a Genesis creationist?
What I may or may not believe is irrelevant.
I do know that the Essenes and the Dogon report of a time before earth
had a moon, so...
Sure, because the mythology of primitive tribes is just as
authoratative as Genesis.
It's also irrelevant to the change (apparent) in how we see the sun's
coloration today.
We can posit it may also have looked more yellow then, but we don't have
hard data, do we?
*You* don't have any hard data. "We" is another story.
What we know now - it is bright white to the terrestrial viewers - same
as the ISS sees it.
<looking out window>
Yep, the sun is still yellow, just like last year.
(our magnetosphere
is way down and letting more solar radiation in) as opposed to an actual >>>>>> increase in solar output.
No. The earth's magnetic field has no effect on incoming
sunlight. It only diverts cosmic radiation (charged
particles) towards the poles.
Nope:
"The only link between the two is evolutionary: over billions of years, >>>> the magnetosphere has protected Earth's atmosphere from being slowly
stripped away by the solar wind (a process that occurred on Mars).
Oh, no you don't.
Too late, I Just did, and:
https://www.livescience.com/space/mars/grand-canyon-size-scar-on-mars-revealed-like-never-before-in-striking-new-satellite-photos
Looks like evidence of a massive arc discharge, said to be a remnant of
micronovae events.
LOL! The canyon on Mars must have been created by a "massive
arc discharge"
and therefore the geomagnetic field blocks
sunlight. Right......
You're being taken to the woodshed for
your false claim that the geomagnetic field blocks sunlight.
It certainly blocks solar "lights" at night = Auroras.
Now the geomagnetic field blocks the aurora too.
Amazing! So that's why the aurora has never been seen on earth!
You don't get to duck that by changing the subject to how the
wonderful geomagnetic fields are protecting the atmosphere.
They're down over 35% now, so...
News flash: the geomagnetic field has been waxing & waning,
popping, wandering, & reversing polarity, for billions of
years.
It's standard creationist screed that the geomagnetic
field has been in decline since The Fall, therefore we're all
doomed unless we repent.
Did you think we haven't heard that one before?
(snip yet another cosmic ray diversion, now from facebook)
Hooboy, here come the conspiracy theories -- a sure sign of a
rickety narrative that's incompatible with reality.
And here come the denials, but then Never A Straight Answer loves to
play that game with us and make patches to mock us with:
(snip more cosmic ray & NASA conspiracy diversions)
(snip meteorite diversion)
If we don't know where the "true peak" of the solar cycle is,
then there is not yet a "clear inflection" point, is there?
Of course we know where it is, historically the cycle has some small
variance, but the 11 year up and down is confirmed.
It's technically a 22 year cycle, but that's minor when we're
talking about a guy who thinks magnets block sunlight.
When you find that strawman, marry it.
Rayleigh scattering is driven by changes in our magnetic fields.
No it's not.
(snip rayleigh scattering diversion having nothing to do with
earth's magnetic field)
Now you claim it's been known for a year when the "true peak"
happened.
Or a bit more, true.
Graphs are un-ambiguous,
Then go ahead and tell us, where on the curve was the
inflection point?
Read the charts for yourself, lazy troller.
IOW, after all this, you admit you don't know what an
inflection point is.
And why is it important?
Because it allows us to determine the intensity and duration of regular
repeating sun cycles, duh!
Are you that much of a moron, little man Ball?
Your Rudy paranoia is unhealthy.
You need to turn off your computer for a good long time.
Your Rudy paranoia is unhealthy. You need to turn off yourGoggle AI finds:
computer for a good long time.
On 9/23/26 1:23 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 9:55 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/21/26 4:28 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Problem with the above analysis is that our beloved Star, the >>>>>>>> Sun, is
brighter, hence, more luminous than it was 600 Mya.
Dawn
Why yes, yes it is!
However this may only be an apparent change in lumens
It is not.-a The sun radiates more energy than it did 600Mya.
Neither you nor I were around then to judge its appearance and
apparent
coloration, so...
...so, what?
So we'll have to take others words for the procession of solar and
celestial events to come then:
There are clear discussions of what was and will be again:
Revelation 6:12-7:4
So, you don't know how we can know the sun's temperature in
the past, so you're falling back on bible verses to postdict
it.-a You're a true creationist.
The sun's temperature in the past is estimated but obviously no remote sensing existed at the time to measure it, you know this Rudence.
We all do:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 1:23 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 9:55 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/22/26 12:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/21/26 4:28 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Problem with the above analysis is that our beloved Star, the >>>>>>>>> Sun, is
brighter, hence, more luminous than it was 600 Mya.
Dawn
Why yes, yes it is!
However this may only be an apparent change in lumens
It is not.-a The sun radiates more energy than it did 600Mya.
Neither you nor I were around then to judge its appearance and
apparent
coloration, so...
...so, what?
So we'll have to take others words for the procession of solar and
celestial events to come then:
There are clear discussions of what was and will be again:
Revelation 6:12-7:4
So, you don't know how we can know the sun's temperature in
the past, so you're falling back on bible verses to postdict
it.-a You're a true creationist.
The sun's temperature in the past is estimated but obviously no remote
sensing existed at the time to measure it, you know this Rudence.
We all do:
Past sun brightness is not measured directly; instead, astronomers
calculate it using stellar evolution models and verify it by observing
solar analog proxy stars of different ages.
Key Methods Used by
ScientistsStandard Solar Models: Physicists use computer models based on nuclear physics to track how hydrogen fusion in the core changes the
density and temperature of the Sun over billions of years. As hydrogen
turns into denser helium, the core contracts, heating up the star and
making it roughly 10% brighter every billion years.
Solar Analog Proxies
("The Sun in Time"): Astronomers observe nearby real stars that match
the mass, chemical composition, and metallicity of our Sun but possess different known ages and rotation rates. By measuring the brightness and magnetic activity of these younger or older twin stars, scientists reconstruct how bright our own Sun likely was in the past.
Cosmochemical
& Geological Clues: Researchers study ancient meteorites, lunar samples,
and Earth's oldest mineral crystals (like 4.4 billion-year-old zircons)
to constrain the timeline of the early solar system and test how the
faint early Sun interacted with planetary atmospheres.-
Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner
Norway's Favorite Son
They can still see his headless body stalkin' through the night
And the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
On 9/22/26 8:10 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 1:42 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:12:10 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 7:28 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:36 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 9/21/26 2:45 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:32:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 9/18/26 8:21 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:Hey, asswipe YOU left that unclear.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 16:04:42 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 9/17/26 4:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:51:03 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 2:56 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 12:29:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 12:10 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118h4j8$fl1j$1@dont-email.me:
On 9/16/26 8:27 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118ekm6$3jroq$1@dont-email.me:
How about we admit that the bulk of science is peer-herded and grant
compensated and leave it right there.
What is your objection to peer-reviewed science? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well?
It's just below...read it again:
What is your necessity for giverment-compensated herd disinformation?
What does government have to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private foundations supporting the work of
private professors working at private
universities?
Are you serious?
Where do you think grant funding for this junk 'science' comes from?
There are economic interests at play for climate change deniers as
well.
Big oil, blah...blah...blah...
Send up another industry to villify.
And you're not trying to vilify science?
As a whole?
So you don't believe scientists are scientists because they're >>>>>>>>>> following the gravy trail of more and more grants and government >>>>>>>>>> money?
Their actions (wilful or in erratum) do not negate their bona fide >>>>>>>>> academic credentials, so quit trying to besmirch me for specious >>>>>>>>> conclusions YOU have reached and falsely attributed to ME, dipshit. >>>>>>>>
No.
I left their actions to speak for themselves.
By leaving it unclear what you were talking about.
Only to a pestilent long term troll in need of constant dissembling. >>>>>
Like you Jonathan.
Oh, so *I'm* dissembling and you're the one making up alters without
evidence?
All in.
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Since you were outed by AI:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive, >decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with
other postersuand frequently with himselfuto dominate discussions and >manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his
IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of >confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own >arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted
his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose
him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and >misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He >frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or >conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual >capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a
thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet
users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used >header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove
Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
Grant money is funding, not actual science.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from >>>>>>>> joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)? >>>>>
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding --
they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes?
Peer-herded and grant-fed cience is done to order - not to outcome.
Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence.
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.
No it functions as an accusation, which you know.
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
And taxes support giverments, so?
"Science" isn't impossible without funding, is it?
EinsteinAs Miracle Year (1905):
While working a day job as a low-level clerk at a Swiss patent office, >Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers. With zero research >grants or academic backing, he proved the existence of atoms (Brownian >motion), explained the photoelectric effect (which laid the foundation
for quantum mechanics), and introduced Special Relativity.
The Periodic Table (1869):
Dmitri Mendeleev organized the building blocks of chemistry by looking
for patterns in the known elements. He mapped out the Periodic Table by >writing elements on cards and arranging them like a game of solitaire, >accurately predicting the existence and properties of elements that
hadn't even been discovered yet.
>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well?
Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes.
We were talking about profits, not pantries.
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who
mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big
agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going
and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
Nor should small bidnits, and that happens all the time as well, as
proved below:
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved >>>> in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
So your outrage model is only calibrated for "big business" as demon >started.
At the end of the game it is really all about HUMAN NATURE - which still >baffles you, litle man Ball...
AI Overview
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in
penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean
Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.?
Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of
violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in
October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.?
Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on
specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why
It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy
black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media."
I have no burden to support small business.
No one said you did - what a deflective rejoinder, as usual.
^^^^^^"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
I prevail again.
It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil. >>>>>>>
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial >>>>>> agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out
global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it >>>>> even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about.
So what?
My answer comports with your artlessly tendered moot question.
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general?Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture." >>
What of it?
And what of hydroponic agriculture?
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and >>>>> food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa.
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily >>>>> relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply
domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as
integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply
domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through
small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic
nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquacultureuincluding
rice-paddy fish farminguto support local food supplies and rural
livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national
population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial
fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports >>>>> are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on
external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to >>>>> be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have Dropped
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) >>>>> reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in
module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new >>>>> pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with >>>>> traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs."
Compared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
Little man...sigh...
So what's your reason for not buying a hybrid?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
But not the potent rush of 800 for passing!
Nor the powertrain GVW rating to handle a large trailer and load.
And diesel at
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it?
I'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
It's not even close to what I pay.
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
I have you sandboxed here Ball, tee hee...
They can still see his headless body stalkin' through the night
And the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:01:23 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 8:10 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 1:42 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:12:10 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>
On 9/22/26 7:28 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:36 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 9/21/26 2:45 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:32:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 9/18/26 8:21 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:Hey, asswipe YOU left that unclear.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 16:04:42 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 4:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:51:03 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 2:56 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 12:29:27 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/17/26 12:10 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118h4j8$fl1j$1@dont-email.me:
On 9/16/26 8:27 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:118ekm6$3jroq$1@dont-email.me:
How about we admit that the bulk of science is peer-herded and grant
compensated and leave it right there.
What is your objection to peer-reviewed science? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well?
It's just below...read it again:
What is your necessity for giverment-compensated herd disinformation?
What does government have to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private foundations supporting the work of
private professors working at private
universities?
Are you serious?
Where do you think grant funding for this junk 'science' comes from?
There are economic interests at play for climate change deniers as
well.
Big oil, blah...blah...blah...
Send up another industry to villify.
And you're not trying to vilify science?
As a whole?
