Remember me
▼ Content

Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs



Page 2 of 2<12
17-07-2017 01:43
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
"The lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb
17-07-2017 04:23
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:Then how can you say it has?


You aren't even bright enough to keep up with the conversation are you? Do you even have an inkling what an "adjournment" means? You seem to be lacking in the very slightest knowledge of anything you speak of. Which raises the question: If you don't know anything, why are you talking about it and sounding like a complete ass? You know nothing of science and talk about it. You know nothing about the law and talk about it. You aren't even bright enough to know how to look things up on the Internet.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Michael-Mann/439408629448440?page=4

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-give-hockey-stick-data-court

This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.

Why do you post here? You know nothing about anything that you talk about. Your greatest success story is discovering a misspelling in someone's posting.


volume of links does not make a case when they are reliant on the same source, as I said the information used to make the "hockey stick" is in the public domain so your source does not make sense.


You manage to irritate hell out of me because of your obvious lack of scientific knowledge. But I should apologize for acting like an ass where you are concerned. I will just say that you do not have any knowledge of what is going on and you make comments that are entirely out of line. When the case resumes you can tell us the results.


Scientific knowledge? you would not be taking the position you are taking if you have scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.


NOAA and NASA are having their budgets cut way down because of the false information they spread under the orders of Obama. There are now so many scientists willing to point fingers at them that they no longer have a government that will give them aid no matter what.

No one has to cut your throat because when it starts cooling off within the next couple of years you will commit suicide because the world isn't the awful place you desire with 1%ers ruining your life.
17-07-2017 16:15
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
spot wrote:

Scientific knowledge? you (sic) would not be taking the position you are taking if you have (sic) scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible [Run-on sentence] perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.
[Yes, for it is written, "A hotter world will surely hasten the rapture."] How *wise* of you to notice, *spot*.]

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.


He has slit your throat before? Would that not have put him away for attempted murder, *spot*? (woof, woof)

Now, as to your inane footnotes, a "blackbody" consists of matter, whether it is in solid, liquid, gas, or plasma phase. Did you not know that? Look at the sun, *spot.* Any blackbody radiation there?

What was it exactly you were saying about "science," *spot*?

(Footnote to Wake: My Friend, this one is not worth your time or mine. If there is no Ignore feature on this website, then simply pass by *spot*. A lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks.)
Edited on 17-07-2017 16:17
17-07-2017 17:17
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

Scientific knowledge? you (sic) would not be taking the position you are taking if you have (sic) scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible [Run-on sentence] perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.
[Yes, for it is written, "A hotter world will surely hasten the rapture."] How *wise* of you to notice, *spot*.]

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.


He has slit your throat before? Would that not have put him away for attempted murder, *spot*? (woof, woof)

Now, as to your inane footnotes, a "blackbody" consists of matter, whether it is in solid, liquid, gas, or plasma phase. Did you not know that? Look at the sun, *spot.* Any blackbody radiation there?

What was it exactly you were saying about "science," *spot*?

(Footnote to Wake: My Friend, this one is not worth your time or mine. If there is no Ignore feature on this website, then simply pass by *spot*. A lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks.)


The problem is that you have to respond. Look at the number of people that check in and look at the comments. You cannot allow these people to have only the side of the morons.

Sure, IBdaMan, Into The Night, Spot and Litebrain aren't worth the effort in and of themselves, but the other people that look at this are. Into The Night has EVEN made the claim that he has a PhD in plasma physics and yet he can't interpose terms in a calculation.

So how many people would read that jackass's claim and assume that he knew what he was talking about? What he claimed to have worked on was NOT PhD material and was probably on a Tokamak. Since there was only one and it was at Princeton you would think that he would have been qualified to do simple math. For crying out loud - I was calculating the expansion factors of the aorta on the first real heart/lung machine and I have a high school education only.

In any case you have to expose these people on both sides of the coin. The True Believers for knowing nothing and those against them for knowing even less. You do not counter ignorance of science with ignorance in the name of science.

