1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • We are dealing with a fraud.

    From Tony@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 18 02:43:10 2024
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Thu Jan 18 21:53:44 2024
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Thu Jan 18 19:48:55 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Fri Jan 19 10:11:04 2024
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you >lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Your post and the articles I posted were quite clear - here they are
    again: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/24/news-corp-columnists-climate-denialism-called-out-by-press-council
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/ian-plimer/

    And just a small extract to make it easier for you to read:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column
    titled ‘“Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there
    “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most
    carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many
    claims.”

    The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather
    records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as
    “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are
    growing rather than being inundated”.

    Despite a chorus of criticism at the time, the former editor John
    Lehmann defended Plimer’s article, saying “his voice is one of many
    which are important in the mix”.

    The Australian says it accepts climate science, so why does it give a
    platform to 'outright falsehoods'?

    In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to publish on page two on
    Friday, the press council said the article contained inaccurate and
    misleading material in its claims that the Bureau of Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather records and that Plimer’s claims that
    there was no evidence polar ice was melting were misleading.

    The newspaper breached two of the general principles of reporting:
    ensuring factual material is accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts
    are presented with reasonable fairness and balance and opinion is
    based on fact (principle 3).

    The council found that while it would have preferred Plimer’s links to
    the mining industry were disclosed in the column, the Australian did
    not breach guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past or
    present directorships of mining companies and advocacy in the debate
    around climate change were so well known” that it was not required.

    Plimer is a professor of geology and well-known climate change denier
    who has served as a director of a number of mining firms, including
    Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments.

    In reviewing the article last November, University of New South Wales
    professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article is an impressive
    collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically motivated and, frankly, utter
    nonsense.” "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Thu Jan 18 21:18:42 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you >>lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where you belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Fri Jan 19 14:48:55 2024
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you >>>lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where you >belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/24/news-corp-columnists-climate-denialism-called-out-by-press-council
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/ian-plimer/

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column
    titled ‘“Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there
    “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most
    carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many
    claims.”

    The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather
    records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as
    “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are
    growing rather than being inundated”.

    Despite a chorus of criticism at the time, the former editor John
    Lehmann defended Plimer’s article, saying “his voice is one of many
    which are important in the mix”.

    The Australian says it accepts climate science, so why does it give a
    platform to 'outright falsehoods'?

    In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to publish on page two on
    Friday, the press council said the article contained inaccurate and
    misleading material in its claims that the Bureau of Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather records and that Plimer’s claims that
    there was no evidence polar ice was melting were misleading.

    The newspaper breached two of the general principles of reporting:
    ensuring factual material is accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts
    are presented with reasonable fairness and balance and opinion is
    based on fact (principle 3).

    The council found that while it would have preferred Plimer’s links to
    the mining industry were disclosed in the column, the Australian did
    not breach guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past or
    present directorships of mining companies and advocacy in the debate
    around climate change were so well known” that it was not required.

    Plimer is a professor of geology and well-known climate change denier
    who has served as a director of a number of mining firms, including
    Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments.

    In reviewing the article last November, University of New South Wales
    professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article is an impressive
    collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically motivated and, frankly, utter
    nonsense.” "

    As far as global warming itself is concerned, see here: https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20average%20for,(2.7%20%C2%B0F)%20threshold.

    There is quite a bit to that report, but from the first page:
    We conclude that 2023 was the warmest year on Earth since 1850,
    exceeding the previous record set in 2016 by a clear and definitive
    margin.

    The global annual average for 2023 in our dataset was estimated as
    1.54 ± 0.06 °C (2.77 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period
    1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the
    preindustrial period. This is the first time that any year has
    exceeded the key 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold. The significance of this
    is discussed below. Also, please note that given the uncertainties and differences in methodologies, other groups are expected to report 2023
    as slightly less than 1.5 °C above preindustrial. The differences
    between Berkeley Earth’s analysis and that of other groups is
    discussed at the end of this report.

    The last nine years have included all nine of the warmest years
    observed in the instrumental record.