So you don't believe scientists are scientists because they're >>>>>>>>>>> following the gravy trail of more and more grants and government >>>>>>>>>>> money?
Their actions (wilful or in erratum) do not negate their bona fide >>>>>>>>>> academic credentials, so quit trying to besmirch me for specious >>>>>>>>>> conclusions YOU have reached and falsely attributed to ME, dipshit. >>>>>>>>>
No.
I left their actions to speak for themselves.
By leaving it unclear what you were talking about.
Only to a pestilent long term troll in need of constant dissembling. >>>>>>
Like you Jonathan.
Oh, so *I'm* dissembling and you're the one making up alters without >>>>> evidence?
All in.
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Since you were outed by AI:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive,
decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with
other postersrCoand frequently with himselfrCoto dominate discussions and
manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his
IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of
confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own
arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted
his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose
him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and
misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He
frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or
conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual
capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a
thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet
users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used
header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove
Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
You've got the wrong guy, man.
I have nothing to do with California,
economics, a PhD in any field, survivalism, multiple account usage or
the use of sock puppets, hobby newsgroups, the ubiquitous Rudy Canoza,
or arguing with myself via sock puppets. Nor am I "more aggressive"
than anyone else, at least by Usenet standards.
Grant money is funding, not actual science.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from >>>>>>>>> joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)? >>>>>>
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding --
they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes?
Peer-herded and grant-fed cience is done to order - not to outcome.
No, science is a meritocracy, which makes outcome more important than
order.
Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence.
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.
No it functions as an accusation, which you know.
The thing about these things called "questions" is, someone asks you a question, and you answer it.
That's different from an accusation,
where further debate is necessary to determine the validity of the accusation.
Here's a sample of how to use questions in every-day discussions:
Me: Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You: The answer is no, it isn't, either here or elsewhere.
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
And taxes support giverments, so?
Getting grants is actually a very difficult process. You can't just
ask for a handout without explaining in detail why you need it.
"Science" isn't impossible without funding, is it?
EinsteinrCOs Miracle Year (1905):
While working a day job as a low-level clerk at a Swiss patent office,
Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers. With zero research
grants or academic backing, he proved the existence of atoms (Brownian
motion), explained the photoelectric effect (which laid the foundation
for quantum mechanics), and introduced Special Relativity.
We can't all be Einstein. For those who aren't, science is a
full-time occupation and not a side-hustle from something else. I
mean, do you really want your country's R&D budget to be just a pencil
and paper?
The Periodic Table (1869):
Dmitri Mendeleev organized the building blocks of chemistry by looking
for patterns in the known elements. He mapped out the Periodic Table by
writing elements on cards and arranging them like a game of solitaire,
accurately predicting the existence and properties of elements that
hadn't even been discovered yet.
Obviously, not all science is that straightforward.
For example,
grants can be used to get access to laboratory equipment -- which may,
in experimental physics (as opposed to Einstein's theoretical physics) involve traveling to CERN to join teams of scientists working together
to study sub-atomic particles.
We were talking about profits, not pantries.>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well?
Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes. >>>>>>>
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who
mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big
agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going
and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
Nor should small bidnits, and that happens all the time as well, as
proved below:
Sure. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved >>>>> in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
So your outrage model is only calibrated for "big business" as demon
started.
Why couldn't there be outrage against small businesses as well?
At the end of the game it is really all about HUMAN NATURE - which still
baffles you, litle man Ball...
No, being a human myself, I have little to be baffled by by the study
of human nature.
AI Overview
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in
penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean
Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.?
Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of
violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in >>>> October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.?
Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on
specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why
It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy
black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media."
I have no burden to support small business.
No one said you did - what a deflective rejoinder, as usual.
You yourself said I did. It's still preserved in the quoted text
above, to wit,
^^^^^^"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
I prevail again.
LOL! Not quite.
It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil.
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial >>>>>>> agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out >>>>>> global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it >>>>>> even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about.
So what?
Let me restate what I said, since you may not be following along:
You: Aquaculture Is agriculture.
Me[Cliff Notes version]: I didn't say aquaculture *wasn't*
agriculture, only that that's not what I asked you about.
My answer comports with your artlessly tendered moot question.
Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture."
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general?
What of it?
It can be used to mitigate the effects of agriculture on climate
change, as I understand it.
And what of hydroponic agriculture?
If they're making progress with that, that's good. But I wasn't
asking about hydroponic agriculture.
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and >>>>>> food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa.
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily >>>>>> relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply >>>>>> domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as >>>>>> integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply >>>>>> domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through
small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic >>>>>> nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquaculturerCoincluding >>>>>> rice-paddy fish farmingrCoto support local food supplies and rural >>>>>> livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national
population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial
fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports >>>>>> are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on
external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to >>>>>> be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have Dropped
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) >>>>>> reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in
module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new >>>>>> pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with >>>>>> traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs."
Compared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
Little man...sigh...
Yeah, right. LOL!
So what's your reason for not buying a hybrid?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
But not the potent rush of 800 for passing!
Nor the powertrain GVW rating to handle a large trailer and load.
But you don't want to drive that around when you're not towing, right?
And diesel at
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it?
I'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
It's not even close to what I pay.
What do you pay?
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
I have you sandboxed here Ball, tee hee...
The real question is will you accept the lack of evidence for this
supposed connection between me and Jonathan Ball, or will you continue
to troll on the topic?
On 9/22/26 8:24 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Personally I have issues with anyone
citing "AI Overview" as a source.
It is owned by Google, famous for
groveling before all of Trumps'
"Gulf of America", "Lake America"
and "New America" renaming demands.
Go lay down somewhere Twitchy Mitchy, the subject at hand has passed
you by.
On 9/23/26 3:09 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:01:23 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 8:10 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote: <snip>
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Since you were outed by AI:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive,
decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with
other postersuand frequently with himselfuto dominate discussions and
manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his
IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of
confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own
arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted
his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose
him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and
misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He
frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or
conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual
capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a
thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet
users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used
header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove
Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
You've got the wrong guy, man.
Sure...Rudence...
I have nothing to do with California,
economics, a PhD in any field, survivalism, multiple account usage or
the use of sock puppets, hobby newsgroups, the ubiquitous Rudy Canoza,
or arguing with myself via sock puppets. Nor am I "more aggressive"
than anyone else, at least by Usenet standards.
:-|
Grant money is funding, not actual science.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from
joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)? >>>>>>>
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding --
they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes?
Peer-herded and grant-fed cience is done to order - not to outcome.
No, science is a meritocracy, which makes outcome more important than
order.
Incorrect.
When the order controls the funding, the outcome will fit.
AI Overview
"Government-funded "junk science" or wasteful studies usually refer to >unusual or seemingly pointless basic research grants highlighted by
watchdog groups and congressional critics.
Examples of Questionable Government-Funded StudiesShrimp on a Treadmill:
The National Science Foundation funded a study putting snapping shrimp
on a tiny motorized treadmill to test how exhaustion affects their
physical performance and oxygen consumption.
Drunken Finches: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a >multi-million dollar grant to study whether zebra finches slur their
mating songs when given alcohol-spiked juice.
Chimpanzee Feces Throwing: The NIH spent over $500,000 at Emory
University to explore the neurological and behavioral reasons why chimps >throw feces.
Shark Music Perception: The federal government spent roughly $3 million
via the National Science Foundation to analyze human fear reactions to >sharks while playing the Jaws theme song.Swedish
Massages for Rabbits: Highlighted in federal waste reports, funds were >allocated to test the physiological recovery effects of Swedish-style >massages on rabbits.
Why These Studies Happen
Basic vs. Applied Science: Many peculiar-sounding projects are actually >basic foundational research into muscle fatigue, neurological mapping,
or acoustic fear conditioning that use animal models applicable to humans.
Peer Review & Grant Allocation: Critics argue that grant review panels
at agencies like the NSF and NIH sometimes approve low-priority, niche >topics. Proponents counter that unexpected basic research often yields >foundational discoveries (such as NASA's spinoff technologies or genetic >milestones initially dismissed as "junk").
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence. >>>>
No it functions as an accusation, which you know.
The thing about these things called "questions" is, someone asks you a
question, and you answer it.
You must never have given testimony in court.
That's different from an accusation,
where further debate is necessary to determine the validity of the
accusation.
That is an obfuscation as all pertinent information is within your grasp >here.
Here's a sample of how to use questions in every-day discussions:
Me: Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You: The answer is no, it isn't, either here or elsewhere.
Nice Punch & Judy show Rudence, better than your normal sputtering >indignation anyway...
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
And taxes support giverments, so?
Getting grants is actually a very difficult process. You can't just
ask for a handout without explaining in detail why you need it.
Irrelevant to outcome generated and paid for.
In fact the easiest path to grant money is to peer herd under government >funded cover.
"Science" isn't impossible without funding, is it?
EinsteinAs Miracle Year (1905):
While working a day job as a low-level clerk at a Swiss patent office,
Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers. With zero research >>> grants or academic backing, he proved the existence of atoms (Brownian
motion), explained the photoelectric effect (which laid the foundation
for quantum mechanics), and introduced Special Relativity.
We can't all be Einstein. For those who aren't, science is a
full-time occupation and not a side-hustle from something else. I
mean, do you really want your country's R&D budget to be just a pencil
and paper?
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
The Periodic Table (1869):
Dmitri Mendeleev organized the building blocks of chemistry by looking
for patterns in the known elements. He mapped out the Periodic Table by
writing elements on cards and arranging them like a game of solitaire,
accurately predicting the existence and properties of elements that
hadn't even been discovered yet.
Obviously, not all science is that straightforward.
More obfuscation, and deflective micro-debating.
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
For example,
grants can be used to get access to laboratory equipment -- which may,
in experimental physics (as opposed to Einstein's theoretical physics)
involve traveling to CERN to join teams of scientists working together
to study sub-atomic particles.
Non sequitur to spontaneous science - next!
We were talking about profits, not pantries.>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well?
Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes. >>>>>>>>
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who
mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big
agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going
and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
Nor should small bidnits, and that happens all the time as well, as
proved below:
Sure. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
Yet here you are for that.
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved >>>>>> in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
So your outrage model is only calibrated for "big business" as demon
started.
Why couldn't there be outrage against small businesses as well?
You led with big bidnits, you tel me.
I just showed you that human nature in large or small collective is
still human nature.
At the end of the game it is really all about HUMAN NATURE - which still >>> baffles you, litle man Ball...
No, being a human myself, I have little to be baffled by by the study
of human nature.
That is a LARF!
You are a walking ,talking example of corrupted human nature.
AI Overview
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in
penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean >>>>> Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah >>>>> Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.?
Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of >>>>> violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in >>>>> October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.? >>>>> Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on
specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why >>>>> It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters >>>>> (DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy
black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media."
I have no burden to support small business.
No one said you did - what a deflective rejoinder, as usual.
You yourself said I did. It's still preserved in the quoted text
above, to wit,
I was the one who introduced small bidnits to the discussion, not you.
^^^^^^"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
I prevail again.
LOL! Not quite.
Always.
It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil.
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial >>>>>>>> agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out >>>>>>> global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it
even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about.
So what?
Let me restate what I said, since you may not be following along:
You: Aquaculture Is agriculture.
Me[Cliff Notes version]: I didn't say aquaculture *wasn't*
agriculture, only that that's not what I asked you about.