Yes, Into the night has many things right. But not as far as I can tell because he understands most of what he is saying, but because he is quoting others who do. The bad part is when he tags on some sort of weirdo explanation. We cannot measure MGT? Well, yes we can. But we cannot compare modern measurements with past records. Why? Because the measurements were taken in different manners. MOST of the ground based temperature records were obtained on land in areas of high urban growth causing Urban Heat Island Effects. Sea based water temperatures were not taken until the last 100 years or so and they had TERRIBLE calibration standards. Modern satellite measurements measure the entire Earth. Fine but the record is only 40 years long. This is a quarter second of the time necessary to make any normal measurements. So how could they possibly be measuring temperatures when the error bars are 100 times larger than the temperature changes?

And what happened when they changed ground based temperature measurements from mercury thermometers to electronic measurements so that they could read temperatures from afar? The fact is that all these calibrations need to be is off by a hundredth of a degree to screw up that record. We couldn't even calibrate that close until fairly recently.

Temperatures on Earth are controlled in the troposphere by conduction and convection. But that's a simplified version. Weather patterns can greatly slow the effects of this conduction and convection.

And AFTER the heated air finally gets into the tropopause it then can only escape via radiation. The complexities of how this works is understood by virtually no one.

The AGW True Believers mostly don't even know that many satellites orbit inside of the atmosphere's outer limits. Others including our own group of jokers think that the satellite temperature measurements could have been significantly effected by changes in orbit despite the fact that these weather measuring satellites orbit out somewhere around 36,000 km and simple trigonometry would show that minor orbital changes have almost no effect.

At least HALF of all of the published papers are wrong and will be falsified within ten years. Though many of them can hang on as "truth" for decades because they were published by respected sources. Reading Science News I have to slap my forehead often enough because even if the original paper was correct (and these papers are seldom referenced) the writer isn't educated enough to present a realistic explanation.

So this all adds up to the fact that you too should stay in touch with the group here and add real information and not the BS handed out by the in-group.
17-07-2017 18:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Sure, IBdaMan, Into The Night, Spot and Litebrain aren't worth the effort in and of themselves, but the other people that look at this are.

Bulverism.
Wake wrote:
Into The Night has EVEN made the claim that he has a PhD in plasma physics

I never made any such claim.
Wake wrote:
and yet he can't interpose terms in a calculation.

I have no problem with it. Adding terms like you are doing I have a problem with.
Wake wrote:
So how many people would read that jackass's claim and assume that he knew what he was talking about? What he claimed to have worked on was NOT PhD material and was probably on a Tokamak.

I never made this claim either.
Wake wrote:
In any case you have to expose these people on both sides of the coin.

Are you sure you are looking at a coin?
Wake wrote:
The True Believers for knowing nothing and those against them for knowing even less. You do not counter ignorance of science with ignorance in the name of science.

You don't counter it with insulting people either.
Wake wrote:
Yes, Into the night has many things right.

...didn't you just say.....?
Wake wrote:
But not as far as I can tell because he understands most of what he is saying,

I understand my material.
Wake wrote:
but because he is quoting others who do.

I do not quote. I do not provide many links.
Wake wrote:
The bad part is when he tags on some sort of weirdo explanation.

...such as...?
Wake wrote:
We cannot measure MGT?

I assume your abbreviation is Mean Global Temperature?

No, we cannot. Not to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:
Well, yes we can.

No, we cannot. It is not possible to determine a statistical average with an acceptable margin of error with our current instrumentation. We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
Wake wrote:
But we cannot compare modern measurements with past records.

The thermometer hasn't changed much.
Wake wrote:
Why? Because the measurements were taken in different manners.

Not really.
Wake wrote:
MOST of the ground based temperature records were obtained on land in areas of high urban growth causing Urban Heat Island Effects.

No, they weren't. They still aren't. Most NOAA thermometers are located outside of cities.
Wake wrote:
Sea based water temperatures were not taken until the last 100 years or so

People have been measuring seawater as long as there have been ships plying the seas. Seawater temperature is important to mariners.
Wake wrote:
and they had TERRIBLE calibration standards.

