If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change,
at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in
a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above
the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
However, taking the datum for the current so-called rCOanomalyrCO as the Little
Ice Age falsely enhances the current situation, by starting the
measurements from some 1degC below the 2000-year average.
Naming the Little Ice Age as the Pre-Industrial Era neatly hides the
trickery involved in the misrepresentation of the current state of the planetrCOs current temperature levels.
Another point at issue is that the periods mentioned completely debunk the claim of anthropogenic global warming from increases in CO2 levels.
Planetary temperatures went up and down over 2000 years, as described.
There was insufficient human activity to account for this using the current narrative. Something else caused the temperature changes and may be causing the current situation.
Is there a pattern here: WarmrCaColdrCaWarmrCaColdrCa???
Note that the term used by climate believers to describe their datum
against which they measure the change in planetary temperatures, namely rCLthe pre-industrial periodrCY *solely* refers to the Little Ice Age.
Correcting the datum to the 2000-year average, showing as it does that
there is essentially no current anomalous temperature rise, would derail
lot of gravy trains, so no-one who wants the research grants to keep
pouring in will ever ask the question.
This is an interesting peer-reviewed scientific paper:
<https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/>
It is obvious that by subtracting the 1degC that the rCypre-industrial periodrCO was below the long-term average temperature from the readings shown, current temperatures are slightly below that average, by about 0.4degC.
The graph also shows how wildly all the current climate models predict
future temperatures. The models are junk, always were junk, and are not fit for any purpose other than frightening the gullible.
And we have passed laws based on this claptrap.
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change,
at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in
a group dedicated to legal matters?
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change,
at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in
a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above
the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
On 11/11/25 09:30, Spike wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above
the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
The Roman warm period was a regional warming event, not global. If you
wish to claim otherwise, it is disputed.
I don't know why you keep misrepresenting the most basic facts.
On 11 Nov 2025 at 09:30:50 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above
the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
However, taking the datum for the current so-called rCOanomalyrCO as the Little
Ice Age falsely enhances the current situation, by starting the
measurements from some 1degC below the 2000-year average.
Naming the Little Ice Age as the Pre-Industrial Era neatly hides the
trickery involved in the misrepresentation of the current state of the
planetrCOs current temperature levels.
Another point at issue is that the periods mentioned completely debunk the >> claim of anthropogenic global warming from increases in CO2 levels.
Planetary temperatures went up and down over 2000 years, as described.
There was insufficient human activity to account for this using the current >> narrative. Something else caused the temperature changes and may be causing >> the current situation.
Is there a pattern here: WarmrCaColdrCaWarmrCaColdrCa???
Note that the term used by climate believers to describe their datum
against which they measure the change in planetary temperatures, namely
rCLthe pre-industrial periodrCY *solely* refers to the Little Ice Age.
Correcting the datum to the 2000-year average, showing as it does that
there is essentially no current anomalous temperature rise, would derail
lot of gravy trains, so no-one who wants the research grants to keep
pouring in will ever ask the question.
This is an interesting peer-reviewed scientific paper:
<https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/> >>
It is obvious that by subtracting the 1degC that the rCypre-industrial
periodrCO was below the long-term average temperature from the readings
shown, current temperatures are slightly below that average, by about
0.4degC.
The graph also shows how wildly all the current climate models predict
future temperatures. The models are junk, always were junk, and are not fit >> for any purpose other than frightening the gullible.
And we have passed laws based on this claptrap.
I think you need to get some of those body-worn placards marked "The end of the world is *not* nigh." and parade around Oxford Street and Hyde Park Corner
spreading the gospel.
On 2025-11-11, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/25 09:30, Spike wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >>> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >>> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above >>> the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
The Roman warm period was a regional warming event, not global. If you
wish to claim otherwise, it is disputed.
I don't know why you keep misrepresenting the most basic facts.
It seems to be because he keeps forgetting what he's been told,
if it contradicts what he wants to believe.
On 11/11/25 09:30, Spike wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above
the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
The Roman warm period was a regional warming event, not global. If you
wish to claim otherwise, it is disputed.
I don't know why you keep misrepresenting the most basic facts.
On 2025-11-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >> a group dedicated to legal matters?
To an extent. If you are saying that the nonsense that followed that paragraph was a post that you've had rejected or that you were asking
if it would be, then yes it should be rejected as off-topic.