Your disingenuous queries are dismissed, always.
My answer comports with your artlessly tendered moot question.
Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture."
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general?
What of it?
It can be used to mitigate the effects of agriculture on climate
change, as I understand it.
But climate change of the AGW-blamed sort is actually INCREASING >agricultural yields!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3510102/
CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8% per decade.
AI Overview
Elevated carbon dioxide (CO?) levels can act as a natural fertilizer
that accelerates basic plant growth and photosynthesis in specific >settings.?
Potential Benefits of Climate Change
Conditions on CropsCO? Fertilization: Higher atmospheric carbon can
boost early-stage growth and water-use efficiency in certain plants.
Longer Growing Seasons: Warmer temperatures expand arable regions and
extend frost-free days in northern areas like Northern Europe.
New Cultivation Zones: Changing climate bands allow certain staple crops
or new commodities to thrive in previously too-cold latitudes.
Offsetting Effects: CO? enhancement has historically balanced minor
thermal stress for specific resilient wheat and rice strains.
And what of hydroponic agriculture?
If they're making progress with that, that's good. But I wasn't
asking about hydroponic agriculture.
To bad, it's a *shining star* where earth terrarium models are concerned.
(pun intentional)
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and
food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa.
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily >>>>>>> relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply >>>>>>> domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as >>>>>>> integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply >>>>>>> domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through
small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic >>>>>>> nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquacultureuincluding >>>>>>> rice-paddy fish farminguto support local food supplies and rural >>>>>>> livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national
population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial >>>>>>> fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports >>>>>>> are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on >>>>>>> external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to
be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have Dropped
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) >>>>>>> reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in
module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new
pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with >>>>>>> traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs."
Compared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
Little man...sigh...
Yeah, right. LOL!
Suckramento ornamental orange crop looking good this season?
So what's your reason for not buying a hybrid?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
But not the potent rush of 800 for passing!
Nor the powertrain GVW rating to handle a large trailer and load.
But you don't want to drive that around when you're not towing, right?
Why not?
No one dares cut me off.
And diesel at
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it?
I'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
It's not even close to what I pay.
What do you pay?
Lowest Prices Texas: ~$5.97 per gallon (the only state tracking below
the $6 threshold)Other lower-tier states: Hovering just above $6.00 to
$6.25 per gallon (such as parts of the Gulf Coast and southern plains).
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
I have you sandboxed here Ball, tee hee...
The real question is will you accept the lack of evidence for this
supposed connection between me and Jonathan Ball, or will you continue
to troll on the topic?
Little man, I will educate you like it or not.
On 9/22/26 5:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.
https://www.plasma-universe.com/heliospheric-current-sheet/
Heliospheric current sheet
The Heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is the surface within the Solar
System where the polarity of the SunrCOs magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends from the SunrCOs equatorial plane throughout the entire Solar System and is the largest structure in the heliosphere.
[1] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the
SunrCOs rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind).[2] (see also Unipolar generator). A small electrical
current flows within the sheet, about 10-10 amps/m2. The thickness of
the current sheet is about 10,000km.
The underlying magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic
field, which has an associated interplanetary electric field [3], and
the resulting electric current forms part of the heliospheric current circuit.[4] The Heliospheric current sheet is also sometimes called the Interplanetary Current Sheet and Heliospheric neutral sheet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260519224322.htm
Scientists found a giant magnetic rCLtwistrCY hidden inside the Milky Way
A hidden magnetic twist inside the Milky Way may rewrite what scientists know about how our galaxy is held together.
A Strange Magnetic Reversal in the Sagittarius Arm
One of the most surprising discoveries involved the Sagittarius Arm, a region of the Milky Way where the magnetic field appears to reverse direction.
"If you could look at the galaxy from above, the overall magnetic field
is going clockwise," says Brown. "But, in the Sagittarius Arm, it's
going counterclockwise. We didn't understand how the transition
occurred. Then one day, Anna brought in some data, and I went, 'O.M.G.,
the reversal's diagonal!'"
Booth later expanded on Ordog's finding using the newly collected data.
"My work presents a new three-dimensional model for the magnetic field reversal. From Earth, this would appear as the diagonal that we observe
in the data," Booth explains.
The discovery provides researchers with an important new clue about the hidden magnetic architecture of the Milky Way and could help scientists better understand how galaxies evolve over time.
RELATED TOPICS
Space & Time
Space Exploration
Space Telescopes
NASA
Galaxies
Dark Matter
Astrophysics
Cosmology
Astronomy
RELATED TERMS
Milky Way
Edwin Hubble
Radio telescope
Spitzer space telescope
Globular cluster
Magellanic Clouds
Geomagnetic reversal
Astronomy
On 9/22/26 5:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:|...
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.https://www.plasma-universe.com/heliospheric-current-sheet/
On 9/22/26 5:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:|...
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.https://www.plasma-universe.com/heliospheric-current-sheet/
|You're good at copying & pasting! Nothing in the above has anything |whatsoever do with the OP.
|Dawn
You've picked his weak spot -- the ability to tell the difference
between any 2 things. Different atoms; different chemicals;
different planets; stars and planets; people; you name it -- they
all look the same to him.
After 10-15y on A.G-W a small consensus suggests the guy -- seemingly
at one time running a PR firm of sorts out of post drop in NYC --
is markedly dimmer and not quite so crazy as that other one.
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:1190t6a$1u06s$2@dont-email.me:
On 9/22/26 8:24 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Personally I have issues with anyone
citing "AI Overview" as a source.
It is owned by Google, famous for
groveling before all of Trumps'
"Gulf of America", "Lake America"
and "New America" renaming demands.
Go lay down somewhere Twitchy Mitchy, the subject at hand has passed
you by.
If your only proof of something
is "AI Overview" then you have no
proof.
ROTFLMFAO!!!-
You're good at copying & pasting!
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide between
the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in several years)
and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then, perhaps, some will at
least begin to change their minds.-a But, as with the measles outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature does!-a As such, it may be a
really long time before Florida will look like it does today!!
Dawn
On 9/22/26 5:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:|...
And, so, you don't know what you're talking about.https://www.plasma-universe.com/heliospheric-current-sheet/
|You're good at copying & pasting! Nothing in the above has anything |whatsoever do with the OP.
|Dawn
You've picked his weak spot -- the ability to tell the difference
between any 2 things. Different atoms; different chemicals;
different planets; stars and planets; people; you name it -- they
all look the same to him.
After 10-15y on A.G-W a small consensus suggests the guy -- seemingly
at one time running a PR firm of sorts out of post drop in NYC --
is markedly dimmer and not quite so crazy as that other one.
On 9/23/26 8:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote in news:1190t6a$1u06s$2@dont-email.me:
On 9/22/26 8:24 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Personally I have issues with anyone
citing "AI Overview" as a source.
It is owned by Google, famous for
groveling before all of Trumps'
"Gulf of America", "Lake America"
and "New America" renaming demands.
Go lay down somewhere Twitchy Mitchy, the subject at hand has passed
you by.
-a-a-a If your only proof of something
is "AI Overview" then you have no
proof.
ROTFLMFAO!!!-
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:35:37 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/23/26 3:09 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:01:23 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 8:10 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Since you were outed by AI:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive,
decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with
other postersrCoand frequently with himselfrCoto dominate discussions and >>>> manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his >>>> IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of
confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own
arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted >>>> his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose >>>> him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and
misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He >>>> frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or >>>> conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual
capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a >>>> thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet >>>> users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used >>>> header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove >>>> Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
You've got the wrong guy, man.
Sure...Rudence...
That should be "Sure...because" rather than "Sure... Rudence"
I have nothing to do with California,
economics, a PhD in any field, survivalism, multiple account usage or
the use of sock puppets, hobby newsgroups, the ubiquitous Rudy Canoza,
or arguing with myself via sock puppets. Nor am I "more aggressive"
than anyone else, at least by Usenet standards.
:-|
Peer-herded and grant-fed cience is done to order - not to outcome.Grant money is funding, not actual science.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from
joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>>>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)? >>>>>>>>
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding --
they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes? >>>>
No, science is a meritocracy, which makes outcome more important than
order.
Incorrect.
When the order controls the funding, the outcome will fit.
That's not how science works. In science outcomes that *don't* fit
are the interesting ones.
AI Overview
"Government-funded "junk science" or wasteful studies usually refer to
unusual or seemingly pointless basic research grants highlighted by
watchdog groups and congressional critics.
Examples of Questionable Government-Funded StudiesShrimp on a Treadmill:
The National Science Foundation funded a study putting snapping shrimp
on a tiny motorized treadmill to test how exhaustion affects their
physical performance and oxygen consumption.
Drunken Finches: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a
multi-million dollar grant to study whether zebra finches slur their
mating songs when given alcohol-spiked juice.
Chimpanzee Feces Throwing: The NIH spent over $500,000 at Emory
University to explore the neurological and behavioral reasons why chimps
throw feces.
Shark Music Perception: The federal government spent roughly $3 million
via the National Science Foundation to analyze human fear reactions to
sharks while playing the Jaws theme song.Swedish
Massages for Rabbits: Highlighted in federal waste reports, funds were
allocated to test the physiological recovery effects of Swedish-style
massages on rabbits.
Why These Studies Happen
Basic vs. Applied Science: Many peculiar-sounding projects are actually
basic foundational research into muscle fatigue, neurological mapping,
or acoustic fear conditioning that use animal models applicable to humans. >>
Peer Review & Grant Allocation: Critics argue that grant review panels
at agencies like the NSF and NIH sometimes approve low-priority, niche
topics. Proponents counter that unexpected basic research often yields
foundational discoveries (such as NASA's spinoff technologies or genetic
milestones initially dismissed as "junk").
See your own quote, right under "Why these studies happen."
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence. >>>>>
No it functions as an accusation, which you know.
The thing about these things called "questions" is, someone asks you a
question, and you answer it.
You must never have given testimony in court.
LOL! I understand they ask questions there.
That's different from an accusation,
where further debate is necessary to determine the validity of the
accusation.
That is an obfuscation as all pertinent information is within your grasp
here.
How does that lead to obfuscation?
Here's a sample of how to use questions in every-day discussions:
Me: Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You: The answer is no, it isn't, either here or elsewhere.
Nice Punch & Judy show Rudence, better than your normal sputtering
indignation anyway...
Hey, I'm still indignant!
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
And taxes support giverments, so?
Getting grants is actually a very difficult process. You can't just
ask for a handout without explaining in detail why you need it.
Irrelevant to outcome generated and paid for.
In fact the easiest path to grant money is to peer herd under government
funded cover.
No,
in science you want to *stand out* from the herd. Otherwise you
risk being ignored, almost the worse thing that can happen to you in
science.
"Science" isn't impossible without funding, is it?
EinsteinrCOs Miracle Year (1905):
While working a day job as a low-level clerk at a Swiss patent office, >>>> Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers. With zero research >>>> grants or academic backing, he proved the existence of atoms (Brownian >>>> motion), explained the photoelectric effect (which laid the foundation >>>> for quantum mechanics), and introduced Special Relativity.
We can't all be Einstein. For those who aren't, science is a
full-time occupation and not a side-hustle from something else. I
mean, do you really want your country's R&D budget to be just a pencil
and paper?
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
Of course. I don't know that that was your point, but still...