    The long-term trend towards higher temperatures is being driven by
    man-made global warming. However, year-to-year rankings are likely to
    reflect short-term natural variability. In 2023, an emerging El Nińo
    event combined with other natural and man-made factors discussed below
    to create a record-breaking warm year. By contrast, 2021 and 2022 had
    somewhat lower temperatures due to a persistent a La Nińa event.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Fri Jan 19 02:14:10 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you >>>>lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where you >>belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:
    Yes - climate change is not predominantly man made. Well done, not proven but good science.
    No nothing else proved. There is plenty of evidence that the climate change fanatics are part of the fraud that is believed by many scientists to be in place.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Fri Jan 19 19:05:26 2024
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - you
    lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where you
    belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:
    Yes - climate change is not predominantly man made. Well done, not proven but >good science.
    No nothing else proved. There is plenty of evidence that the climate change >fanatics are part of the fraud that is believed by many scientists to be in >place.
    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us
    in a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid
    historically high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    I have given evidence that the "scientist" you are relying on is a
    fraud - climate change scientists (and he is not one) condemn his
    false statements. Try actually reading:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/24/news-corp-columnists-climate-denialism-called-out-by-press-council
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/ian-plimer/

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column
    titled ‘“Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there
    “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most
    carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many
    claims.”

    The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather
    records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as
    “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are
    growing rather than being inundated”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Fri Jan 19 07:46:10 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - >>>>>>you
    lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where >>>>you
    belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:
    Yes - climate change is not predominantly man made. Well done, not proven but >>good science.
    No nothing else proved. There is plenty of evidence that the climate change >>fanatics are part of the fraud that is believed by many scientists to be in >>place.
    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us
    in a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid
    historically high temperatures and extreme weather effects.
    Hair splitting at best. Anyway it is still off topic.

    All off topic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BR@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 20 05:43:46 2024
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:48:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as >blatantly false by climate scientists,

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a
    climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council.

    OK, so the meda are the arbiters of what does or does not define
    fraud.

    Are you happy to go along with that?

    Since you are one of the promoters of this perceived climate problem,
    what are YOU personally doing about it?

    Bill.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to blah@blah.blah on Sat Jan 20 09:07:46 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:43:46 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:48:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as >>blatantly false by climate scientists,

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a
    climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council.

    OK, so the meda are the arbiters of what does or does not define
    fraud.
    It was the Australian Press Council who made the determination. They
    can be appealed against but I have not seen any suggestion that the
    decision was appealed.

    Are you happy to go along with that?
    Why should anyone not be? It is exactly the same system as is used in
    other countries including New Zealand, with an appeal to a Court if a
    decision is not agreed.

    Since you are one of the promoters of this perceived climate problem,
    what are YOU personally doing about it?

    Bill.

    Probably the same as most people - keeping myself informed, trying to
    limit use of petrol and plastics - what else do you do, Bill?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Sat Jan 20 09:02:18 2024
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:46:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - >>>>>>>you
    lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where >>>>>you
    belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:
    Yes - climate change is not predominantly man made. Well done, not proven but
    good science.
    No nothing else proved. There is plenty of evidence that the climate change >>>fanatics are part of the fraud that is believed by many scientists to be in >>>place.
    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us
    in a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid
    historically high temperatures and extreme weather effects.
    Hair splitting at best. Anyway it is still off topic.

    All off topic.
    "We are dealing with a fraud"
    That is the Subject of the thread, and I have shown that it is
    correct, Ian Plimer is a fraud:
    I have given evidence that the "scientist" you are relying on is a
    fraud - climate change scientists (and he is not one) condemn his
    false statements. Try actually reading:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/24/news-corp-columnists-climate-denialism-called-out-by-press-council
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/ian-plimer/

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column
    titled ‘“Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there
    “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most
    carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many
    claims.”

    The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather
    records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as
    “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are
    growing rather than being inundated”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Fri Jan 19 21:08:17 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:46:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:18:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:48:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1747240269429293334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747240269429293334%7Ctwgr%5E03fdc92b024c3b36ea898842be131f6f898dd7c3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
    Check the chemistry and show it to be wrong.


