From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:35:58 -0000 (UTC)
heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the funder.
That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersA summary (which became the otake home messageo for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, oIn more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.o4

So now you want to bypass the peer review process in favor of...
looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review? Big Oil review?

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most
members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that
current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean
system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming
but a cooling of 0.13#C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the
theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88#C over the past 50
years?5

Anyone can post anything, unvetted, at the NIH site. Including opinions
like the above, whether substantiated or not.

I have to give you credit though, it's an improvement over getting your
talking points from gateway pundit. At least NIH isn't bankrupt from defamation judgments.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:17:10 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:35:58 -0000 (UTC)
heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new
conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the funder.
That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersrCO summary (which became the rCLtake home messagerCY for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United
States National Academy of Sciences, to write, rCLIn more than sixty
years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have
never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report.rCY4

Rewrite time:
"So now you want to bypass the grant and peer gerding process in favor
of..."

looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review? Big Oil review?

How about publish, test, then rate.

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most
members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe
that current climate models do not accurately portray the
atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites
show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13-#C between 1979 and
1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes
maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the
Arctic dropped by 0.88-#C over the past 50 years?5

Anyone can post anything, unvetted, at the NIH site. Including
opinions like the above, whether substantiated or not.

Shoot the messenger spotted.

I have to give you credit though, it's an improvement over getting
your talking points from gateway pundit. At least NIH isn't bankrupt
from defamation judgments.

At least you lost the point so badly you couldn't possibly rebut on
point.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:17:10 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:35:58 -0000 (UTC)
heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new
conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the funder.
That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersA summary (which became the
otake home messageo for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United
States National Academy of Sciences, to write, oIn more than sixty
years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have
never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report.o4

Rewrite time:

Uhmm, no.

So now you want to bypass the peer review process in favor of...
looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review? Big Oil review?

How about publish, test, then rate.

You would publish your "science" before you even test it?
You really don't get this learning thing, do you.

No doubt you're right in the vanguard of the coming Great
Orange Wave of science.

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe
that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites
show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13#C between 1979 and
1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes
maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the
Arctic dropped by 0.88#C over the past 50 years?5

Anyone can post anything, unvetted, at the NIH site. Including
opinions like the above, whether substantiated or not.

Shoot the messenger spotted.

You know, that doesn't even make sense.

You and your popsuckits are unworthy adversaries. Too easy.
A 3rd grade girl could whoop up on you.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:33:12 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:17:10 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:35:58 -0000 (UTC)
heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new
conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the funder.
That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersrCO summary (which became
the rCLtake home messagerCY for politicians) altered the
conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz,
former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences,
to write, rCLIn more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the
events that led to this IPCC report.rCY4

Rewrite time:

Uhmm, no.

Yes, they re-wrote the findings, liar.

So now you want to bypass the peer review process in favor of...
looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review? Big Oil
review?

How about publish, test, then rate.

You would publish your "science" before you even test it?

Part of the scientific process is of course testing the hypothesis, duh.

You really don't get this learning thing, do you.

The community tests new theses, it's part of what scientists do.
Often times they make their own papers, pro or con.
Duh.

No doubt you're right in the vanguard of the coming Great
Orange Wave of science.

No doubt you have a looming date with some mud floods.

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation.
Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
believe that current climate models do not accurately portray
the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of
satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13-#C
between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global
warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88-#C over the past 50
years?5

Anyone can post anything, unvetted, at the NIH site. Including
opinions like the above, whether substantiated or not.

Shoot the messenger spotted.

You know, that doesn't even make sense.

But it's what "true believers" tend to do when contradicted, so yes
you do make some small degree of "sense".

You and your popsuckits are unworthy adversaries. Too easy.
A 3rd grade girl could whoop up on you.

Yet somehow you can't muster even a single climatological parry here.
Begone, low watt troller.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:33:12 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the funder. That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersA summary (which became
the otake home messageo for politicians) altered the
conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz,
former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences,
to write, oIn more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the
events that led to this IPCC report.o4

Rewrite time:

Uhmm, no.

Yes, they re-wrote the findings, liar.

You've obviously forgotten already what you were arguing about.

So now you want to bypass the peer review process in favor of... looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review? Big Oil
review?

How about publish, test, then rate.

You would publish your "science" before you even test it?

Part of the scientific process is of course testing the hypothesis, duh.

You really don't get this learning thing, do you.

The community tests new theses, it's part of what scientists do.

Often times they make their own papers, pro or con.

Duh.

If I explained it to you, it wouldn't do any good.
You are happy in the hog-waller of ignorance.

Maybe your owner can invent a sharper sock than you?


Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be
educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts
forever.
Aristophanes
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 01 May 2026 23:46:51 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:33:12 -0700
Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

Roger Rhino <not@my.home> wrote:

Mace Rator <gbg@in.out> wrote:

heyjoe <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote :

Well, that's science for you. New data result in new conclusions.

New funding results in the desired conclusions of the
funder. That's what passes as science these days.

Glo-bull 'warming' - lolololol...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
What happened was that the policymakersrCO summary (which
became the rCLtake home messagerCY for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz,
former head of the United States National Academy of
Sciences, to write, rCLIn more than sixty years as a member
of the American scientific community ... I have never
witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report.rCY4

Rewrite time:

Uhmm, no.

Yes, they re-wrote the findings, liar.

You've obviously forgotten already what you were arguing about.

So now you want to bypass the peer review process in favor
of... looney toon review? Pinocchio review? RFK review?
Big Oil review?

How about publish, test, then rate.

You would publish your "science" before you even test it?

Part of the scientific process is of course testing the hypothesis,
duh.

You really don't get this learning thing, do you.

The community tests new theses, it's part of what scientists do.

Often times they make their own papers, pro or con.

Duh.

If I explained it to you, it wouldn't do any good.

You must be particularly inarticulate then, or bereft of significant
facts to use.
Regardless, I win again.

You are happy in the hog-waller of ignorance.

You have now retreated to juvenile ad hom - ergo I win again!

Maybe your owner can invent a sharper sock than you?

Maybe you can try addressing what you ran away from troll: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
EditorrCoThe apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, rCLvirtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.rCY Global warming is now joining the list of rCLwhat everyone knows.rCY
Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. rCLThe policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.rCY2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to rCLproverCY that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakersrCO summary (which became the rCLtake home messagerCY for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, rCLIn more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.rCY4
Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13-#C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88-#C over the past 50 years?5
References
1.Smith R. Climate change: decision time in Kyoto. BMJ. 1997;315:1326. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1326. . (22 November.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Michaels P. Conspiracy, consensus or correlation? What scientists think about the rCypopular visionrCO of global warming. World Climate Review. 1993;1:11. [Google Scholar]
3.McMichael AJ, Haines A. Global climate change: the potential effects on health. BMJ. 1997;315:805rCo809. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Seitz F. Major deception on global warning. Wall Street Journal 1996 June 12;section A:16(col 3).
5.Balling RC. Global warming: messy models, decent data and pointless policy. In: Bailey R, editor. The true state of the planet. New York: Free Press; 1995. pp. 83rCo107. [Google Scholar]

Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be
educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts
forever.
Aristophanes

AI Overview "...be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but
stupid lasts forever" is a popular, albeit likely misattributed, quote
often credited to the Greek playwright Aristophanes.
Source: The line is famously cited in the 2002 film The Emperor's Club,
often wrongly attributed to Aristophanes."
And so we plumb the dry depths of your mordant wit.
A truly sad performance, even for a scripted troll.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2