Dmitri Mendeleev organized the building blocks of chemistry by looking >>>> for patterns in the known elements. He mapped out the Periodic Table by >>>> writing elements on cards and arranging them like a game of solitaire, >>>> accurately predicting the existence and properties of elements that
hadn't even been discovered yet.
Obviously, not all science is that straightforward.
More obfuscation, and deflective micro-debating.
What don't you understand about "not all science is that
straightforward"?
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
See above, where you began repeating yourself.
For example,
grants can be used to get access to laboratory equipment -- which may,
in experimental physics (as opposed to Einstein's theoretical physics)
involve traveling to CERN to join teams of scientists working together
to study sub-atomic particles.
Non sequitur to spontaneous science - next!
Spontaneous science is actually a part of organized science.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.We were talking about profits, not pantries.>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well?
Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes. >>>>>>>>>
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who
mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to. >>>>>>
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big >>>>> agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going
and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
Nor should small bidnits, and that happens all the time as well, as
proved below:
Sure. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
Yet here you are for that.
No, I meant you've probably talked about this with someone else, and
are attributing their arguments to me.
You keep attacking small
business, when I don't care enough about small business to feel a
burden to defend it.
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved >>>>>>> in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
So your outrage model is only calibrated for "big business" as demon
started.
Why couldn't there be outrage against small businesses as well?
You led with big bidnits, you tel me.
Well, I would say *obviously* the same standard should be applied to
small business as is applied to big business.
What would you say?
I just showed you that human nature in large or small collective is
still human nature.
You showed nothing, although it would be strange if you *couldn't*
show that, since it's a tautology (human nature is...human nature -- obviously!)
At the end of the game it is really all about HUMAN NATURE - which still >>>> baffles you, litle man Ball...
No, being a human myself, I have little to be baffled by by the study
of human nature.
That is a LARF!
You are a walking ,talking example of corrupted human nature.
Are you religious or something?
AI OverviewI have no burden to support small business.
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in >>>>>> penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean >>>>>> Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah >>>>>> Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.? >>>>>> Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of >>>>>> violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in >>>>>> October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.? >>>>>> Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on >>>>>> specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why >>>>>> It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters >>>>>> (DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy >>>>>> black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media." >>>>>
No one said you did - what a deflective rejoinder, as usual.
You yourself said I did. It's still preserved in the quoted text
above, to wit,
I was the one who introduced small bidnits to the discussion, not you.
The way you introduced it seemed to imply that I had tacitly
introduced it, by having an interest in defending small business.
^^^^^^"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
I prevail again.
LOL! Not quite.
Always.
You're deluded.
It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil.
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial >>>>>>>>> agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out >>>>>>>> global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it
even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about.
So what?
Let me restate what I said, since you may not be following along:
You: Aquaculture Is agriculture.
Me[Cliff Notes version]: I didn't say aquaculture *wasn't*
agriculture, only that that's not what I asked you about.
Your disingenuous queries are dismissed, always.
How were they supposedly disingenuous?
Read more about what I was
talking about here:
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/organic-agriculture
My answer comports with your artlessly tendered moot question.
Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture."
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general?
What of it?
It can be used to mitigate the effects of agriculture on climate
change, as I understand it.
But climate change of the AGW-blamed sort is actually INCREASING
agricultural yields!
While still leaving a large carbon footprint.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3510102/
CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8% per decade.
Read right after that, where it says:
"At the same time, warming trends are likely to reduce global yields
by roughly 1.5% per decade without effective adaptation, with a
plausible range from roughly 0% to 4%.
The upper end of this range is
half of the expected 8% rate of gain from technological and management improvements over the next few decades. Many global change factors
that will likely challenge yields, including higher O3 and greater
rainfall intensity, are not considered in most current assessments."
AI Overview
Elevated carbon dioxide (CO?) levels can act as a natural fertilizer
that accelerates basic plant growth and photosynthesis in specific
settings.?
Potential Benefits of Climate Change
Conditions on CropsCO? Fertilization: Higher atmospheric carbon can
boost early-stage growth and water-use efficiency in certain plants.
Longer Growing Seasons: Warmer temperatures expand arable regions and
extend frost-free days in northern areas like Northern Europe.
New Cultivation Zones: Changing climate bands allow certain staple crops
or new commodities to thrive in previously too-cold latitudes.
Offsetting Effects: CO? enhancement has historically balanced minor
thermal stress for specific resilient wheat and rice strains.
Good for them. I'm not sure that we need more gains in food
production, though.
And what of hydroponic agriculture?
If they're making progress with that, that's good. But I wasn't
asking about hydroponic agriculture.
To bad, it's a *shining star* where earth terrarium models are concerned.
(pun intentional)
I have no interest in terrarium models.
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and
food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa.
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily >>>>>>>> relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply >>>>>>>> domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as >>>>>>>> integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply >>>>>>>> domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through
small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic >>>>>>>> nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquaculturerCoincluding >>>>>>>> rice-paddy fish farmingrCoto support local food supplies and rural >>>>>>>> livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national >>>>>>>> population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial >>>>>>>> fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports >>>>>>>> are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on >>>>>>>> external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to
be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have Dropped
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) >>>>>>>> reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in >>>>>>>> module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new
pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with >>>>>>>> traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs."
Compared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
Little man...sigh...
Yeah, right. LOL!
Suckramento ornamental orange crop looking good this season?
Back to trolling about Jonathan Ball again?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
But not the potent rush of 800 for passing!
Nor the powertrain GVW rating to handle a large trailer and load.
But you don't want to drive that around when you're not towing, right?
Why not?
No one dares cut me off.
Just use the horn. It's not just there for decoration!
And diesel atI'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it? >>>>>>
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
It's not even close to what I pay.
What do you pay?
Lowest Prices Texas: ~$5.97 per gallon (the only state tracking below
the $6 threshold)Other lower-tier states: Hovering just above $6.00 to
$6.25 per gallon (such as parts of the Gulf Coast and southern plains).
Well, if you don't mind paying almost $6 a gallon, I guess that's your choice.
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
I have you sandboxed here Ball, tee hee...
The real question is will you accept the lack of evidence for this
supposed connection between me and Jonathan Ball, or will you continue
to troll on the topic?
Little man, I will educate you like it or not.
And I will do the same.
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
On 9/23/26 10:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide between
the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in several
years) and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then, perhaps, some
will at least begin to change their minds.-a But, as with the measles
outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature does!-a As such, it
may be a really long time before Florida will look like it does today!!
Dawn
Looks like you finally sussed out the pole shift - ahhh-mazing.
On 9/24/2026 10:53 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:No, I am not.
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
I am a 58-year old woman who works part time, and I enjoy
posting on Usenet because I feel that some of the other moderated
atheist message boards out there (and, I am not going to name any names here) have crossed the line into the realm of censorship.
And while it
is certainly the case that my provider, Eternal September, will kick
people due to illegal or even abusive posts, they do not kick folks for simply expressing their thoughts, opinions and other ideas.-a And, so, that's why I am posting here.
Dawn
On 9/24/26 11:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:53 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:No, I am not.
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
I love this part of the "stamp my feet" mania of yours Rudence.
I am a 58-year old woman who works part time, and I enjoy posting on
Usenet because I feel that some of the other moderated atheist message
boards out there (and, I am not going to name any names here) have
crossed the line into the realm of censorship.
Non sequitur writ almost as [...]
On 9/24/2026 10:54 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 10:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide
between the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in
several years) and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then,
perhaps, some will at least begin to change their minds.-a But, as
with the measles outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature
does!-a As such, it may be a really long time before Florida will look
like it does today!!
Dawn
Looks like you finally sussed out the pole shift - ahhh-mazing.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Look, you're not presenting any sort of scientific hypothesis,
because you can offer no null hypothesis,
and hence, nothing to observe in the
way of any testable prediction; hence, your views are not falsifiable, hence, they are not scientific.
Look, here's the formula:
No risk == No science.
If you think that AGW is fallacious, then, what's your alternative??
Dawn
multistrada wrote:
On 9/24/26 11:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:53 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:No, I am not.
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
I love this part of the "stamp my feet" mania of yours Rudence.
I am a 58-year old woman who works part time, and I enjoy posting on
Usenet because I feel that some of the other moderated atheist
message boards out there (and, I am not going to name any names here)
have crossed the line into the realm of censorship.
Non sequitur writ almost as [...]
So?
You obviously promote non sequitur because everywhere you go, there your accusation of Jonathan Ball is. It's very, very non-sequitur, and not as cute as you think it is.
On 9/23/26 8:40 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:35:37 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/23/26 3:09 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:01:23 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
On 9/22/26 8:10 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:44:35 -0600, multistrada <ab@in.valid> wrote:
Serious mental disturbation here:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
I have no interest in or history with misc.survivalism.
Since you were outed by AI:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive, >>>>> decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with >>>>> other postersuand frequently with himselfuto dominate discussions and >>>>> manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits. >>>>> Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his >>>>> IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of
confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own >>>>> arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted >>>>> his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose >>>>> him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and >>>>> misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He >>>>> frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or >>>>> conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual
capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a >>>>> thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet >>>>> users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used >>>>> header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove >>>>> Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
You've got the wrong guy, man.
Sure...Rudence...
That should be "Sure...because" rather than "Sure... Rudence"
Little man, is it time for you to get your Jolly Kone on?
I have nothing to do with California,
economics, a PhD in any field, survivalism, multiple account usage or
the use of sock puppets, hobby newsgroups, the ubiquitous Rudy Canoza, >>>> or arguing with myself via sock puppets. Nor am I "more aggressive"
than anyone else, at least by Usenet standards.
:-|
Peer-herded and grant-fed cience is done to order - not to outcome.After all if climate scientists
are just on the gravy train, what would prevent other scientists from
joining them there as well?
Not a thing, in fact it pays rather well and across a broad front - >>>>>>>>>>> which is my sub-point.
So are you or are you not vilifying science (by saying "not a thing" >>>>>>>>>> prevents scientists from unethically seeking government grant money)?
Grant money is funding, not actual science.
You're not very good at this at all, little man Ball.
What do you think they *do* with that funding?
Reach consensus outcomes, self-validate, etc.
So do you believe scientists don't do science with their funding -- >>>>>> they just sit around self-validating and reaching consensus outcomes? >>>>>
No, science is a meritocracy, which makes outcome more important than
order.
Incorrect.
When the order controls the funding, the outcome will fit.
That's not how science works. In science outcomes that *don't* fit
are the interesting ones.
AI Overview
"Government-funded "junk science" or wasteful studies usually refer to
unusual or seemingly pointless basic research grants highlighted by
watchdog groups and congressional critics.
Examples of Questionable Government-Funded StudiesShrimp on a Treadmill: >>>
The National Science Foundation funded a study putting snapping shrimp
on a tiny motorized treadmill to test how exhaustion affects their
physical performance and oxygen consumption.
Drunken Finches: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a
multi-million dollar grant to study whether zebra finches slur their
mating songs when given alcohol-spiked juice.
Chimpanzee Feces Throwing: The NIH spent over $500,000 at Emory
University to explore the neurological and behavioral reasons why chimps >>> throw feces.
Shark Music Perception: The federal government spent roughly $3 million
via the National Science Foundation to analyze human fear reactions to
sharks while playing the Jaws theme song.Swedish
Massages for Rabbits: Highlighted in federal waste reports, funds were
allocated to test the physiological recovery effects of Swedish-style
massages on rabbits.
