Sujet : Re: Challenger
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 11. Jun 2024, 15:55:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v49ogt$1380c$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 in
the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 - it's run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather than northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that - they dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking the published the measurements consistently lying to the public for more than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash flows.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney-- This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.www.norton.com
Challenger
Re: Challenger
