From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 14/06/2026 12:09, Joe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 21:03:34 -0000 (UTC)
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

Again, I know you think you're right, but see it from my point of
view - well over 90% of cognate scientists support the notion of
anthropogenic climate change:

https://i0.wp.com/www.barnhardtmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_4339.jpg

It's not just climate, of course, it's been a long time since a lab
assistant could make history-changing discoveries in his spare time.
Research is expensive.

Not only is research expensive, but currently research grants are only
going to studies that are going to confirm that CO2 causes global
warming. It is the only greenhouse gas that can be blamed on humanity
and is therefore taxable, which is why it has to be the culprit.

As far as the scientists seeking research grants are concerned, that
means that they have to say it, whether or not it is true, because
otherwise it isn't going to pass a peer review by scientists who have
already collected their 30 pieces of silver for similar misinformation.
That is why there is such a high consensus in peer reviewed studies.
This has led to investigations into what these peer reviewed studies
discover. 30 pairs of diametrically opposite findings have been found so
far. For instance there is a published, reviewed study that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to dry up creating
widespread drought problems. There is also a published, reviewed study
that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to be far wetter in the future, causing widespread flooding catastrophes. They
can't possibly both be true, but they did both get peer reviewed as
being sound outcomes.

The other thing that colours the information the public are being
offered is the lack of scale. For instance, global warming being caused
by CO2 misses the scale of the increase. First of all, the measurements
quoted for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere all come from a
single measurement station, which is close to the emissions of one of
the world's most active volcanos. Then there is the scaling omission.
The contribution of CO2 to global warming is actually going to be one
tenth of a degree Celsius if that already inflated figure of CO2 is
multiplied by 4 or more. CO2 is an "also ran" in the hierarchy of
greenhouse gases. Likewise, the oceans are rising. That is true,
because the tidal gauges say so. The tidal gauges also indicate the
measured rate of rise, which is 1.5mm a year globally. At that rate it
will take more than 7 centuries to get to a 1 metre increase in the
world's water levels. In some locations, the difference between low
tide and high tide is already greater than that.

I picked these examples because they are based on raw measurements, and
it short-circuits the assumption that my findings will be the result of
oil company funding.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 12/06/2026 14:59, TimW wrote:

You have been had.
TW

Not really. The WMO classifications allow some consistency on
comparisons made now.

The assessment of climate change is different. It compares past
readings with present readings and examines the differences. There was
a comparison made on how past and current temperatures have been
measured. The observation made was that weather stations were
originally placed in the open countryside, and for many of them urban expansion has now surrounded them and the temperatures measured are
higher from the urban heat island. An exercise to just use the
temperature readings from the weather stations still in open countryside showed little or no temperature increase.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 22/06/2026 14:07, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 14/06/2026 12:09, Joe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 21:03:34 -0000 (UTC)
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

Again, I know you think you're right, but see it from my point of
view - well over 90% of cognate scientists support the notion of
anthropogenic climate change:

https://i0.wp.com/www.barnhardtmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_4339.jpg

It's not just climate, of course, it's been a long time since a lab
assistant could make history-changing discoveries in his spare time.
Research is expensive.

Not only is research expensive, but currently research grants are only
going to studies that are going to confirm that CO2 causes global
warming.-a It is the only greenhouse gas that can be blamed on humanity
and is therefore taxable, which is why it has to be the culprit.

As far as the scientists seeking research grants are concerned, that
means that they have to say it, whether or not it is true, because
otherwise it isn't going to pass a peer review by scientists who have already collected their 30 pieces of silver for similar misinformation.
That is why there is such a high consensus in peer reviewed studies.
This has led to investigations into what these peer reviewed studies discover. 30 pairs of diametrically opposite findings have been found so far.-a For instance there is a published, reviewed study that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to dry up creating
widespread drought problems.-a There is also a published, reviewed study that proves that global warming will cause the Indian monsoons to be far wetter in the future, causing widespread flooding catastrophes. They
can't possibly both be true, but they did both get peer reviewed as
being sound outcomes.

The other thing that colours the information the public are being
offered is the lack of scale.-a For instance, global warming being caused
by CO2 misses the scale of the increase. First of all, the measurements quoted for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere all come from a
single measurement station, which is close to the emissions of one of
the world's most active volcanos.-a Then there is the scaling omission.
The contribution of CO2 to global warming is actually going to be one
tenth of a degree Celsius if that already inflated figure of CO2 is multiplied by 4 or more.-a CO2 is an "also ran" in the hierarchy of greenhouse gases.-a Likewise, the oceans are rising.-a That is true,
because the tidal gauges say so.-a The tidal gauges also indicate the measured rate of rise, which is 1.5mm a year globally. At that rate it
will take more than 7 centuries to get to a 1 metre increase in the
world's water levels.-a In some locations, the difference between low
tide and high tide is already greater than that.

I picked these examples because they are based on raw measurements, and
it short-circuits the assumption that my findings will be the result of
oil company funding.

I have just found an interview that reveals the tidal gauge information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZu7eSc9l8

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 22 Jun 2026 at 14:07:56 BST, Indy Jess John wrote:

Not only is research expensive, but currently research grants are only
going to studies that are going to confirm that CO2 causes global
warming. It is the only greenhouse gas that can be blamed on humanity
and is therefore taxable, which is why it has to be the culprit.