    Sarcsatic and deliberate twisting of my post removed.
    Piss off you little worm.
    Clearly you have zero understanding of chemistry or any other science - >>>>>>>>you
    lied when you said you had a science degree. Clear to all.

    Lies and deliberate twisting of my posts is disgraceful, you can go where >>>>>>you
    belong anywhere but here.
    Nobody else here uses sarcasm as a weapon like you do.

    We are indeed dealing with a fraud - which has been proved:
    Yes - climate change is not predominantly man made. Well done, not proven >>>>but
    good science.
    No nothing else proved. There is plenty of evidence that the climate change >>>>fanatics are part of the fraud that is believed by many scientists to be in >>>>place.
    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is >>>predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have >>>made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us
    in a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid

    You have not proved anything - the fraud is climate change caused by increases in CO2 and whaetever Ian Plimmer is thought of is irrelevant.
    His science is valid, yours is non-existent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BR@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 22 05:08:46 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:07:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:43:46 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:48:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as >>>blatantly false by climate scientists,

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a
    climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. >>
    OK, so the meda are the arbiters of what does or does not define
    fraud.
    It was the Australian Press Council who made the determination. They
    can be appealed against but I have not seen any suggestion that the
    decision was appealed.

    Why would anyone waste their time? Who the hell cares what the
    Australian press council thinks? They are little more than a lobby
    group, promoting the same climate bullshit as their subscribers.

    Are you happy to go along with that?

    Why should anyone not be?

    The only people who would be happy are those who believe everything
    they read in the papers. That appears to include you. The idea that a
    media organisation could or should be the arbiter of anything breaks
    new ground in absurdity.

    It is exactly the same system as is used in other countries including New Zealand, with an appeal to a Court if a
    decision is not agreed.

    Why would the courts get involved in media disputes?

    Since you are one of the promoters of this perceived climate problem,
    what are YOU personally doing about it?

    Bill.

    Probably the same as most people - keeping myself informed,

    Informed? Really? You just parrot the media and the Labour party.
    Anyone can do that.

    trying to limit use of petrol and plastics -

    Trying? Mere tokenism then.

    what else do you do, Bill?

    I recently went to Australia on holiday and rented a V8 muscle car.
    Hope that helps

    Bill.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to blah@blah.blah on Mon Jan 22 09:13:30 2024
    On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:08:46 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:07:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:43:46 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:48:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as >>>>blatantly false by climate scientists,

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a >>>climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. >>>
    OK, so the meda are the arbiters of what does or does not define
    fraud.
    It was the Australian Press Council who made the determination. They
    can be appealed against but I have not seen any suggestion that the >>decision was appealed.

    Why would anyone waste their time? Who the hell cares what the
    Australian press council thinks? They are little more than a lobby
    group, promoting the same climate bullshit as their subscribers.

    Are you happy to go along with that?

    Why should anyone not be?

    The only people who would be happy are those who believe everything
    they read in the papers. That appears to include you. The idea that a
    media organisation could or should be the arbiter of anything breaks
    new ground in absurdity.

    It is exactly the same system as is used in other countries including New Zealand, with an appeal to a Court if a
    decision is not agreed.

    Why would the courts get involved in media disputes?

    Since you are one of the promoters of this perceived climate problem, >>>what are YOU personally doing about it?

    Bill.

    Probably the same as most people - keeping myself informed,

    Informed? Really? You just parrot the media and the Labour party.
    Anyone can do that.

    trying to limit use of petrol and plastics -

    Trying? Mere tokenism then.

    what else do you do, Bill?

    I recently went to Australia on holiday and rented a V8 muscle car.
    Hope that helps

    Bill.
    Good on you. To cover some of your questions, see: https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to blah@blah.blah on Sun Jan 21 19:51:51 2024
    BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:07:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:43:46 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:48:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:

    And an extract:

    "An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as >>>>blatantly false by climate scientists,

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a >>>climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. >>>
    OK, so the meda are the arbiters of what does or does not define
    fraud.
    It was the Australian Press Council who made the determination. They
    can be appealed against but I have not seen any suggestion that the >>decision was appealed.