Why These Studies Happen
Basic vs. Applied Science: Many peculiar-sounding projects are actually
basic foundational research into muscle fatigue, neurological mapping,
or acoustic fear conditioning that use animal models applicable to humans. >>>
Peer Review & Grant Allocation: Critics argue that grant review panels
at agencies like the NSF and NIH sometimes approve low-priority, niche
topics. Proponents counter that unexpected basic research often yields
foundational discoveries (such as NASA's spinoff technologies or genetic >>> milestones initially dismissed as "junk").
See your own quote, right under "Why these studies happen."
See proof of giverment-funded junk (false) science.
Then apply it to AGW.
It's a *question* that's being repeated, not an accusation per se.Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You're so lost you keep repeating that with nary a shred of evidence. >>>>>>
No it functions as an accusation, which you know.
The thing about these things called "questions" is, someone asks you a >>>> question, and you answer it.
You must never have given testimony in court.
LOL! I understand they ask questions there.
You understand only rhetoric.
And sock puppet masturbation.
That's different from an accusation,
where further debate is necessary to determine the validity of the
accusation.
That is an obfuscation as all pertinent information is within your grasp >>> here.
How does that lead to obfuscation?
Here's a sample of how to use questions in every-day discussions:
Me: Or is this another instance of you trying to vilify science?
You: The answer is no, it isn't, either here or elsewhere.
Nice Punch & Judy show Rudence, better than your normal sputtering
indignation anyway...
Hey, I'm still indignant!
And short, very very short...
What a mess you are.
Try again funding =/ "science".
Funding supports science, though.
And taxes support giverments, so?
Getting grants is actually a very difficult process. You can't just
ask for a handout without explaining in detail why you need it.
Irrelevant to outcome generated and paid for.
In fact the easiest path to grant money is to peer herd under government >>> funded cover.
No,
YES!
in science you want to *stand out* from the herd. Otherwise you
risk being ignored, almost the worse thing that can happen to you in
science.
If it were so giverment would be funding the anti-AGW scientists, but of >course they're not.
You really suck at this cRudey.
"Science" isn't impossible without funding, is it?
EinsteinAs Miracle Year (1905):
While working a day job as a low-level clerk at a Swiss patent office, >>>>> Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers. With zero research >>>>> grants or academic backing, he proved the existence of atoms (Brownian >>>>> motion), explained the photoelectric effect (which laid the foundation >>>>> for quantum mechanics), and introduced Special Relativity.
We can't all be Einstein. For those who aren't, science is a
full-time occupation and not a side-hustle from something else. I
mean, do you really want your country's R&D budget to be just a pencil >>>> and paper?
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
Of course. I don't know that that was your point, but still...
You knew and still argued for argumentation's sake.
Classic cRudey.
>>>> The Periodic Table (1869):
Dmitri Mendeleev organized the building blocks of chemistry by looking >>>>> for patterns in the known elements. He mapped out the Periodic Table by >>>>> writing elements on cards and arranging them like a game of solitaire, >>>>> accurately predicting the existence and properties of elements that
hadn't even been discovered yet.
Obviously, not all science is that straightforward.
More obfuscation, and deflective micro-debating.
What don't you understand about "not all science is that
straightforward"?
I understand your need to dissemble and deflect.
My point sustained.
Spontaneity has its place in science.
See above, where you began repeating yourself.
Learn from source material cited, troller.
For example,
grants can be used to get access to laboratory equipment -- which may, >>>> in experimental physics (as opposed to Einstein's theoretical physics) >>>> involve traveling to CERN to join teams of scientists working together >>>> to study sub-atomic particles.
Non sequitur to spontaneous science - next!
Spontaneous science is actually a part of organized science.
Also irrelevant to giverment-funded JUNK science.
Non sequiturs are dismissed.We were talking about profits, not pantries.Try eating small ag exclusively and see where your pantry goes. >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not.
Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their
willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling.
The same can be said for big agriculture.
next...
And why shouldn't big agriculture be criticized as well? >>>>>>>>>>>
I never mentioned profits.
Try harder little troll.
You're either a troll or remarkably stupid. I was the one who >>>>>>>> mentioned profits, and that's what you should've been replying to. >>>>>>>
Non sequitur only in your restricted little world. I said big oil
shouldn't put profit before the environment. The same is true of big >>>>>> agriculture; once they fill our pantries, they shouldn't keep going >>>>>> and harm the environment in pursuit of more and more profits.
Nor should small bidnits, and that happens all the time as well, as
proved below:
Sure. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
Yet here you are for that.
No, I meant you've probably talked about this with someone else, and
are attributing their arguments to me.
Ah no, you're even less adept at obfuscation enhancement than the
infamous Oz peehole stretcher.
You keep attacking small
business, when I don't care enough about small business to feel a
burden to defend it.
I present no attacks, only case histories.
Your problem with big bidnits is just a macrocosm gripe at human nature, >learn.
In case you need to re-read it, here's what I said (actually preserved >>>>>>>> in the quoted text above):
"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
So?
So your outrage model is only calibrated for "big business" as demon >>>>> started.
Why couldn't there be outrage against small businesses as well?
You led with big bidnits, you tel me.
Well, I would say *obviously* the same standard should be applied to
small business as is applied to big business.
Took you a while to get there, accepted.
What would you say?
Same as I have - human nature corrupts ALL bidnits.
I just showed you that human nature in large or small collective is
still human nature.
You showed nothing, although it would be strange if you *couldn't*
show that, since it's a tautology (human nature is...human nature --
obviously!)
Ergo big or small bidnits is equally plagued - did and done.
At the end of the game it is really all about HUMAN NATURE - which still >>>>> baffles you, litle man Ball...
No, being a human myself, I have little to be baffled by by the study
of human nature.
That is a LARF!
You are a walking ,talking example of corrupted human nature.
Are you religious or something?
Are you a secular dwarf or something worse?
AI OverviewI have no burden to support small business.
"The stars of Diesel Brothers were ordered to pay over $850,000 in >>>>>>> penalties and faced arrests and legal battles for violating the Clean >>>>>>> Air Act by removing truck emissions equipment and using "defeat
devices".? Case Overview & Penalties? 2017 Lawsuit: Filed by the Utah >>>>>>> Physicians for a Healthy Environment over illegal truck tampering.? >>>>>>> Initial Fine: Ordered to pay roughly $850,000 in 2020 for hundreds of >>>>>>> violations.?? Contempt & Arrest: David "Heavy D" Sparks was arrested in >>>>>>> October 2025 for failing to clear remaining balances and court fees.? >>>>>>> Adjustments: Penalties later saw minor reductions/reassessments on >>>>>>> specific technical violations, though core injunctions remained.? Why >>>>>>> It HappenedRemoving Filters: Stripping out diesel particulate filters >>>>>>> (DPFs) and EGR systems to boost power.Rolling Coal: Promoting heavy >>>>>>> black smoke and selling emissions-defeating parts via social media." >>>>>>
No one said you did - what a deflective rejoinder, as usual.
You yourself said I did. It's still preserved in the quoted text
above, to wit,
I was the one who introduced small bidnits to the discussion, not you.
The way you introduced it seemed to imply that I had tacitly
introduced it, by having an interest in defending small business.
That's inaccurate and self-rendering gish gallop.
^^^^^^"Of course, not everything big oil does is unethical; it's just their >>>>>>>> willingness to place profit over environmental damage that's
troubling."
The same can be true of small business, easily so:
I prevail again.
LOL! Not quite.
Always.
You're deluded.
Alley Cat also pwns you daily.
Fun to be in the club, little man.
So what?It;s like the folks who were making thier own biodiesel out of fry oil.
How well do any of these micro-feel good flourishes work on a macro scale?
What about switching to organic agriculture, as opposed to industrial
agriculture?
You feel there are less perils in said?
I might be open to agreement IF it could ever scale up to meet out >>>>>>>>> global needs - but really only in smaller ecosystems like Hawaii does it
even come close.
AI Overview
"Small-scale aquaculture
I said *organic* agriculture, not aquaculture.
Aquaculture Is agriculture.
I didn't say it wasn't; only that that's not what I asked you about. >>>>>
Let me restate what I said, since you may not be following along:
You: Aquaculture Is agriculture.
Me[Cliff Notes version]: I didn't say aquaculture *wasn't*
agriculture, only that that's not what I asked you about.
Your disingenuous queries are dismissed, always.
How were they supposedly disingenuous?
You failed to accept aquaculture as being a form of agriculture, duh.
Read more about what I was
talking about here:
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/organic-agriculture
No need.
My answer comports with your artlessly tendered moot question.
What of it?Did those words get
blurred together as you tried to reply to them?
Farming is farming, wet or dry.
AI Overview
"Yes, aquaculture is considered the water-based equivalent of agriculture."
That's interesting, but what about *organic agriculture* in general? >>>>>
It can be used to mitigate the effects of agriculture on climate
change, as I understand it.
But climate change of the AGW-blamed sort is actually INCREASING
agricultural yields!
While still leaving a large carbon footprint.
Good, that warms us to even greater productivity and less loss of life
due to freezing weather, for now...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3510102/Read right after that, where it says:
CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8% per decade. >>
Read and deny the gains?
Oh little man Ball, sigh...
"At the same time, warming trends are likely to reduce global yields
by roughly 1.5% per decade without effective adaptation, with a
plausible range from roughly 0% to 4%.
"Adaptation" being the easy inning, always.
The upper end of this range is
half of the expected 8% rate of gain from technological and management
improvements over the next few decades. Many global change factors
that will likely challenge yields, including higher O3 and greater
rainfall intensity, are not considered in most current assessments."
There is no shared metric for these claims.
AI Overview
Elevated carbon dioxide (CO?) levels can act as a natural fertilizer
that accelerates basic plant growth and photosynthesis in specific
settings.?
Potential Benefits of Climate Change
Conditions on CropsCO? Fertilization: Higher atmospheric carbon can
boost early-stage growth and water-use efficiency in certain plants.
Longer Growing Seasons: Warmer temperatures expand arable regions and
extend frost-free days in northern areas like Northern Europe.
New Cultivation Zones: Changing climate bands allow certain staple crops >>> or new commodities to thrive in previously too-cold latitudes.
Offsetting Effects: CO? enhancement has historically balanced minor
thermal stress for specific resilient wheat and rice strains.
Good for them. I'm not sure that we need more gains in food
production, though.
Coming and happening all over Canaduh!
https://www.freshfruitportal.com/news/2026/05/23/canada-climate-change/
More growing acreage for Canada
According to government data, Canada is warming at approximately twice
as fast as the rest of the world on average, with the most pronounced >temperature increases occurring during the winter months.
Agronomically, this shift is lifting natural constraints that
historically have prevented the Great White North from growing crops
more extensively, with longer frost-free periods and an increasing
number of growing degree days (GDD).
Rabobank projects that by mid-century, areas exceeding 1,600 GDD will
expand further north, significantly improving the growing conditions for >cool-season crops. In the south, rising heat units will push more
regions past the 1,000 GDD threshold, allowing for the integration of >longer-maturing, higher-yielding crop varieties. This will also improve >conditions for growing warm-season commodities like corn, soybeans, and
dry beans.
Commercially, these shifting boundaries open notable avenues for >productivity gains on existing farmland, including the potential for >multiple harvests in select microclimates and expanded cultivated areas.
