Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The...
models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in
charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Climate change prophecy...
In sci.skeptic Ms. Kristina Georgia <inanaini899@gmail.com> wrote:
Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The...
models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in
charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
LOL.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
I predate the death of USENET.
Back in the 90s sci.skeptic was dedicated to "scientific skepticism"
that is somewhat more general and useful that discussing ghosties and
and ghoulies.
Somewhat ironically I cited something from the "SKS" -- skeptical science -- >web page in response to the OP.
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:37:03 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by R Kym Horsell
<kym@kymhorsell.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Good for you.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
I predate the death of USENET.
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
Back in the 90s sci.skeptic was dedicated to "scientific skepticism"
that is somewhat more general and useful that discussing ghosties and
and ghoulies.
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
HAND.
So? That has nothing to do with s.s.
Somewhat ironically I cited something from the "SKS" -- skeptical science --
web page in response to the OP.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
someone's part? No? Then please take it to an appropriate
group; I'm sure there are sci groups dedicated to
climatology.
On 1/12/21 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
someone's part? No? Then please take it to an appropriate
group; I'm sure there are sci groups dedicated to
climatology.
Well most people are sceptical of the extra ordinary claims made by the >global warming (we're all going to die)_ fraternity.
They (who crosspost to here) have to be forgiven as they have the IQs of
damp lettuce leaves
On 1/12/21 5:04 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:37:03 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by R Kym Horsell
<kym@kymhorsell.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Good for you.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
I predate the death of USENET.
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
Back in the 90s sci.skeptic was dedicated to "scientific skepticism"
that is somewhat more general and useful that discussing ghosties and
and ghoulies.
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
HAND.
So? That has nothing to do with s.s.
Somewhat ironically I cited something from the "SKS" -- skeptical science --
web page in response to the OP.
USERNET...
How many of us were around then.
Remember EGC ????
Bet he didn't see it coming
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:59:39 +1300, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by George Black <gblack@hnpl.net>:
On 1/12/21 5:04 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:I was.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:37:03 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by R Kym Horsell
<kym@kymhorsell.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Good for you.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
I predate the death of USENET.
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
Back in the 90s sci.skeptic was dedicated to "scientific skepticism"
that is somewhat more general and useful that discussing ghosties and
and ghoulies.
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
HAND.
So? That has nothing to do with s.s.
Somewhat ironically I cited something from the "SKS" -- skeptical science --
web page in response to the OP.
USERNET...
How many of us were around then.
I certainly remember Curley.
Remember EGC ????
Bet he didn't see it coming
Which has nothing to do with any of the preceding off-topic
spam, from either "R Kym Horsell" or "Ms. Kristina Georgia".
On 6/12/21 12:31 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:59:39 +1300, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by George Black <gblack@hnpl.net>:
On 1/12/21 5:04 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:I was.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:37:03 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by R Kym Horsell
<kym@kymhorsell.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Good for you.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:02:44 +0000, the following appeared...
in sci.skeptic, posted by " Ms. Kristina Georgia"
<inanaini899@gmail.com>:
[Groups trimmed]
<snip>
Climate change prophecy...
All of this is off-topic in sci.skeptic. Unless, of course,
it's somehow about a claim of paranormal ability on
I predate the death of USENET.
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
Back in the 90s sci.skeptic was dedicated to "scientific skepticism" >>>>> that is somewhat more general and useful that discussing ghosties and >>>>> and ghoulies.
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
HAND.
So? That has nothing to do with s.s.
Somewhat ironically I cited something from the "SKS" -- skeptical science --
web page in response to the OP.
USERNET...
How many of us were around then.
I certainly remember Curley.
Remember EGC ????
Bet he didn't see it coming
Which has nothing to do with any of the preceding off-topic
spam, from either "R Kym Horsell" or "Ms. Kristina Georgia".
True but I wanted to get the group back on topic
A lost cause, I'm afraid. Even before the group essentiallyAs has happened to most groups.
died from malnutrition it was overrun with religious (and
antireligious) fanatics and other woo-woos of sorts other
than paranormal claimants. EGC and the "Riley the Psychic
De(f)ective" types were long gone by then. RIP.
On 8/12/21 7:51 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
A lost cause, I'm afraid. Even before the group essentiallyAs has happened to most groups.
died from malnutrition it was overrun with religious (and
antireligious) fanatics and other woo-woos of sorts other
than paranormal claimants. EGC and the "Riley the Psychic
De(f)ective" types were long gone by then. RIP.
You'd think that a military.naval group would be that but no.
The nutters are everywhere
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:47:54 +1300, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Black <gblack@hnpl.net>:
On 8/12/21 7:51 am, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect the rise of blogs did more to kill Usenet than any
A lost cause, I'm afraid. Even before the group essentiallyAs has happened to most groups.
died from malnutrition it was overrun with religious (and
antireligious) fanatics and other woo-woos of sorts other
than paranormal claimants. EGC and the "Riley the Psychic
De(f)ective" types were long gone by then. RIP.
You'd think that a military.naval group would be that but no.
other factor. Remember chatrooms and bulletin boards?
Evolution in action...
Yep. Especially in Mordor-on-the-Potomac...
The nutters are everywhere
On 12/12/21 8:44 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:47:54 +1300, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Black <gblack@hnpl.net>:
On 8/12/21 7:51 am, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect the rise of blogs did more to kill Usenet than any
A lost cause, I'm afraid. Even before the group essentiallyAs has happened to most groups.
died from malnutrition it was overrun with religious (and
antireligious) fanatics and other woo-woos of sorts other
than paranormal claimants. EGC and the "Riley the Psychic
De(f)ective" types were long gone by then. RIP.
You'd think that a military.naval group would be that but no.
other factor. Remember chatrooms and bulletin boards?
Evolution in action...
Yep. Especially in Mordor-on-the-Potomac...
The nutters are everywhere
Deja News ????
Mate and I ran a BBS in the Fidonet days
On Dec 1, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<oqsdqgla8hpmk460b6cf2bc3p6gc7a6eiq@4ax.com>):
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
The Description of the group, available at https://groups.google.com/g/sci.skeptic/about
is
Description
Skeptics discussing pseudo-science.
But I think Bob has me killfiled so he might not see this,
unless someone else follows up and quotes it.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:48:16 -0330, David Dalton wrote:
On Dec 1, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<oqsdqgla8hpmk460b6cf2bc3p6gc7a6eiq@4ax.com>):
Sorry, but sci.skeptic is/was dedicated to claims of the
paranormal, not general scientific skepticism. And
climatology doesn't qualify.
The Description of the group, available at
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.skeptic/about
is
Description
Skeptics discussing pseudo-science.
But I think Bob has me killfiled so he might not see this,
unless someone else follows up and quotes it.
I was curious, so I retrieved the original control messages from ftp.isc.org, >and you are correct:
For your newsgroups file:
sci.skeptic Skeptics discussing pseudo-science.
I was around back in '98, but I can't say I really remember
much about the group.
I will point out that the sword cuts both ways, and that a claim
that "climate science is pseudo-science" is a pseudo-scientific
claim in and of itself.
(And, also, considerable good could come about by allaying the
fears of vaccine skeptics/cynics...)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 60:45:40 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,094 |
Messages: | 5,274,430 |