Wanted: volunteers with bandwidth/storage to help save climate data

Hugo Slabbert hugo at slabnet.com
Fri Dec 16 21:48:34 UTC 2016


This started as a technical appeal, but:

https://www.nanog.org/list

1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as 
described in the charter of NANOG.
...
6.  Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited.
...

-- 
Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

On Fri 2016-Dec-16 16:35:36 -0500, Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote:

>On 12/16/2016 3:30 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782
>
>North Carolina is not banning science. It is banning absolutely 
>preposterous and manipulated junk science.
>
>A 39-inch rise in the ocean levels over the next century is based on 
>fear-mongering and junk science designed to scare politicians into 
>increasing grant $$ from the federal government. It is not based on 
>science.
>
>In fact, the sea levels continue to rise at the SAME TINY 2-4mm per 
>year that they've been rising at for decades, with ZERO sign of an 
>increase.
>
>If global warming was real and cumulative - this shouldn't even be 
>possible, based all that we've been told over the past 20 years.
>
>Every article that states that oceans rising at alarmingly faster 
>rates - due to global warming - either lie about or manipulate the 
>the data... or they grab one relatively small short term spike and 
>extrapolates from that.
>
>Meanwhile, dozens of sea-level rising predictions from so-called 
>credible scientists have not only failed, but failed by order of 
>magnitudes, and again, relied upon junk science. True science makes 
>"risky predictions" and is willing to throw out the theory when that 
>theories "risky predictions" don't come true.
>
>But I truly due hope that this collection process is successful 
>because I hope that ALL of this (mostly) manipulated data gets 
>recorded for posterity so that (honest) scientists a century from now 
>can do extensive studies on how/why science became so political and 
>manipulated as they look back on the first few decades of the 21st 
>century's slide into a strong long-term cooling trend, due to long 
>term cyclical sun cycles.
>
>This is not a victim-less crime. This manipulation of the data by 
>global warmongers harms people because is miscalculates resources and 
>damages the economy. Does that mean we should spew toxic waste into 
>rivers or streams or spew smog into the air? Of course not. But 
>global warming and CO2 being a cause of it... and "oceans rising" has 
>MUCH junk science behind it.
>
>Still, I hope this data is preserved. The truth will win out in the 
>long term. (as is already starting to happen)
>
>-- 
>Rob McEwen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20161216/d6c3821b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list