According to Rabobank, specific crops stand to see direct yield
benefits. For example, wheat yields are projected to increase by >approximately eight percent by 2040 under a two-degree Celsius warming >scenario. Similarly, barley is expected to experience modest yield gains
in Eastern Canada and increases ranging from 0.2 to one metric ton per >hectare across Western Canada. Canola could see an average yield
increase of 7.5 percent, driven by positive impacts across the Prairies.
These warming patterns have already triggered a rapid acreage expansion
for corn and soybeans, which are highly appealing to growers because of >their reliable revenue streams and significant global R&D backing.
However, the real-world application of the benefits in this projected >scenario is not as easy as it seems, as lifting the long-standing
thermal constraint does not guarantee ideal growing conditions.
And what of hydroponic agriculture?
If they're making progress with that, that's good. But I wasn't
asking about hydroponic agriculture.
To bad, it's a *shining star* where earth terrarium models are concerned. >>>
(pun intentional)
I have no interest in terrarium models.
You fail to grasp what a closed loop negative feedback system is then, >unsurprising but par for your denialist act here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this >recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many >times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of >water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause >significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level >atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic >greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
<snip for focus>alone does not fully feed the entire population
of any major nation, but it provides a vital source of local protein and
food security in developing countries across Asia and Africa. >>>>>>>>>
Major Producers and Local Food Security
China: Produces over half of the world's farmed aquatic food, heavily >>>>>>>>> relying on a mix of small-scale and commercial operations to supply >>>>>>>>> domestic dietary protein.
Bangladesh and Viet Nam: Small-scale and rural aquaculture (such as >>>>>>>>> integrated rice-fish farming and local ponds) significantly supply >>>>>>>>> domestic fish consumption and local markets.
Egypt: Leads African aquaculture production, largely through >>>>>>>>> small-to-medium-scale Nile tilapia farming that helps meet domestic >>>>>>>>> nutritional needs.
Indonesia: Integrates substantial small-scale aquacultureuincluding >>>>>>>>> rice-paddy fish farminguto support local food supplies and rural >>>>>>>>> livelihoods.
Limitations of Small-Scale Aquaculture
National Self-Sufficiency: No country feeds its entire national >>>>>>>>> population exclusively using small-scale aquaculture; commercial >>>>>>>>> fisheries, large-scale intensive aquaculture, and global food imports >>>>>>>>> are required to meet total caloric and protein demands.
Feed and Resource Constraints: Many small-scale systems depend on >>>>>>>>> external feed inputs or wild-caught fishmeal, limiting their capacity to
be entirely self-contained food solutions."
That closes this deflection out.
Why Prices Have DroppedCompared to $0 for the gas-powered Honda I drive now.
Market Maturity: High volumes of older hybrids (like the Toyota Prius)
reaching the secondary market created a massive economy of scale for parts.
Refurbished Options: Companies like Greentec Auto specialize in >>>>>>>>> module-level repairs and remanufacturing rather than forcing a whole new
pack purchase.
Competition: Independent hybrid-specialty shops compete directly with >>>>>>>>> traditional dealerships, driving down labor and markup costs." >>>>>>>>
Until it requires service, which is on a regular basis.
We'll see about that.
You sold the Jetta?
WTF are you talking about?
Little man...sigh...
Yeah, right. LOL!
Suckramento ornamental orange crop looking good this season?
Back to trolling about Jonathan Ball again?
Back to denying your identity again, little man?
Meet me at that West Bakersfield Jolly Kone for some lessons and a shake.
So what's your reason for not buying a hybrid?
I like modern diesel's abundant torque for towing.
How many foot-pounds of torque do you need for towing?
Minimally 600.
I could get you 570 in a Ford F-150 hybrid truck.
But not the potent rush of 800 for passing!
Nor the powertrain GVW rating to handle a large trailer and load.
But you don't want to drive that around when you're not towing, right?
Why not?
No one dares cut me off.
Just use the horn. It's not just there for decoration!
No need, the rig's immensity obviates it save for rain or fog.
And diesel atI'm not paying Caliphony-land prices
$6.50 a gallon should make you pause at least once, shouldn't it? >>>>>>>
That's almost the *national average.* California prices are even
higher.
It's not even close to what I pay.
What do you pay?
Lowest Prices Texas: ~$5.97 per gallon (the only state tracking below
the $6 threshold)Other lower-tier states: Hovering just above $6.00 to
$6.25 per gallon (such as parts of the Gulf Coast and southern plains).
Well, if you don't mind paying almost $6 a gallon, I guess that's your
choice.
It's sub-optimal, but doable.
Jonathan.
Still trolling with this Jonathan thing?
I have you sandboxed here Ball, tee hee...
The real question is will you accept the lack of evidence for this
supposed connection between me and Jonathan Ball, or will you continue >>>> to troll on the topic?
Little man, I will educate you like it or not.
And I will do the same.
You're been unable to rebut any of the concepts surface here, especially:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this >recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many >times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of >water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause >significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level >atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic >greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
On 9/24/26 11:17 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:54 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 10:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide
between the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in
several years) and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then,
perhaps, some will at least begin to change their minds.-a But, as
with the measles outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature
does!-a As such, it may be a really long time before Florida will
look like it does today!!
Dawn
Looks like you finally sussed out the pole shift - ahhh-mazing.
I don't know what you mean by this.
...or not...
Look, you're not presenting any sort of scientific hypothesis,
Incorrect, as usual.
because-a you can offer no null hypothesis,
OMG, you are really down to your version of Twitch Mitchy grade
denialism now:
AI Overview
Does a scientific hypothesis require a null hypothesis to be accurate?
No, a scientific hypothesis does not require a formal statistical null hypothesis to be valid, accurate, or scientific, though it does require falsifiability (the inherent capability of being proven wrong by
observation or experiment).
The Core Difference:
Scientific vs. Statistical Hypotheses
Scientific Hypothesis:
An educated, testable explanation for a natural phenomenon. It proposes
a relationship or mechanism (e.g., "Species X migrated south due to
dropping winter temperatures"
Null Hypothesis:
A specific statistical tool used in quantitative testing to assume that
any observed pattern, difference, or effect is purely the result of
random chance or sampling error (e.g., "There is no difference in
survival rates between northern and southern populations").
Why a Null Hypothesis is Not Universally Required
Descriptive and Observational Science:
Many valid scientific breakthroughs begin with purely descriptive or exploratory observations (such as discovering a new anatomical
structure, mapping a genome, or observing a new animal behavior in the wild). These studies ask "What is here?" or "How is this structured?"
rather than testing whether a numerical effect equals zero.
Laerd Statistics
Qualitative and Conceptual Research: Fields like anthropology,
historical geology, or ethnography often generate robust, falsifiable hypotheses that rely on logical consistency, historical evidence, and qualitative data rather than p-values and quantitative null models.
Non-Frequentist Frameworks:
Even within quantitative sciences, strict null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is just one framework for analysis. Alternative
approaches, such as Bayesian statistics, evaluate hypotheses by updating
the probability of different models given the data, minimizing the
necessity of a traditional "no-difference" baseline.
Ultimately, a scientific hypothesis only requires a clear, testable prediction that can be confronted with empirical reality. A null
hypothesis is simply a mathematical convenience used to guard against
false positives when running statistical tests on numerical data.
and hence, nothing to observe in the way of any testable prediction;
hence, your views are not falsifiable, hence, they are not scientific.
The evidentiary load was far too much for your poor broke back, little
man Ball, so sad...too bad...
Look, here's the formula:
No risk == No science.
Incorrect.
Plenty of science is "no risk".
On 9/24/26 11:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:53 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:No, I am not.
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
I love this part of the "stamp my feet" mania of yours Rudence.
I am a 58-year old woman who works part time, and I enjoy posting on
Usenet because I feel that some of the other moderated atheist message
boards out there (and, I am not going to name any names here) have
crossed the line into the realm of censorship.
Non sequitur writ almost as large as your frogging Malted Ruins and
those specious but ardent claims to be "danish", lol.
And while it is certainly the case that my provider, Eternal
September, will kick people due to illegal or even abusive posts, they
do not kick folks for simply expressing their thoughts, opinions and
other ideas.-a And, so, that's why I am posting here.
Dawn
One of roughly half a dozen (and perhaps more) providers and usenet
clients you use in your multi-decadal MPD act here.
Little man, tsk...
On 9/24/26 11:51 AM, Lane W wrote:
multistrada wrote:
On 9/24/26 11:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:53 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 9:53 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:No, I am not.
You're good at copying & pasting!
You're still a cRudey sock.
I love this part of the "stamp my feet" mania of yours Rudence.
I am a 58-year old woman who works part time, and I enjoy posting on
Usenet because I feel that some of the other moderated atheist
message boards out there (and, I am not going to name any names
here) have crossed the line into the realm of censorship.
Non sequitur writ almost as [...]
So?
You obviously promote non sequitur because everywhere you go, there
your accusation of Jonathan Ball is. It's very, very non-sequitur, and
not as cute as you think it is.
Nothing about you or your multi-decadal MPD act allover uselessnet is
"cute" not by a long shot.
You have severe mental disturbation and an enormously needy sock puppet fetish.
|A sock of JTEM? Such seems probable!!
The A.G-W group nitwits regularly change nyms.
The AI's spotted 2 potential ones a few weeks back after
some particularly humiliating exchanges for the relevanmt parties.
Their old names tailed off in daily posting but a brand new nym
sprang up with an accelerating rate of posting.
Here's one example:
Date nym1 nym2
2026-Jul-7 3 0
2026-Jul-20 1 0
2026-Jul-28 2 0
2026-Aug-1 6 0
2026-Aug-10 1 0
2026-Aug-12 1 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 3 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Aug-19 2 0
2026-Aug-27 3 0
2026-Aug-29 4 0
2026-Sep-15 3 2
2026-Sep-16 0 14
2026-Sep-17 2 15 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-18 0 9
2026-Sep-21 0 15
2026-Sep-22 0 11
2026-Sep-23 0 20
2026-Sep-24 0 16
Here's an example closer to the topic above ;)
nym3 nym3
2026-Jul-28 1 0
2026-Aug-1 4 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 5 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Sep-5 1 1 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-6 2 0
2026-Sep-7 1 0
2026-Sep-10 5 0
2026-Sep-12 0 2
2026-Sep-13 3 6 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-15 1 1
2026-Sep-16 0 4
2026-Sep-18 0 1
2026-Sep-20 1 0 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-21 0 1
2026-Sep-22 0 2
2026-Sep-23 0 2
2026-Sep-24 0 2
2026-Jul-28 1 0|Oh no. My mother fucking argument with JTEM was not a sham to make you |believe I was not him. We really are arguing and you guys are fucking
2026-Aug-1 4 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 5 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Sep-5 1 1 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-6 2 0
2026-Sep-7 1 0
2026-Sep-10 5 0
2026-Sep-12 0 2
2026-Sep-13 3 6 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-15 1 1
2026-Sep-16 0 4
2026-Sep-18 0 1
2026-Sep-20 1 0 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-21 0 1
2026-Sep-22 0 2
2026-Sep-23 0 2
2026-Sep-24 0 2
|A sock of JTEM? Such seems probable!!
The A.G-W group nitwits regularly change nyms.
The AI's spotted 2 potential ones a few weeks back after
some particularly humiliating exchanges for the relevanmt parties.
Their old names tailed off in daily posting but a brand new nym
sprang up with an accelerating rate of posting.