As I said in February 2011:
A post containing nothing but "I think The X Factor is poor quality
television" would not be approved, and appending "This sort of thing
should be made illegal!" would not magically make it into a post
suitable for ulm.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-11-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate
change,at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or
a misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be
discussed in a group dedicated to legal matters?
To an extent. If you are saying that the nonsense that followed that
paragraph was a post that you've had rejected or that you were asking
if it would be, then yes it should be rejected as off-topic.
As I said in February 2011:
A post containing nothing but "I think The X Factor is poor quality
television" would not be approved, and appending "This sort of thing
should be made illegal!" would not magically make it into a post
suitable for ulm.
If that is the case, perhaps the charter ought to be changed to say
something along the lines of rCLrCato discuss legal matters, except somerCY.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Nov 2025 at 09:30:50 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >>> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >>> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above >>> the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
However, taking the datum for the current so-called rCOanomalyrCO as the Little
Ice Age falsely enhances the current situation, by starting the
measurements from some 1degC below the 2000-year average.
Naming the Little Ice Age as the Pre-Industrial Era neatly hides the
trickery involved in the misrepresentation of the current state of the
planetrCOs current temperature levels.
Another point at issue is that the periods mentioned completely debunk the >>> claim of anthropogenic global warming from increases in CO2 levels.
Planetary temperatures went up and down over 2000 years, as described.
There was insufficient human activity to account for this using the current >>> narrative. Something else caused the temperature changes and may be causing >>> the current situation.
Is there a pattern here: WarmrCaColdrCaWarmrCaColdrCa???
Note that the term used by climate believers to describe their datum
against which they measure the change in planetary temperatures, namely
rCLthe pre-industrial periodrCY *solely* refers to the Little Ice Age.
Correcting the datum to the 2000-year average, showing as it does that
there is essentially no current anomalous temperature rise, would derail >>> lot of gravy trains, so no-one who wants the research grants to keep
pouring in will ever ask the question.
This is an interesting peer-reviewed scientific paper:
<https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/> >>>
It is obvious that by subtracting the 1degC that the rCypre-industrial
periodrCO was below the long-term average temperature from the readings
shown, current temperatures are slightly below that average, by about
0.4degC.
The graph also shows how wildly all the current climate models predict
future temperatures. The models are junk, always were junk, and are not fit >>> for any purpose other than frightening the gullible.
And we have passed laws based on this claptrap.
I think you need to get some of those body-worn placards marked "The end of >> the world is *not* nigh." and parade around Oxford Street and Hyde Park Corner
spreading the gospel.
Well, that would be far better than the spouting of Marxist-Leninist
agitprop by the movementrCOs useful idiots, because at least itrCOs based on fact rather than wishful thinking!
What you are saying is that most of the world's governments areI think you need to get some of those body-worn placards marked
"The end of the world is *not* nigh." and parade around Oxford
Street and Hyde Park Corner spreading the gospel.
Well, that would be far better than the spouting of Marxist-Leninist agitprop by the movementrCOs useful idiots, because at least itrCOs
based on fact rather than wishful thinking!
Even assuming you are right, you are not going to change the
behaviour of most of the world's governments. And reintroduction of
nuclear power, lowered dependence on oil and elimination of internal combustion vehicles and some combustion based power stations are all
good for human health. So why not go with the flow? (I don't like
windmills either, but you can't have everything.)
On 11 Nov 2025 at 13:01:20 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Nov 2025 at 09:30:50 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >>>> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >>>> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above >>>> the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age >>>> were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
However, taking the datum for the current so-called rCOanomalyrCO as the Little
Ice Age falsely enhances the current situation, by starting the
measurements from some 1degC below the 2000-year average.
Naming the Little Ice Age as the Pre-Industrial Era neatly hides the
trickery involved in the misrepresentation of the current state of the >>>> planetrCOs current temperature levels.
Another point at issue is that the periods mentioned completely debunk the >>>> claim of anthropogenic global warming from increases in CO2 levels.
Planetary temperatures went up and down over 2000 years, as described. >>>> There was insufficient human activity to account for this using the current
narrative. Something else caused the temperature changes and may be causing
the current situation.
Is there a pattern here: WarmrCaColdrCaWarmrCaColdrCa???