They have the same calibration standards we use today.
Wake wrote:
Modern satellite measurements measure the entire Earth.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature. They measure light.
Wake wrote:
Fine but the record is only 40 years long.

There is no record of a satellite measuring the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
This is a quarter second of the time necessary to make any normal measurements.

Normal measurements are made using thermometers, just like always.
Wake wrote:
So how could they possibly be measuring temperatures when the error bars are 100 times larger than the temperature changes?

Error bar??? Are you trying to use a made-up word for tolerance?
Wake wrote:
And what happened when they changed ground based temperature measurements from mercury thermometers to electronic measurements

They use both still today. The effect of the electronic instrument is better automation.
Wake wrote:
so that they could read temperatures from afar?

Telemetry is sometimes used, but most of these are not transmitting off site. Many places still use an observer (who also maintains the instruments).
Wake wrote:
The fact is that all these calibrations need to be is off by a hundredth of a degree to screw up that record.

You really need to learn math.
Wake wrote:
Temperatures on Earth are controlled in the troposphere by conduction and convection.

No, temperatures on Earth are controlled by the Sun.
Wake wrote:
But that's a simplified version.

There is no complex version. The Sun is our primary source of energy on Earth.
Wake wrote:
Weather patterns can greatly slow the effects of this conduction and convection.

Weather doesn't slow anything. Weather IS conduction and convection (that's why they call them convective storms, dumbass).
Wake wrote:
And AFTER the heated air finally gets into the tropopause

....wait...what???
Wake wrote:
it then can only escape via radiation.

Radiation loss, or radiance, occurs mostly from the surface itself. The atmosphere (all layers of it) help a lot. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The complexities of how this works is understood by virtually no one.

It is understood by anyone that accepts and uses the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is understood by anyone that accepts and uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Why you seem to have difficulty with these simply concepts is beyond me.
Wake wrote:
The AGW True Believers mostly don't even know that many satellites orbit inside of the atmosphere's outer limits.

Define the 'outer limit of the atmosphere'. Do you believe there is some kind of boundary where the atmosphere just 'stops'?
Wake wrote:
Others including our own group of jokers think that the satellite temperature measurements could have been significantly effected by changes in orbit despite the fact that these weather measuring satellites orbit out somewhere around 36,000 km and simple trigonometry would show that minor orbital changes have almost no effect.

Trigonometry is not used to calculate orbits. What 'effect' are you trying to dismiss?
Wake wrote:
At least HALF of all of the published papers are wrong and will be falsified within ten years.

A prediction. Any paper supporting the Church of Global Warming has already been falsified as internally inconsistent.
Wake wrote:
Though many of them can hang on as "truth" for decades because they were published by respected sources.

Consensus is not used in science. If a scientist or anybody else publishes a theory that is internally inconsistent, it has already been falsified from the day the theory is published. I don't have a lot of respect for people that confuse religion with science.
Wake wrote:
Reading Science News I have to slap my forehead often enough because even if the original paper was correct (and these papers are seldom referenced) the writer isn't educated enough to present a realistic explanation.

Science is not a magazine.
Wake wrote:
So this all adds up to the fact that you too should stay in touch with the group here and add real information and not the BS handed out by the in-group.

Like your BS?

Do you consider yourself part of the 'in' group now?


The Church of Global Warming is false. It can't even define what "global warming" is. It cannot define what 'greenhouse effect' is without turning to 'global warming'.

Science has no theories about things that cannot be defined.


The Parrot Killer
20-07-2017 15:35
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

Scientific knowledge? you (sic) would not be taking the position you are taking if you have (sic) scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible [Run-on sentence] perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.
[Yes, for it is written, "A hotter world will surely hasten the rapture."] How *wise* of you to notice, *spot*.]

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.




He has slit your throat before? Would that not have put him away for attempted murder, *spot*? (woof, woof)

Now, as to your inane footnotes, a "blackbody" consists of matter, whether it is in solid, liquid, gas, or plasma phase. Did you not know that? Look at the sun, *spot.* Any blackbody radiation there?