Here's one example:
Date nym1 nym2
2026-Jul-7 3 0
2026-Jul-20 1 0
2026-Jul-28 2 0
2026-Aug-1 6 0
2026-Aug-10 1 0
2026-Aug-12 1 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 3 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Aug-19 2 0
2026-Aug-27 3 0
2026-Aug-29 4 0
2026-Sep-15 3 2
2026-Sep-16 0 14
2026-Sep-17 2 15 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-18 0 9
2026-Sep-21 0 15
2026-Sep-22 0 11
2026-Sep-23 0 20
2026-Sep-24 0 16
Here's an example closer to the topic above ;)
nym3 nym3
2026-Jul-28 1 0
2026-Aug-1 4 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 5 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Sep-5 1 1 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-6 2 0
2026-Sep-7 1 0
2026-Sep-10 5 0
2026-Sep-12 0 2
2026-Sep-13 3 6 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-15 1 1
2026-Sep-16 0 4
2026-Sep-18 0 1
2026-Sep-20 1 0 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-21 0 1
2026-Sep-22 0 2
2026-Sep-23 0 2
2026-Sep-24 0 2
|A sock of JTEM? Such seems probable!!||Oh no. My mother fucking argument with JTEM was not a sham to make you ||believe I was not him. We really are arguing and you guys are fucking ||grade A daft.
The A.G-W group nitwits regularly change nyms.
The AI's spotted 2 potential ones a few weeks back after
some particularly humiliating exchanges for the relevanmt parties.
Their old names tailed off in daily posting but a brand new nym
sprang up with an accelerating rate of posting.
Here's one example:
Date nym1 nym2
2026-Jul-7 3 0
2026-Jul-20 1 0
2026-Jul-28 2 0
2026-Aug-1 6 0
2026-Aug-10 1 0
2026-Aug-12 1 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 3 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Aug-19 2 0
2026-Aug-27 3 0
2026-Aug-29 4 0
2026-Sep-15 3 2
2026-Sep-16 0 14
2026-Sep-17 2 15 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-18 0 9
2026-Sep-21 0 15
2026-Sep-22 0 11
2026-Sep-23 0 20
2026-Sep-24 0 16
Here's an example closer to the topic above ;)
nym3 nym3
2026-Jul-28 1 0
2026-Aug-1 4 0
2026-Aug-14 3 0
2026-Aug-15 5 0
2026-Aug-17 1 0
2026-Sep-5 1 1 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-6 2 0
2026-Sep-7 1 0
2026-Sep-10 5 0
2026-Sep-12 0 2
2026-Sep-13 3 6 <- tryouts
2026-Sep-15 1 1
2026-Sep-16 0 4
2026-Sep-18 0 1
2026-Sep-20 1 0 <-- switch-over
2026-Sep-21 0 1
2026-Sep-22 0 2
2026-Sep-23 0 2
2026-Sep-24 0 2
What makes you so sure those numbers are yours?|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
One of roughly half a dozen (and perhaps more) providers and usenet
clients you use in your multi-decadal MPD act here.
Little man, tsk...
It's "skirt day" today, and I really wish that you would treat me better!
But, you're a little child, aren't you?-a I will try to be kind with you, but firm, by telling you that the way you're treating me & others here
is wrong; but, then again, maybe we're the only "friends" that you have!!
Dawn
The A.G-W group nitwits regularly change nyms.
The AI's spotted 2 potential ones a few weeks back after
My mother fucking argument with JTEM was not a sham
In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
Alley Cat also pwns you daily.Who is Alley Cat?
Fun to be in the club, little man.What club?
Plenty of science is "no risk".You're contradicting your own copying & pasting:
On 9/25/26 7:15 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
It's a multi-decadal sock puppet troll,peehole stretcher - good grief man!
multistrada wrote:
On 9/25/26 7:15 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
It's a multi-decadal sock puppet troll,peehole stretcher - good grief
man!
This is why I left alt.atheism last time. A bunch of doofus heads who
can't read. Dawn accused me of being JTEM's troll, dumb silly guy R
Horsell. That's why I spoke up. It makes sense, huh?
As for you, multistrada, I will be there at the Jolly Kone, and after
I've carted your corpse off to the graveyard, I'll plug in an AI to
emulate your silliness and indoctrination.
On 9/24/2026 10:54 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 10:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide
between the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in
several years) and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then,
perhaps, some will at least begin to change their minds.-a But, as
with the measles outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature
does!-a As such, it may be a really long time before Florida will look
like it does today!!
Dawn
Looks like you finally sussed out the pole shift - ahhh-mazing.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Look, you're not presenting any sort of scientific hypothesis, because
you can offer no null hypothesis
and hence, nothing to observe in the way of any testable prediction;
hence, your views are not falsifiable,
hence, they are not scientific.
Look, here's the formula:
No risk == No science.
If you think that AGW is fallacious, then, what's your alternative??
Dawn
your accusation of Jonathan Ball is. It's very, very non-sequitur
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style.
In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
Then apply it to AGW.What ridiculous studies have AGW scientists supported?
I will try to be kind with you, but firm, by telling you that the way
you're treating me & others here is wrong; but, then again, maybe we're
the only "friends" that you have!!
Dawn
Nothing about you or your multi-decadal MPD act allover uselessnet is
"cute" not by a long shot.
You have severe mental disturbation and an enormously needy sock
puppet fetish.
A sock of JTEM?-a Such seems probable!!
The A.G-W group nitwits regularly change nyms.
We really are arguing and you guys are fucking grade A daft.Punch --- meet Judy!
--
multistrada wrote:
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style.
Yes, yes, but what does that prove?
For decades, I merely argued politely with people.
Now I try to bang them on the head with a
sledgehammer. People respond more favorably that way, that is, they give
up and screw someone else.
That doesn't show I'm Rudy, and it's highly
insulting that you are accusing me, who has been on Usenet for 35 years
now of being this other guy who is pretty much right out in the open
using Rudy Canoza as his nym right now and is posting, elsewhere.
On 9/25/26 3:28 PM, Lane W wrote:
multistrada wrote:
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style.
Yes, yes, but what does that prove?
Or do you mean is it falsifiable?
For decades, I merely argued-a politely with people.
Little man...I'm so sorry....
Now I try to bang them on the head with a sledgehammer. People respond
more favorably that way, that is, they give up and screw someone else.
Sadly even with dozens of socks you still FAIL each time.
That doesn't show I'm Rudy, and it's highly insulting that you are
accusing me, who has been on Usenet for 35 years now of being this
other guy who is pretty much right out in the open using Rudy Canoza
as his nym right now and is posting, elsewhere.
This kind of MPD act makes "Sybill" look tame by comparison.
On 07 Jan 2022, Geroge Plimptin said:
On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy "c*nt Flaps" Canoza <notgenx33> posted some news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
www.washingtonpo....pinions
Washington post biased piece of sh*t and so are their opinions.
When are you going to show up to fight Gunner, Rudy?
This is 2022. You've been running from him for almost four years now.
Ever since the Lee Douglass Harrison argument when you pulled out a half dozen sock puppets to do battle - AND YOU STILL f***ing LOST.
Rudy never had any intention of showing up to fight Gunner. He knew
he'd get his butt kicked.
"c*nt Flaps" has never shown up to fight anyone.
"POINT PROVEN!"
Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
There were more people than just Gunner waiting there. Did you go to
the wrong Jolly Kone in Red Bluff instead of Sacramento? The names are
pretty close. One starts with an "R", the other with an "S".
On 9/24/26 11:17 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/24/2026 10:54 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/23/26 10:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
When most of the State of Florida is sea-bottom and the divide
between the Gulf of Mexico (yep, it's going to be renamed here in
several years) and the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat vague, then,
perhaps, some will at least begin to change their minds.-a But, as
with the measles outbreaks, Nature will continue to do what Nature
does!-a As such, it may be a really long time before Florida will
look like it does today!!
Dawn
Looks like you finally sussed out the pole shift - ahhh-mazing.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Oh right...winky...winky...sure...
Look, you're not presenting any sort of scientific hypothesis, because
you can offer no null hypothesis
There is no need for me to do so, just none.
AI Overview
"No, a scientific hypothesis does not strictly require a formal
statistical null hypothesis to be sound, but it must be testable and falsifiable."
and hence, nothing to observe in the-a way of any testable prediction;
Of course there is:
Microtektites, fusion glass, extinction leve l events, scriptural
retelling, Gobeklitepe, and on and on and on...
hence, your views are not falsifiable,
Of course the are.
hence, they are not scientific.
Completely so, and for AGW:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/ climate_change/1023334.stm
"Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper- level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a
positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop."
Look, here's the formula:
No risk == No science.
That alleged "formula"is also bullshite!
https://manuelgarcia.info/guides/research/guide/what-makes-hypothesis- unfalsifiable
" Suppose a hypothesis predicts that a particular astronomical event
will occur under specified conditions that can, in principle, be
observed. The required observation may be difficult to obtain, but the hypothesis still rules out a possible outcome.
Conversely, a claim can concern an easily observable topic yet remain unfalsifiable if it is worded so loosely that every result fits."
If you think that AGW is fallacious, then, what's your alternative??
Dawn
Regular recurring climatic patterns and long term cycles like the Milankovitch.
On 9/24/26 5:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
One of roughly half a dozen (and perhaps more) providers and usenet
clients you use in your multi-decadal MPD act here.
Little man, tsk...
It's "skirt day" today, and I really wish that you would treat me better!
But, you're a little child, aren't you?-a I will try to be kind with
you, but firm, by telling you that the way you're treating me & others
here is wrong; but, then again, maybe we're the only "friends" that
you have!!
Dawn
Rudence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
On 9/25/2026 10:48 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/24/26 5:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
One of roughly half a dozen (and perhaps more) providers and usenet
clients you use in your multi-decadal MPD act here.
Little man, tsk...
It's "skirt day" today, and I really wish that you would treat me
better!
But, you're a little child, aren't you?-a I will try to be kind with
you, but firm, by telling you that the way you're treating me &
others here is wrong; but, then again, maybe we're the only "friends"
that you have!!
Dawn
Rudence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!-a No way that I could make it out to California, so
sorry!-a By the way, I have never been to California, but would love to
go someday!!
I so very much love to walk (tee/skirt/sandals), and have heard that California, across the entire State, has so many very beautiful trails,
and so, I very much hope to go out there someday!!
Dawn
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/25/2026 10:48 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/24/26 5:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
One of roughly half a dozen (and perhaps more) providers and usenet >>>>> clients you use in your multi-decadal MPD act here.
Little man, tsk...
It's "skirt day" today, and I really wish that you would treat me
better!
But, you're a little child, aren't you?-a I will try to be kind with
you, but firm, by telling you that the way you're treating me &
others here is wrong; but, then again, maybe we're the only
"friends" that you have!!
Dawn
Rudence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!-a No way that I could make it out to California, so
sorry!-a By the way, I have never been to California, but would love to
go someday!!
I so very much love to walk (tee/skirt/sandals), and have heard that
California, across the entire State, has so many very beautiful
trails, and so, I very much hope to go out there someday!!
Dawn
Oh no, that's totally wrong. You're looking for Utah. Also it has the
best skiing in the country in the winter time.
On 9/26/2026 10:34 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/25/26 7:13 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
udence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!
The Iowa of your sock puppet mind perhaps, albeit unlikely as well.
My sole Usenet provider is Eternal September, and I only have a single account with them, and no others.
Dawn
Oh, I can't ski!
You're looking for Utah. Also it has the best skiing in the country in
the winter time.
Regular recurring climatic patterns and long term cycles like the
Milankovitch.