As far as the scientists seeking research grants are concerned, that
means that they have to say it, whether or not it is true, because
otherwise it isn't going to pass a peer review by scientists who have
already collected their 30 pieces of silver for similar misinformation.

OoI - do you know this for a fact, or is it some sort of rehashed opinion
piece you've read on X?
--
Cheers, Rob
Sheffield, UK
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 22/06/2026 17:13, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 12/06/2026 14:59, TimW wrote:

You have been had.
TW

-aNot really.-a The WMO classifications allow some consistency on comparisons made now.

The assessment of climate change is different.-a It compares past
readings with present readings and examines the differences.-a There was
a comparison made on how past and current temperatures have been
measured.-a The observation made was that weather stations were
originally placed in the open countryside, and for many of them urban expansion has now surrounded them and the temperatures measured are
higher from the urban heat island.-a An exercise to just use the
temperature readings from the weather stations still in open countryside showed little or no temperature increase.

I believe there was one on a lighthouse station or somesuch that showed absolutely fuck all.

The IR satellites also dont show any, but they measure the upper
atmosphere radiation

Today was a glorious summer day. Out of the sun my outside thermo has
settled at about 28-#C,
--
rCLIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 22/06/2026 17:20, RJH wrote:

On 22 Jun 2026 at 14:07:56 BST, Indy Jess John wrote:

Not only is research expensive, but currently research grants are only
going to studies that are going to confirm that CO2 causes global
warming. It is the only greenhouse gas that can be blamed on humanity
and is therefore taxable, which is why it has to be the culprit.

As far as the scientists seeking research grants are concerned, that
means that they have to say it, whether or not it is true, because
otherwise it isn't going to pass a peer review by scientists who have
already collected their 30 pieces of silver for similar misinformation.

OoI - do you know this for a fact, or is it some sort of rehashed opinion piece you've read on X?

Well I had someone actually admit this to me a few years ago.

Cambridge engineer wanted a PhD project so they (he and tutor) set up to investigate metal oxide iron coal burning

You blow rust into a furnace, and you get out red hot metal and pure CO2.

You blow air through the red hot metal and you get rust again all nice
and hot...ready to go back in.

Not nitrogen oxides, just pure CO2,

And more heat.

They sold the project as 'being suitable for efficient carbon capture
from coal power stations'

No-one believed it - even the people assigning the grant.
But it allowed them to show that the money was being responsibly used
for the benefit of society and the planet etc etc..
--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 22 Jun 2026 at 17:15:52 BST, Indy Jess John wrote:

First of all, the measurements
quoted for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere all come from a
single measurement station, which is close to the emissions of one of
the world's most active volcanos.

No.

There are many independent CO2 monitoring stations around the world, though
the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is the most famous and longest-running
one, and it is true that it sits on the slopes of Mauna Loa, an active
volcano.
A few key points on this:

Mauna Loa's record is special because of its length, not its uniqueness

The Mauna Loa station, run by Scripps Institution of Oceanography and NOAA,
has been taking continuous measurements since 1958 (started by Charles David Keeling). That's what makes the "Keeling Curve" so famous rCo it's the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 in the world. But it's far from the only station.

Volcanic contamination is a real issue, but it's well-handled. You (and the other person on this group - Spike?) don't seem to understand the notion of 'weighting'.

Mauna Loa is indeed an active volcano, and occasional volcanic outgassing (CO2 venting from the ground) does affect some readings. However:

* NOAA and Scripps run separate, parallel measurement systems at the site
* Researchers use well-established protocols to detect and remove samples affected by local volcanic venting (these show up as anomalous spikes against wind direction patterns)
* This filtering process is transparent and published

Other stations confirm the trend independently.

NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network includes dozens of background air-sampling sites worldwide rCo including Barrow (Alaska), American Samoa, the South Pole, Cape Grim (Tasmania), and many others, often in locations specifically chosen to be far from local sources of contamination (volcanic or industrial). There are also satellite measurements (like NASA's OCO-2) that independently confirm global CO2 trends from orbit.

All of these independent sources rCo different locations, different institutions, different methods (ground stations vs. satellites) rCo show the same global upward trend in CO2 concentration, which is why the Mauna Loa volcano issue, while a fair question to ask, doesn't undermine the broader scientific picture.

Then there is the scaling omission.
The contribution of CO2 to global warming is actually going to be one
tenth of a degree Celsius if that already inflated figure of CO2 is
multiplied by 4 or more. CO2 is an "also ran" in the hierarchy of
greenhouse gases. Likewise, the oceans are rising. That is true,
because the tidal gauges say so. The tidal gauges also indicate the
measured rate of rise, which is 1.5mm a year globally. At that rate it
will take more than 7 centuries to get to a 1 metre increase in the
world's water levels. In some locations, the difference between low
tide and high tide is already greater than that.

I picked these examples because they are based on raw measurements, and
it short-circuits the assumption that my findings will be the result of
oil company funding.

Utter gibberish. Quite why you waste your time on it all . . .

I have just found an interview that reveals the tidal gauge information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZu7eSc9l8

As he admits - he's extrapolated from one anecdote. How he remains employed defeats me.
--
Cheers, Rob
Sheffield, UK
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

Which Met Office weather stations' readings should we ignore over the
next few days, please?

Asking for a friend.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2