What was it exactly you were saying about "science," *spot*?

(Footnote to Wake: My Friend, this one is not worth your time or mine. If there is no Ignore feature on this website, then simply pass by *spot*. A lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks.)


Notice the word "threaten"? Wake has threatened physical violence I don't suppose its a credible threat. But still it is a sign of mental instability, that might not be a problem for you, he says what you want to hear and sounds smart to you. But when your argument is dependent on your personal credibility it's not a wise thing to do.

And not all matter can be treated as a blackbody, specifically the way that into the night and Ibaman say it should. if you want to know about their version of atmospheric physics I recommend you ask them don't ask me. If you want to know about actual atmospheric physics don't ask me, read a book.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-07-2017 17:54
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
spot wrote:
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

Scientific knowledge? you (sic) would not be taking the position you are taking if you have (sic) scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible [Run-on sentence] perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.
[Yes, for it is written, "A hotter world will surely hasten the rapture."] How *wise* of you to notice, *spot*.]

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.




He has slit your throat before? Would that not have put him away for attempted murder, *spot*? (woof, woof)

Now, as to your inane footnotes, a "blackbody" consists of matter, whether it is in solid, liquid, gas, or plasma phase. Did you not know that? Look at the sun, *spot.* Any blackbody radiation there?

What was it exactly you were saying about "science," *spot*?

(Footnote to Wake: My Friend, this one is not worth your time or mine. If there is no Ignore feature on this website, then simply pass by *spot*. A lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks.)


Notice the word "threaten"? Wake has threatened physical violence I don't suppose its a credible threat. But still it is a sign of mental instability, that might not be a problem for you, he says what you want to hear and sounds smart to you. But when your argument is dependent on your personal credibility it's not a wise thing to do.

And not all matter can be treated as a blackbody, specifically the way that into the night and Ibaman say it should. if you want to know about their version of atmospheric physics I recommend you ask them don't ask me. If you want to know about actual atmospheric physics don't ask me, read a book.


Tell us spot - with all of this cyber bullying are you going to run away from home?
20-07-2017 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
spot wrote:
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

Scientific knowledge? you (sic) would not be taking the position you are taking if you have (sic) scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible [Run-on sentence] perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.
[Yes, for it is written, "A hotter world will surely hasten the rapture."] How *wise* of you to notice, *spot*.]

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.




He has slit your throat before? Would that not have put him away for attempted murder, *spot*? (woof, woof)

Now, as to your inane footnotes, a "blackbody" consists of matter, whether it is in solid, liquid, gas, or plasma phase. Did you not know that? Look at the sun, *spot.* Any blackbody radiation there?

What was it exactly you were saying about "science," *spot*?

(Footnote to Wake: My Friend, this one is not worth your time or mine. If there is no Ignore feature on this website, then simply pass by *spot*. A lion does not turn its head when a small dog barks.)


Notice the word "threaten"? Wake has threatened physical violence I don't suppose its a credible threat. But still it is a sign of mental instability, that might not be a problem for you, he says what you want to hear and sounds smart to you. But when your argument is dependent on your personal credibility it's not a wise thing to do.

And not all matter can be treated as a blackbody, specifically the way that into the night and Ibaman say it should.

All matter conforms to blackbody theory. It doesn't matter if the matter is a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

If you can manage to heat up air to the same temperature as a glowing lump of coal, it will glow the same way.

The trick is heating up the air without it getting away from you.

This August 21st, you will see another case in the United States if you're in the path of totality: The Sun's corona. That glowing atmosphere of the Sun (much hotter than a lump of coal!)

If course you can always make your own 'eclipse' anytime you want using simple materials.


spot wrote:
if you want to know about their version of atmospheric physics I recommend you ask them don't ask me. If you want to know about actual atmospheric physics don't ask me, read a book.


There are many books on 'atmospheric science'. Some are correct, some or just flat wrong. A book is not an authoritative reference of atmospheric science.