Okay, and is this testable?-a (Answer:-a Yes!)-a But, how long do we have
to wait for it to be observed??-a (Answer:-a thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.)
On 9/25/26 7:13 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
udence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!
The Iowa of your sock puppet mind perhaps, albeit unlikely as well.
|This is why I left alt.atheism last time. A bunch of doofus heads who|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
|This is why I left alt.atheism last time. A bunch of doofus heads who|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
On 9/24/26 4:49 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Then apply it to AGW.What ridiculous studies have AGW scientists supported?
Solar Geoengineering
"The Concept: Deliberately altering the Earth's climate by reflecting >sunlight back into space using sulfur aerosols or space mirrors.
The Shift: Mainstream climate scientists long dismissed these ideas as >dangerous fringe proposals or science fiction.
Current Status: Rising global temperatures have led mainstream
researchers to study solar radiation modification as a potential
emergency tool to lower peak temperatures"
AI Overview
"Al GoreAs 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth popularized climate >awareness but included several over-the-top or accelerated predictions
that critics and scientists note did not materialize on the stated >timelines.
Specific Overstated or Failed Predictions
Snows of Kilimanjaro: Gore predicted that the snows of Africa's Mount >Kilimanjaro would completely disappear "within a decade" (by roughly
2016). While the mountain's glaciers have shrunk significantly due to a
mix of sublimation and changing weather patterns, ice and seasonal snow >remain.
Glacier National Park: The film claimed that all glaciers in Glacier >National Park would be gone within 15 years (by 2020). Although the
park's glaciers have thinned and receded, park officials confirmed that
the glaciers are still present.
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding: The documentary featured dramatic >graphics showing major coastal areas, including parts of Florida and the >World Trade Center site in New York City, inundated by 20 feet of
sea-level rise. Scientists note that a 20-foot rise would take centuries >rather than decades, and actual sea-level rise has been measured in
inches rather than feet.
Arctic Ice Melting Timeline: In a later 2009 speech in Copenhagen, Gore >cited computer modeling suggesting the Arctic could be completely
ice-free during the summer in five to seven yearsua timeline mainstream >climate scientists called overly aggressive."
Etc...
Current Status: Rising global temperatures have led mainstream|Look at the difference between "The Shift" and "Current status" in
researchers to study solar radiation modification as a potential
emergency tool to lower peak temperatures"
AI Overview|...
Snows of Kilimanjaro: Gore predicted that the snows of Africa's Mount |>Kilimanjaro would completely disappear "within a decade" (by roughly |>2016). While the mountain's glaciers have shrunk significantly due to a |>mix of sublimation and changing weather patterns, ice and seasonal snow |>remain.|But the snow and glaciers on that peak *have* shrunk significantly.
Glacier National Park: The film claimed that all glaciers in Glacier|...
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding: The documentary featured dramatic|...
Arctic Ice Melting Timeline: In a later 2009 speech in Copenhagen, Gore|...
Someone put there hand up again. :)
|This is why I left alt.atheism last time. A bunch of doofus heads who|In mathematics, "twice nothing is still nothing".
Don't be so hard on yourself.
The question is. Why did you put your hand up?
Or is this yet another case where you
absolutely absolutely could not help yourself?
|can't read. Dawn accused me of being JTEM's troll, dumb silly guy R |Horsell. That's why I spoke up. It makes sense, huh?
I didnt see who Dawn said was JTEM's troll.
But now that you mention it again the AI programs that still monitor
USENET (because it always was a useful source for text --
Gemini has it for breakfast -- but now it becoming a haven for some
odd personalities) suggest there is an interesting statistical link
between you and JTEM.
When adjusting posting times by the timezomes of the relevant posting
hosts it turns out you and him post pretty much around the clock but
just happen to use "opposite hours".
The statistics says only 1 chance in 5 this can happen by itself.
GMT hr of post Lane #posts JTEM #posts model est for JTEM
given Lane
0 3 2 2.23106
1 1 3 2.51663
3 1 2 2.51663
5 1 3 2.51663
7 1 2 2.51663
15 1 2 2.51663
16 6 1 1.86229*
17 3 3 2.23106
20 4 3 2.10066*
21 5 3 1.97789*
T-test: P(beta<0) = 0.818886
Negative correlation. Understandable if you often talked to each other
at the same time. But from the data I have very very rare you send
messages on the same day. Yet you 80+% of the time send messages in complementary hours.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/26/2026 10:34 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/25/26 7:13 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
udence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!
The Iowa of your sock puppet mind perhaps, albeit unlikely as well.
My sole Usenet provider is Eternal September, and I only have a single
account with them, and no others.
Dawn
It's hard to say if this person really believes everyone is
Rudy.
If not, he's a chronic liar; if he believes it, he's
mentally ill.
Being on usenet is not helping their state of mind.
That's because the Faraday Cage I use to make JTEM post only works while
I am asleep & dreaming. I'm using a double-blind method. I never look at what he posts, because it might taint my representation of him as I psychically will him to post.
GMT hr of post Lane #posts JTEM #posts model est for JTEM|
given Lane
0 3 2 2.23106
1 1 3 2.51663
3 1 2 2.51663
5 1 3 2.51663
7 1 2 2.51663
15 1 2 2.51663
16 6 1 1.86229*
17 3 3 2.23106
20 4 3 2.10066*
21 5 3 1.97789*
T-test: P(beta<0) = 0.818886
Negative correlation. Understandable if you often talked to each other
at the same time. But from the data I have very very rare you send
messages on the same day. Yet you 80+% of the time send messages in complementary hours.
GMT hr of post Lane #posts JTEM #posts model est for JTEM|
given Lane
0 3 2 2.23106
1 1 3 2.51663
3 1 2 2.51663
5 1 3 2.51663
7 1 2 2.51663
15 1 2 2.51663
16 6 1 1.86229*
17 3 3 2.23106
20 4 3 2.10066*
21 5 3 1.97789*
T-test: P(beta<0) = 0.818886
Negative correlation. Understandable if you often talked to each other
at the same time. But from the data I have very very rare you send
messages on the same day. Yet you 80+% of the time send messages in complementary hours.
Or you can JTEM are both psychic can can guess which hours to post
today to avoid being similar to the hours the other will post tomorrow.
implest conclusion: the suspicions are correct and (2) was an attempted bluff something for which everyone agrees JTEM is infamous.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate- scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15- years-are-officially-junk/
Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessedTrump says it is all a HOAX. Biden started it
politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate rCycrisisrCO since 2011 are rCLimplausiblerCY.
The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 rCypathwayrCO assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
are no more. Since around 2011, these rCybusiness as usualrCO assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5rCOs demise, rCLthe most significant development in climate research in decadesrCY.
On 9/26/26 7:29 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/26/2026 10:34 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/25/26 7:13 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
udence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!
The Iowa of your sock puppet mind perhaps, albeit unlikely as
well.
My sole Usenet provider is Eternal September, and I only have
a single
account with them, and no others.
Dawn
It's hard to say if this person really believes everyone is
Rudy.
Of course it isnt - about a dozen socks at any given time is
classic Rudence:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive, decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue
with
other postersrCoand frequently with himselfrCoto dominate discussions
and
manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting
habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism
archived his
IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously
posted
his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to
expose
him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating
style. He
frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing,
survivalist, or
conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly
enter a
thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball
Usenet
users made it their mission to track and expose him.They
routinely used
header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to
prove
Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
If not, he's a chronic liar; if he believes it, he's
mentally ill.
Just like you believe you're "danish", lol...
Being on usenet is not helping their state of mind.
Frog up Rudy, frog on up!
multistrada wrote:
On 9/26/26 7:29 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/26/2026 10:34 AM, multistrada wrote:
On 9/25/26 7:13 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
udence!
Meet me at the Jolly Kone tomorrow 2PM - late lunch and...
Honey,
I live in Iowa!
The Iowa of your sock puppet mind perhaps, albeit unlikely as well.
My sole Usenet provider is Eternal September, and I only have a single >>>> account with them, and no others.
Dawn
It's hard to say if this person really believes everyone is
Rudy.
Of course it isnt - about a dozen socks at any given time is classic
Rudence:
Goggle AI finds:
On Usenet, Jonathan Ball is a real-life individual based out of
California who became a notorious figure due to a highly aggressive,
decades-long online identity and "sockpuppet" feud.
He is best known
across various political, regional, and hobbyist newsgroups for
allegedly using dozens of alternative pseudonyms (nyms) to argue with
other postersrCoand frequently with himselfrCoto dominate discussions and
manufacture a sense of consensus.
The Usenet Persona and "Sockpuppets"
In Usenet culture, Jonathan Ball became a target for "doxxing" and
intense scrutiny by other users who grew tired of his posting habits.
Critics in groups like alt.california and misc.survivalism archived his
IP addresses and email headers to link his real name to an array of
confrontational personas.
According to Usenet tracking posts:
Famous Nyms:
He is most famously accused of posting as Rudy Canoza, Leif
Erikson, Citizen Benfez, Radical Moderate, and Wilson Woods.
Behavioral
Patterns:
Posters noted that he would claim to have advanced academic
achievements (such as a Ph.D. in economics) and would use multiple
accounts simultaneously to attack his detractors or validate his own
arguments.
The "Feud" Cycle:
His presence on Usenet largely devolved
into a permanent meta-discussion, where other users continuously posted
his alleged home address in Sacramento, CA, and phone numbers to expose
him, leading to ongoing flame wars.
Rudy Canoza is one of the most prolific and infamous pseudonyms (or
"nyms") attributed to Jonathan Ball on Usenet.
Over the years, this
persona became a central figure in endless political flame wars,
particularly within the newsgroups alt.california, alt.politics, and
misc.survivalism.
Key Characteristics of the "Rudy Canoza"
Persona
Combative Tone:
The persona is known for an incredibly
aggressive, highly articulate, and deeply insulting debating style. He
frequently targets posters he perceives as right-wing, survivalist, or
conspiratorial.
The "Intellectual" Flex:
The Rudy Canoza character frequently boasts about high intellectual
capabilities, advanced education, and deep knowledge of law and
economics to belittle opponents.
Sockpuppet Choruses:
Other Usenet
posters documented instances where Rudy Canoza would instantly enter a
thread to defend or validate posts made by Jonathan Ball's other
alleged personas, like Leif Erikson or Citizen Benfez.
The Usenet
Backlash
Because the Rudy Canoza persona dominated discussions and
engaged in relentless arguments, a dedicated group of anti-Ball Usenet
users made it their mission to track and expose him.They routinely used
header analysis (tracking NNTP posting hosts and IP addresses) to prove
Rudy Canoza and Jonathan Ball were the same person.
If not, he's a chronic liar; if he believes it, he's
mentally ill.
Just like you believe you're "danish", lol...
Being on usenet is not helping their state of mind.
Frog up Rudy, frog on up!
dawn is dawn, you are mistaken.
On 9/28/2026 11:22 AM, multistrada wrote:
Trump says it is all a HOAX.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-
climate- scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-
over-last-15-
years-are-officially-junk/
Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
assumptions promoting a climate rCycrisisrCO since 2011 are rCLimplausiblerCY.
The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 rCypathwayrCO assumptions
which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable
climate are no more. Since around 2011, these rCybusiness as usualrCO
assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate
catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and
politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5rCOs
demise, rCLthe most significant development in climate research in
decadesrCY.
Biden started it
Buy more coal.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 122:44:46 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,379 |