    Why would anyone waste their time? Who the hell cares what the
    Australian press council thinks? They are little more than a lobby
    group, promoting the same climate bullshit as their subscribers.

    Are you happy to go along with that?

    Why should anyone not be?

    The only people who would be happy are those who believe everything
    they read in the papers. That appears to include you. The idea that a
    media organisation could or should be the arbiter of anything breaks
    new ground in absurdity.

    It is exactly the same system as is used in other countries including New >>Zealand, with an appeal to a Court if a
    decision is not agreed.

    Why would the courts get involved in media disputes?

    Since you are one of the promoters of this perceived climate problem, >>>what are YOU personally doing about it?

    Bill.

    Probably the same as most people - keeping myself informed,

    Informed? Really? You just parrot the media and the Labour party.
    Anyone can do that.

    trying to limit use of petrol and plastics -

    Trying? Mere tokenism then.

    what else do you do, Bill?

    I recently went to Australia on holiday and rented a V8 muscle car.
    Hope that helps
    Excellent - good on you.

    Bill.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 23:05:11 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:43:46 +1300, BR wrote:

    Which climate scientists? Who are they and who pays them? What is a
    climate scientist anyway? Is there even such a qualification?

    In science, the ultimate “qualification” is reproducibility. Do other researchers’ own investigations back up your own results?

    If you want to be taken seriously, you have to convince others that you understand the issues involved, before you try to dismiss them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 23:06:17 2024
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:05:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us in
    a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid historically
    high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    There seems to be an assumption, is there not, that simple reduction of
    COâ‚‚ emissions will somehow be sufficient to reverse this.

    What if it’s not?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Thu Jan 25 23:59:16 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:05:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us in
    a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid historically
    high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    There seems to be an assumption, is there not, that simple reduction of
    COâ‚‚ emissions will somehow be sufficient to reverse this.
    An assumption that has never been verfified by any scientific evidence.

    What if it’s not?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Jan 26 12:18:10 2024
    On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:06:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:05:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us in
    a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid historically
    high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    There seems to be an assumption, is there not, that simple reduction of
    CO? emissions will somehow be sufficient to reverse this.
    My reading is that reversing changes is going further than the
    scientists are asserting


    What if it’s not?

    We will always be subject to natural long term climate change; it
    remains to be seen how much human activity can minimise the worst
    effects.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Fri Jan 26 13:26:50 2024
    On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:59:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:05:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us in >>> a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid historically
    high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    There seems to be an assumption, is there not, that simple reduction of >>COâ‚‚ emissions will somehow be sufficient to reverse this.
    An assumption that has never been verfified by any scientific evidence.

    What if it’s not?

    There is a wide consensus that reduced emissions will reduce the level
    of increases; a previous National-led government signed us up to an international treaty under which we have committed to meet emission
    targets. I do not expect the current government to withdraw from that
    treaty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Fri Jan 26 00:52:09 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:59:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:05:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    Climate change scientists do not claim that climate change is
    predominantly man made - but they do say that actions of mankind have
    made a critical difference at the margins, and over time have put us in >>>> a critical position where it will be difficult to avoid historically
    high temperatures and extreme weather effects.

    There seems to be an assumption, is there not, that simple reduction of >>>COâ‚‚ emissions will somehow be sufficient to reverse this.
    An assumption that has never been verfified by any scientific evidence.

    What if it’s not?

    There is a wide consensus that reduced emissions will reduce the level
    of increases; a previous National-led government signed us up to an >international treaty under which we have committed to meet emission
    targets. I do not expect the current government to withdraw from that
    treaty.
    There is no such consensus about emissions and you have told that lie before - never having given any evidence.
    The agreement (not a treaty as I understand it) that you have referred to before is not binding and if it is not fit for purpose it can be summarily thrown away - as it should be. There would be no consequences of a negative nature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)