The ONLY authoritative reference of any theory of science is the theory itself (and the authors of that theory).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-07-2017 19:48
21-07-2017 04:59
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake wrote:

Tell us spot - with all of this cyber bullying are you going to run away from home?


Obviously he won't. That would be scary.

Wake, there is a tragic paucity of rational posts in this forum.
Shall you and I simply address each other in future posts, and ignore the rest of the static and noise?


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
21-07-2017 15:27
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

Tell us spot - with all of this cyber bullying are you going to run away from home?


Obviously he won't. That would be scary.

Wake, there is a tragic paucity of rational posts in this forum.
Shall you and I simply address each other in future posts, and ignore the rest of the static and noise?


That sounds like a good idea but there are the occasional newcomers that often don't hang around long because of the nut cases. James has a lot of screwy ideas since he wants to believe that the people at NASA and NOAA couldn't possibly lie to the citizens of their own country but he IS trying to get to the root of whether or not there is global warming and if so what possible difference it would make.

So I think that we have to just ignore the crash kings and only have intellectual discussions with those willing to have intellectual discussions. After you go through the idea that you can have a change of state without adding or subtracting energy we have dummy telling us that you can't have a change in state without adding or subtracting energy.

My emphasis is on chromatography since I am experienced with that. I designed and built for production several gas and liquid chromatographs and so I can tell you for certain that CO2 doesn't have any significant effect in the atmosphere.

What's more, in order to answer questions here, I studied how heat moves in the atmosphere. There is so little heat loss in the lower atmosphere through direct radiation to space you might as well discount it entirely. Again, that proves the claim of CO2 as being important as moot.

Now in the stratosphere the only way to vent heat to space is through radiation but that isn't changed by increases in CO2 in the troposphere.

At what point will NOAA back away from their lying to the American people about "man-made climate change"?
21-07-2017 15:52
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Makes all the sense in the world.

What makes NO SENSE is the universal hypocrisy of the climate change sharia jihadists, who, like Rick Steves, preach one thing, but practice exactly the opposite: "Until next time, keep on travelling!"

Yes indeed, cut your carbon footprint 80%, but by all means, "Keep on travelling."

Isn't it interesting how millions of them fly and drive around the world, fly and drive to "Earth Day" festivities, to "protest for the environment" and on and on? They militantly scream against "greedy big oil" while filling up their gas tanks to drive to another protest or riot.

The Left is always wrong but never in doubt.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
21-07-2017 15:57
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
StarMan wrote:
Makes all the sense in the world.

What makes NO SENSE is the universal hypocrisy of the climate change sharia jihadists, who, like Rick Steves, preach one thing, but practice exactly the opposite: "Until next time, keep on travelling!"

Yes indeed, cut your carbon footprint 80%, but by all means, "Keep on travelling."

Isn't it interesting how millions of them fly and drive around the world, fly and drive to "Earth Day" festivities, to "protest for the environment" and on and on? They militantly scream against "greedy big oil" while filling up their gas tanks to drive to another protest or riot.

The Left is always wrong but never in doubt.


That very hypocrisy is something I have been aghast of since the very beginning. All of the noisiest "environmentalists" I have met drive the largest SUV's possible. They talk about flying all over the world to meetings to "protect Mother Earth". Some 40% of energy spent on transportation goes to the airlines. There are some 3,000 commercial airlines in the air around just the USA at any moment. And most of them are filled with people who believe in global warming.
21-07-2017 16:07
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Take a few minutes and have some fun with Bill McKibben of Middelbury College. He is one of Them and wrote a giggly manifesto in the Daily Beast which I read elsewherre in climate-debate.com

Here is his email as well as that of his colleagues:

To: wmckibbe@middlebury.edu
Cc: mbakermedard@middlebury.edu; mcostanz@middlebury.edu; kathleend@middlebury.edu; rgould@middlebury.edu; klyza@middlebury.edu; lapin@middlebury.edu; kmorse@middlebury.edu; pryan@middlebury.edu; trombula@middlebury.edu; dmunroe@middlebury.edu

The next time you see something really stupid from one of the Lefties, go to the college website and look up his department and give him a little counterpoint, just for fun. They're so unaccustomed to it, always being in a roomful of thoughtless sycophantic students, or nodding, gutless colleagues. I once wrote to the entire faculty of Harvard Law School as I quoted a Clinton appointee with something particularly stupid to say. A conservative scholar addressed them and this *feminist* (sic) said she "almost threw up" she got so sick to her stomach.