Note that the term used by climate believers to describe their datum
against which they measure the change in planetary temperatures, namely >>>> rCLthe pre-industrial periodrCY *solely* refers to the Little Ice Age. >>>>
Correcting the datum to the 2000-year average, showing as it does that >>>> there is essentially no current anomalous temperature rise, would derail >>>> lot of gravy trains, so no-one who wants the research grants to keep
pouring in will ever ask the question.
This is an interesting peer-reviewed scientific paper:
<https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/>
It is obvious that by subtracting the 1degC that the rCypre-industrial >>>> periodrCO was below the long-term average temperature from the readings >>>> shown, current temperatures are slightly below that average, by about
0.4degC.
The graph also shows how wildly all the current climate models predict >>>> future temperatures. The models are junk, always were junk, and are not fit
for any purpose other than frightening the gullible.
And we have passed laws based on this claptrap.
I think you need to get some of those body-worn placards marked "The end of >>> the world is *not* nigh." and parade around Oxford Street and Hyde Park Corner
spreading the gospel.
Well, that would be far better than the spouting of Marxist-Leninist
agitprop by the movementrCOs useful idiots, because at least itrCOs based on >> fact rather than wishful thinking!
Even assuming you are right, you are not going to change the behaviour of most
of the world's governments. And reintroduction of nuclear power, lowered dependence on oil and elimination of internal combustion vehicles and some combustion based power stations are all good for human health. So why not go with the flow? (I don't like windmills either, but you can't have everything.)
If it?s human health you?re concerned about, then perhaps you might consider that diet has a very great effect on health. Many people eat themselves to death.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/25 09:30, Spike wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >>> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >>> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above >>> the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age
were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
The Roman warm period was a regional warming event, not global. If you
wish to claim otherwise, it is disputed.
I don't know why you keep misrepresenting the most basic facts.
Ah, yourCOve fallen into the trap.
On 11/11/25 13:01, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/25 09:30, Spike wrote:
If laws regarding the methods of tackling what is known as climate change, >>>> at such huge cost, are based on a flawed interpretation or a
misrepresentation of the data, does that not mean it could be discussed in >>>> a group dedicated to legal matters?
rCorCorCo
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were circa 1degC above >>>> the average, and the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age >>>> were circa 1degC below the average. The variability of the planetary
temperatures over these periods is undisputed.
The Roman warm period was a regional warming event, not global. If you
wish to claim otherwise, it is disputed.
I don't know why you keep misrepresenting the most basic facts.
Ah, yourCOve fallen into the trap.
No, you said, "The variability of the planetary temperatures over these periods is undisputed.". It is disputed, I pointed out how it was
disputed.
I'm not going to play Whack a mole, every time you
misrepresent things.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The 2006 seminar where 28 Bbc executives were subjected to
essentially a bombardment of pro-climate change propaganda, and which
the Bbc spent six years and a shedload of money trying to keep
secret, contained stuff like this:
rCLOther non-BBC staff who attended included Blake Lee-Harwood, head of campaigns at Greenpeace, John Ashton from the powerful green lobby
group E3G, Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who argued
there were only 100 months left to save the planet through radical
emissions cuts [rCa]rCY
Well, werCOre 228 months since the seminar, so even without the rCOradical emissions cutsrCO, the planetrCOs still here, and is probably no warmer
than the average for the last 2000 years. What does that tell you
about the usefulness of climate forecasts?
Article:
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html>
On 14 Nov 2025 08:51:49 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The 2006 seminar where 28 Bbc executives were subjected to
essentially a bombardment of pro-climate change propaganda, and which
the Bbc spent six years and a shedload of money trying to keep
secret, contained stuff like this:
rCLOther non-BBC staff who attended included Blake Lee-Harwood, head of
campaigns at Greenpeace, John Ashton from the powerful green lobby
group E3G, Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who argued
there were only 100 months left to save the planet through radical
emissions cuts [rCa]rCY
Well, werCOre 228 months since the seminar, so even without the rCOradical >> emissions cutsrCO, the planetrCOs still here, and is probably no warmer
than the average for the last 2000 years. What does that tell you
about the usefulness of climate forecasts?
Article:
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html>
It can't be true Spike, your link comes from a far-right publication
which means it causes Leftwaffe brains to seize up.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:20:13 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,175 |
| Posted today: | 1 |