"Strong, smart women" are like that, aren't they. Dissenting opinions send them to their safe space. The scholar was commenting, as I recall, that maybe, just maybe there ARE some differences between men and women insofar as women eschew the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Ya think? Then too, how many nurses in hospitals are men?
21-07-2017 17:49
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
StarMan wrote:
Take a few minutes and have some fun with Bill McKibben of Middelbury College. He is one of Them and wrote a giggly manifesto in the Daily Beast which I read elsewherre in climate-debate.com

Here is his email as well as that of his colleagues:

To: wmckibbe@middlebury.edu
Cc: mbakermedard@middlebury.edu; mcostanz@middlebury.edu; kathleend@middlebury.edu; rgould@middlebury.edu; klyza@middlebury.edu; lapin@middlebury.edu; kmorse@middlebury.edu; pryan@middlebury.edu; trombula@middlebury.edu; dmunroe@middlebury.edu

The next time you see something really stupid from one of the Lefties, go to the college website and look up his department and give him a little counterpoint, just for fun. They're so unaccustomed to it, always being in a roomful of thoughtless sycophantic students, or nodding, gutless colleagues. I once wrote to the entire faculty of Harvard Law School as I quoted a Clinton appointee with something particularly stupid to say. A conservative scholar addressed them and this *feminist* (sic) said she "almost threw up" she got so sick to her stomach.

"Strong, smart women" are like that, aren't they. Dissenting opinions send them to their safe space. The scholar was commenting, as I recall, that maybe, just maybe there ARE some differences between men and women insofar as women eschew the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Ya think? Then too, how many nurses in hospitals are men?


I am 72 years old and have worked in electronics engineering my entire life. One of my first jobs getting out of the Air Force VFW was in high energy nuclear research. There's no money in that and that company soon went belly up and sent me to work for the company that made the first "real" super-computer that became the hub of the Pacific coast Internet at UC Berkeley.

I eventually became a manager which I hated because I'm a doer and not an overseer.

But during ALL of this time I can't remember ever seeing one single female engineer. I saw many female assembly workers who really excelled at what they were doing and perhaps under different circumstance could have been engineers. But circumstances were as they were.
21-07-2017 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Take a few minutes and have some fun with Bill McKibben of Middelbury College. He is one of Them and wrote a giggly manifesto in the Daily Beast which I read elsewherre in climate-debate.com

Here is his email as well as that of his colleagues:

To: wmckibbe@middlebury.edu
Cc: mbakermedard@middlebury.edu; mcostanz@middlebury.edu; kathleend@middlebury.edu; rgould@middlebury.edu; klyza@middlebury.edu; lapin@middlebury.edu; kmorse@middlebury.edu; pryan@middlebury.edu; trombula@middlebury.edu; dmunroe@middlebury.edu

The next time you see something really stupid from one of the Lefties, go to the college website and look up his department and give him a little counterpoint, just for fun. They're so unaccustomed to it, always being in a roomful of thoughtless sycophantic students, or nodding, gutless colleagues. I once wrote to the entire faculty of Harvard Law School as I quoted a Clinton appointee with something particularly stupid to say. A conservative scholar addressed them and this *feminist* (sic) said she "almost threw up" she got so sick to her stomach.

"Strong, smart women" are like that, aren't they. Dissenting opinions send them to their safe space. The scholar was commenting, as I recall, that maybe, just maybe there ARE some differences between men and women insofar as women eschew the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Ya think? Then too, how many nurses in hospitals are men?


I am 72 years old and have worked in electronics engineering my entire life. One of my first jobs getting out of the Air Force VFW was in high energy nuclear research. There's no money in that and that company soon went belly up and sent me to work for the company that made the first "real" super-computer that became the hub of the Pacific coast Internet at UC Berkeley.

I eventually became a manager which I hated because I'm a doer and not an overseer.

But during ALL of this time I can't remember ever seeing one single female engineer. I saw many female assembly workers who really excelled at what they were doing and perhaps under different circumstance could have been engineers. But circumstances were as they were.

You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


The Parrot Killer
21-07-2017 19:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?
21-07-2017 19:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-07-2017 19:52
21-07-2017 19:58
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.
Edited on 21-07-2017 19:59
21-07-2017 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


The Parrot Killer
22-07-2017 21:40
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.
23-07-2017 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 23:39
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


I suggest that you learn that Internet Protocol is Internet Protocol. It isn't any surprise to me that you tell us all about things you know nothing of.
24-07-2017 18:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


I suggest that you learn that Internet Protocol is Internet Protocol. It isn't any surprise to me that you tell us all about things you know nothing of.


Yes. Today we call it the Internet Protocol. It was not called that back then. The first version of what became IP was called IMP.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2017 18:14
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


I suggest that you learn that Internet Protocol is Internet Protocol. It isn't any surprise to me that you tell us all about things you know nothing of.


Yes. Today we call it the Internet Protocol. It was not called that back then. The first version of what became IP was called IMP.


Who would have EVER guessed that as the Internet grew it updated in order to handle the traffic?

Oh, wait, according to NightMare it sprung fully fledged from nothing.
28-07-2017 18:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


I suggest that you learn that Internet Protocol is Internet Protocol. It isn't any surprise to me that you tell us all about things you know nothing of.


Yes. Today we call it the Internet Protocol. It was not called that back then. The first version of what became IP was called IMP.


Who would have EVER guessed that as the Internet grew it updated in order to handle the traffic?

Oh, wait, according to NightMare it sprung fully fledged from nothing.


Redirection yet again.

The base protocols have not changed.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2017 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You must not get out much.

I have met several female electrical engineers. They were all good at their job too.

Berkeley was never the west coast hub of the internet. It is one of several distributed nodes that make up the internet backbone. They came up simultaneously. The other nodes on the west coast, including one in Seattle and another in San Diego were part of that original backbone.


Tell me, will you EVER say anything that you have even an inkling of knowledge about?


I do talk about what I know about all the time.

Perhaps you are referring to the Arpanet, which DID use Berkeley as the only west coast hub?


And perhaps you aren't bright enough to know that the Arpanet is where the Internet came from.


It isn't. The Arpanet didn't even use TCP/IP. It used IP.

Arpanet is simply one of the networks that became part of the internet. The internet did not come from Arpanet.


I suggest you get a couple of cables to jump-start your brain.


I suggest you look up the history of internet. The networks that initially made up the internet include Arpanet, Telnet, Cyclades, Cybernet, and of course the phone system as well as others.

TCP was developed after Arpanet itself came up (about 5 years later).


I suggest that you learn that Internet Protocol is Internet Protocol. It isn't any surprise to me that you tell us all about things you know nothing of.


Yes. Today we call it the Internet Protocol. It was not called that back then. The first version of what became IP was called IMP.


Who would have EVER guessed that as the Internet grew it updated in order to handle the traffic?

Oh, wait, according to NightMare it sprung fully fledged from nothing.


Redirection yet again.

The base protocols have not changed.


Just as I said, according to you it was never developed. It generated out of the atmosphere. You are about the dumbest person I'm ever had the unhappy chance to ever speak to. In an intelligence contest with a snail, the snail would not only win but would answer faster.
29-07-2017 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The base protocols have not changed.


Just as I said, according to you it was never developed....deleted insult stream....

Then what are you typing this nonsense now on???


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 18:59
The Strange Case of the Wandering Data312-06-2017 19:41
Michael Oppenheimer, M2C2 Lecture, Pace Univ, 20142020-11-2015 00:41
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact