This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:33:13?PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:homes and farms.
Michael Ejercito <MEje...@hotmail.com> wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
They want to destroy Western industrial civilization.
Bullshit. They are too stupid to work out that
it isn't even clear that climate change which
ALWAYS happens, isnt even necessarily a bad thing.
Clearly the climate change from the ice ages obviously isn't a bad thing.
The climate change at the end of the last ice came with 120 metres of sea level rise, which inundated a lot of low lying land. The people who had been living there had to move quite a long way, and wouldn't have been positively impressed by losing their
The climate change that is happening at moment is happening remarkably fast
and quite a few of its effects aren't positive. We can be pretty confident that if we were dumping less extra CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be slower climate change.
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit righttardedness.
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away.
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
On 01/02/2024 09:54, Steve wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit
righttardedness.
Nah. Cursitor is merely veering more towards the paranoid fringe of the
right than is normal.
It doesn't detract from the fact that there is a case to answer by the climate alarmists, and all they actually do is never refute it, just say
with impeccable Bandar Log-ic 'We all say so, so it must be true'.
THAT is real communism.
And the commonly held perception of the Left is that 'if we all say it,
it will *become* true'.
As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
oppressed and held back.
Well if they are so fucking smart, why don't they band together and take over,.
As they have in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sudan...
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
oppressed and held back.
Having a lower IQ doesn't help them very much either. Whereas Asian and
other races do very well.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public >policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on >climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the >1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby >against smoking bans."
Thomas Prufer
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
than rational.
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I don't think it is deliberate. Who wants to travel a hundred and fifty
miles into a wilderness to read a thermometer? And even with digital >thermometers there needs to be electric power.
And in airports, what is needed for aircraft is the air temperature
there, at or near ground level, because that affects landing and takeoff >speeds.
What is slightly mire worrying is the way they record 'daily averages'
In the days of mercury or alcohol thermometers you read the maximum and >minimum temperatures recorded by the sliding steel bars, added them
together, and halved them.
Not very precise, or average, but the best you could do.
However digital thermometers respond much faster than mercury does, so
it's possible to record a very brief maximum caused by e.g. a car or jet >exhaust, by a climate activist shining a mirror on the weather
station...or holding a lighter underneath it...
And of course nearly all land weather stations have seen encroachment by >urbanisation since 1950.
What about the sea? Well that too is a tad suspect. It generally now
measures from the intakes of cooling water into the ships engines. But
ships tend to stick to shipping lanes, because they represent the
shortest distances between choke points and popular destinations. and
are pouring out hot water into the seas in those lanes.
The best measurements are satellite, but they don't record earth >temperatures, but the radiation over an area that may come from clouds
high up, weather balloons, and buoys that duck down into the deep water,
and record temperatures on the way up.
In short, the actual data on which all these models are based, is not
nearly as solid as people are told it is.
And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5C...
Which is so far well within the range of 'natural' variation...
In the little ice age ...'mean annual temperatures across the Northern >Hemisphere declined by 0.6 C (1.1 F) relative to the average
temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE.'...
Not saying man made climate change isn't happening - it would be hard to >justify saying that human activity has no effect whatsoever - but there
is no smoking gun and no gunshot residue either.
It could as easily be 99% natural. Or systematic errors in measurement.
The real indicators would be places like the US and Canadian prairies to
see whether they were getting earlier harvests consistently. Or whether
the Siberian tundra were in fact becoming available for agriculture.
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and their media allies across the globe.
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
try and understand the truth.
I remember an employee many years ago saying 'just tell me what I have
to do to get paid' He had no interest whatsoever beyond that, and he is
not alone.
Loads of people who work in big organisations are simply not
interested...in the truth or anything. Just in keeping the job to pay
the mortgage and keeping the family in death burgers.
They are in reality, simple slaves. And willing with it.
They are not paid to think, but to obey.
They make ideal climate scientists.
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was >> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and their media allies across the globe.
The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled
only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree
in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.
The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be
the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for
people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said “significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two
percent were not sure.
Among respondents with the most experience – those at least 50-years-old – less than half expect significant harm for people alive today.
Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which
more than 60 percent expect significant harm.
Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority
of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents
attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More
importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future
warming will be much of a problem.
The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has
been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events.
The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.
In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
recent decades."
So much for 'consensus'
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
try and understand the truth.
I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise intelligent professionals. Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus because eveyone agrees.
Sometimes breakthroughs are achieved by autistic people who are immune
to the emotional influence of their peers and seniors.
I remember an employee many years ago saying 'just tell me what I have
to do to get paid' He had no interest whatsoever beyond that, and he is
not alone.
Loads of people who work in big organisations are simply not
interested...in the truth or anything. Just in keeping the job to pay
the mortgage and keeping the family in death burgers.
They are in reality, simple slaves. And willing with it.
Sure. Maybe their golf game is more important.
They are not paid to think, but to obey.
They make ideal climate scientists.
When the predicted climate disaster doesn't materialize, the "science"
of climate prediction will swing in some new direction, to some new concensus. They will say "but we have more powerful computers now."
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I don't think it is deliberate. Who wants to travel a hundred and fifty
miles into a wilderness to read a thermometer? And even with digital
thermometers there needs to be electric power.
And in airports, what is needed for aircraft is the air temperature
there, at or near ground level, because that affects landing and takeoff
speeds.
What is slightly mire worrying is the way they record 'daily averages'
In the days of mercury or alcohol thermometers you read the maximum and
minimum temperatures recorded by the sliding steel bars, added them
together, and halved them.
Not very precise, or average, but the best you could do.
However digital thermometers respond much faster than mercury does, so
it's possible to record a very brief maximum caused by e.g. a car or jet
exhaust, by a climate activist shining a mirror on the weather
station...or holding a lighter underneath it...
And of course nearly all land weather stations have seen encroachment by
urbanisation since 1950.
What about the sea? Well that too is a tad suspect. It generally now
measures from the intakes of cooling water into the ships engines. But
ships tend to stick to shipping lanes, because they represent the
shortest distances between choke points and popular destinations. and
are pouring out hot water into the seas in those lanes.
The best measurements are satellite, but they don't record earth
temperatures, but the radiation over an area that may come from clouds
high up, weather balloons, and buoys that duck down into the deep water,
and record temperatures on the way up.
In short, the actual data on which all these models are based, is not
nearly as solid as people are told it is.
And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5°C...
From the link above
"NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average
land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius
above the pre-industrial average."
so people are panicking by a possible 0.15c increase above that, which
will somehow suddenly become a planetary-scale extinction event.
Which is so far well within the range of 'natural' variation...
In the little ice age ...'mean annual temperatures across the Northern
Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average
temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE.'...
Not saying man made climate change isn't happening - it would be hard to
justify saying that human activity has no effect whatsoever - but there
is no smoking gun and no gunshot residue either.
It could as easily be 99% natural. Or systematic errors in measurement.
The real indicators would be places like the US and Canadian prairies to
see whether they were getting earlier harvests consistently. Or whether
the Siberian tundra were in fact becoming available for agriculture.
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
On 01/02/2024 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural PhilosopherConSensus
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and >>>> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social >>>> than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
try and understand the truth.
I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
intelligent professionals. Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus
because eveyone agrees.
EveRyone
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:[...]
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:42:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural PhilosopherConSensus
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and >>>>> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social >>>>> than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
try and understand the truth.
I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
intelligent professionals. Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus
because eveyone agrees.
EveRyone
You can be an english teacher in your future career. I'm an engineer.
On 01/02/2024 17:12, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:42:52 +0000, The Natural PhilosopherI am already an engineer, but it's no excuse for not using a spell checker
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural PhilosopherConSensus
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and >>>>>> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social >>>>>> than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to >>>>> try and understand the truth.
I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
intelligent professionals. Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus >>>> because eveyone agrees.
EveRyone
You can be an english teacher in your future career. I'm an engineer.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:[...]
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
...as long as you are talking about the same variety of crop in the same
soil with the same water and CO2 supply - and many other variables.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:38:00 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:[...]
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >> > crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
...as long as you are talking about the same variety of crop in the same >soil with the same water and CO2 supply - and many other variables.
Seems to me that thermometers might work better.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think that you're a communist plant who's only
pretending to be a pig-shit-thick righttard in order to discredit righttardedness.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recordingITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away.
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >> >> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recordingITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away.
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations. >Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're >polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at >data-collection time.
The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The >'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard.
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm
to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of
the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive today".
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
and our children's children.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As in critical race theory that holds that all black people are
oppressed and held back.
Having a lower IQ doesn't help them very much either. Whereas Asian and
other races do very well.
IQ tests are culture-related and very poor indicators of innate
intelligence. If you took an IQ test devised for Africans by an
African, who had never been outside Africa, you would fare a lot worse
than a native of that country.
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:talking to you because everything is just total bullshit to you, and you're mentally ill.
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The temperature station data is smoothed with surrounding station readings, and if anything gives a slightly lower reading than would be obtained with perfectly unbiased locations. This topic has been covered before in great detail. It's a waste of time
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural PhilosopherCrops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I don't think it is deliberate. Who wants to travel a hundred and fifty
miles into a wilderness to read a thermometer? And even with digital
thermometers there needs to be electric power.
And in airports, what is needed for aircraft is the air temperature
there, at or near ground level, because that affects landing and takeoff >>> speeds.
What is slightly mire worrying is the way they record 'daily averages'
In the days of mercury or alcohol thermometers you read the maximum and >>> minimum temperatures recorded by the sliding steel bars, added them
together, and halved them.
Not very precise, or average, but the best you could do.
However digital thermometers respond much faster than mercury does, so
it's possible to record a very brief maximum caused by e.g. a car or jet >>> exhaust, by a climate activist shining a mirror on the weather
station...or holding a lighter underneath it...
And of course nearly all land weather stations have seen encroachment by >>> urbanisation since 1950.
What about the sea? Well that too is a tad suspect. It generally now
measures from the intakes of cooling water into the ships engines. But
ships tend to stick to shipping lanes, because they represent the
shortest distances between choke points and popular destinations. and
are pouring out hot water into the seas in those lanes.
The best measurements are satellite, but they don't record earth
temperatures, but the radiation over an area that may come from clouds
high up, weather balloons, and buoys that duck down into the deep water, >>> and record temperatures on the way up.
In short, the actual data on which all these models are based, is not
nearly as solid as people are told it is.
And all the fuss is about an alleged rise of less than 0.5C...
From the link above
"NOAAs climate monitoring stations found that the Earths average
land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius
above the pre-industrial average."
so people are panicking by a possible 0.15c increase above that, which
will somehow suddenly become a planetary-scale extinction event.
Which is so far well within the range of 'natural' variation...
In the little ice age ...'mean annual temperatures across the Northern
Hemisphere declined by 0.6 C (1.1 F) relative to the average
temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE.'...
Not saying man made climate change isn't happening - it would be hard to >>> justify saying that human activity has no effect whatsoever - but there >>> is no smoking gun and no gunshot residue either.
It could as easily be 99% natural. Or systematic errors in measurement.
The real indicators would be places like the US and Canadian prairies to >>> see whether they were getting earlier harvests consistently. Or whether >>> the Siberian tundra were in fact becoming available for agriculture.
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out. >>>>>>>>
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific >>>>>>> consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be >>>>>> possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, >>>> was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard. >>>>
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of >>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and >>> their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 19:01:26 +0000, Anita 'Annie' Shein is jewPeople like me (Americans) get past the border by presenting
paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum <RJ...@TheWor1d.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:16:07 -0800, NOT Michael Ejercito ><MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:01:51?AM UTC-8, Anita 'Annie' Shein >>is jew paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum wrote:
That's what illegal gook 'immigrants' like you are doing, gook!Yet again you cling to this fiction that I am some sort of illegal >>alien, instead of the American citizen that I am!
Yet again, you cling to this delusion that you are an American citizen >instead of the illegal Flip Chinaman that you are!
Does this even LOOK like a g-ddam American?How does something like that even get past the border?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3sTCuxtlf/?hl=en
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:13:42?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
"As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
Yeah, so those temperatures being higher than optimum,
we expect the trees to stop breathing CO2 and close up.
The range is 25 to 35 C, thermoregulation only occurs inside those
limits.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recordingITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>> game away.
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
data-collection time.
The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The >> 'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
"As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
Check Google Earth.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, soCrops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously half-baked hypothesis.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >> >> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recordingITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away.
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're >polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at >data-collection time.
The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The >'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give
or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and
the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get
named unto the 1990s).
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it'sCO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
increased at all because some antique book he has
claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
On 2024/02/01 1:13 p.m., john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recordingITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>> game away.
preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust >>>>>> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations. >>> Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're >>> polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
data-collection time.
The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of >>>> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The >>> 'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
"As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
Check Google Earth.
As of 1952 the highest temperature recorded in the UK was 37.8C (100F)
on August 9, 1911 in Greenwich. 40.3C is 104.5F for comparison purposes.
Just an old book I picked up - CLW_1952.pdf
https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/download/file/io_1222f365-1041-4be8-889e-f53850885bdc
There are a few more people in the UK now than in 1911, and a few more >thermometers...not saying that is significant, but more data points does
tend to catch outliers.
John ;-#)#
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:13:19 -0800, NOT Michael Ejercito <MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:<RJ...@TheWor1d.com>
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:23:54?PM UTC-8, Loose Cannon wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 19:01:26 +0000, Anita 'Annie' Shein is jew paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum
'Annie' Sheinwrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:16:07 -0800, NOT Michael Ejercito ><MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:01:51?AM UTC-8, Anita
illegalis jew paedophile BARRY SHEIN's dead circumcised jew mum wrote:
That's what illegal gook 'immigrants' like you are doing, gook!Yet again you cling to this fiction that I am some sort of
citizenalien, instead of the American citizen that I am!
Yet again, you cling to this delusion that you are an American
In case you have not noticed, I am an American!instead of the illegal Flip Chinaman that you are!
People like me (Americans) get past the border by presentingDoes this even LOOK like a g-ddam American?How does something like that even get past the border?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3sTCuxtlf/?hl=en
passports to customs agents at ports of entry!
Not so, gook.
Subpeople like you (Flip Chinamen) get past the border by sneaking
into the country on small boats!
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min −220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic, >Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated.
the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the
multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all >warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas
show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts
the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of >surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any >positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one
has to ask just how alarming that really is.
- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically
definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which
no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a
catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar
Logic.
As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are
usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the >historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the >infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case.
We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name
of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all >without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:13:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels >>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and >>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic, >>Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated. >>And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the >>multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all >>warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas >>show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts >>the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of >>surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any >>positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one >>has to ask just how alarming that really is.
- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically
definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which
no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a >>catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar >>Logic.
As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are
usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the >>historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the >>infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case. >>
We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name
of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all >>without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity,
clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the
stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If
we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet
instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the
scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health
impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of
secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
than rational.
I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
moved four times, always in the warmer direction.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 04:59:23 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think ifCO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding betterCrops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
stuff, so
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
it's
happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2
levels
have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
and
reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, >>>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take >>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
increased at all because some antique book he has
claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer
<prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
fellow at The Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the
scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health
impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of
secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."
So somebody can't decide if the Heartland Institute disputes a claim
about smoking, or a claim about secondhand smoke. "Extremism" is the inability to make distinctions, and it's a word the left loves to use
but doesn't understand.
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
than rational.
I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
moved four times, always in the warmer direction.
Before 1990 we had a few hundred 'climate scientists.' Then federal
funding increased 15x from 1990 to 1995 and more since. Now 'thousands
of climate scientists all agree.'
No doubt those thousands include not only those who changed fields
because there's more money in it, and those such as biologists of
dubious reputation who couldn't get a grant to study diabetes unless
they promised to sudy the 'connection between diabetes and climate
change', but also the technicians who install weather stations and
operate ice core drills. Meanwhile the actual scientists who actually
did study the climate before seem to be split, but mass media only
interviews those who are recommended in press releases.
Lefties also like to quote Eisenhower's warning about the military
industrial complex, but like to forget his warning about "public funding
of the academy." They seem to think there is something special about
making weapons that drives corruption, as if billions in public money to
make dishwashers would not result in manufacturers lobbying for more
funding.
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
I wish people wouldn't call CO2 "pollution."
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:55:42 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:54:00 +0000, Steve <steve@steve.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions
are garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think
That's okay, Steve, we all have to start somewhere.
That's stooping pretty low, even for a profoundly righttarded moron
like you, comrade Doom.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:54:00 +0000, Steve <steve@steve.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions
are garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
I'm beginning to think
That's okay, Steve, we all have to start somewhere.
On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the
monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
This is good news.
However, what is the Tau time constant of your observation.
Say for example, you're incinerated in the heat in the first
hundred years (greenhouse prompt response to the 6000PPM), and then
fifty thousand years later, the CO2 drops to 390PPM.
Would that be handy ?
It's handy in some "glad I wasn't there" retrospective.
The thing is, some events that have happened, have been gradual
things. The dynamics of each part of the response matter.
We are relatively quickly ramping the CO2 right now. We're not
doing this on a geological time scale.
"Scientists are concerned that this trickle of greenhouse gases may
represent the first cracks in a dam, as the arctic tundra stores an
estimated 180 billion metric tons of carbon--about a third of the
total in the Earth's atmosphere, says Kling."
When the peat in the tundra catches fire, the weather isn't cold
enough to put it out.
"Scientists project that two-thirds of the Arctics near-surface permafrost could be gone by 2100."
And you just know that prediction is wrong. The Canada Beaver is moving
into those lands, and building dams and pools of water collect on the >surface. This changes the albedo and how much solar is captured,
which speeds up how quickly some of the melting will take place.
The beaver is able to move north, because the mean temperature
is rising.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/beavers-arctic-north-climate-crisis
You may have noticed, we're not very good at predicting stuff.
Paul
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:13:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher >><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels >>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and >>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, >>>We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic, >>>Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take >>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated. >>>And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the >>>multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all >>>warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas >>>show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts >>>the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of >>>surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any >>>positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
unto the 1990s).
predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one >>>has to ask just how alarming that really is.
- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically >>>definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which >>>no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a >>>catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts. >>>
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar >>>Logic.
As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are >>>usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the >>>historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the >>>infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case. >>>
We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name >>>of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all >>>without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity,
clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the >>stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If
we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet >>instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:01:56 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:13:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher >>><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels >>>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and >>>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, >>>>We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic, >>>>Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take >>>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the >>>>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named >>>>> unto the 1990s).- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated. >>>>And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the >>>>multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all >>>>warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas >>>>show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts >>>>the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of >>>>surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any >>>>positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the >>>>predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one >>>>has to ask just how alarming that really is.
- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very >>>>complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice >>>>in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically >>>>definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which >>>>no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a >>>>catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts. >>>>
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of theI would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar >>>>Logic.
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit. >>>>
As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are >>>>usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the >>>>historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the >>>>infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case. >>>>
We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard >>>>of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name >>>>of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all >>>>without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that >>>>the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues, >>>>so lay off of the
pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity,
clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the >>>stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If
we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet >>>instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
You two should get a room. If you like CO2 that much, make sure it has
1 million ppm.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:37:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously >>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >>monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
You are an imbecile.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 7:14:22?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
CO2 is lethal at around 40,000 PPM. The OSHA 8-hour limit is 5000.
OK so far.
800
would be fine and plants would love it. Greenhouses typically run
around 1000 and 1000 is not unusual indoors.
That's just crazy; 800 ppm would acidify all Earth's oceans, too.
The culture of plants inside greenhouses isn't an ecology with
insects, birds, variety of soils; that's NOT a model that can
be extrapolated to an entire planet.
Greenhouse effect is already exposing us to climatic costs that
exceed our past experience. Just as nitrogenous waste from
agriculture can close the Chesapeake bay to oysters, carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is making entire forests unsuitable
for their tree species. It's pollution; don't try to maximize it.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 14:58:42 +0000, Pomegranate Bastardrise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
<pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:37:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, soCrops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously >>>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the >>>atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >>>monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same >>>time-frame.
You are an imbecile.
That is not a very quantitative observation. Nor a very nice one.
But you cross-post to a legal group, so you may be a lawyer so we must
make allowances for innumeracy and lack of civility.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:01:08?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 08:45:20 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Greenhouse effect is already exposing us to climatic costs that
exceed our past experience. Just as nitrogenous waste from
agriculture can close the Chesapeake bay to oysters, carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is making entire forests unsuitable
for their tree species. It's pollution; don't try to maximize it.
We will have more CO2. Get used to it.
That's a narrow view; human tolerance for atmospheric
gasses is good (people live with factor-of-two variation in
atmospheric pressure, for instance). But a planet has a LOT
of parts, and while a shoe won't threaten me, throwing it into
the gears is criminally irresponsible.
You don't fool Greta Thunberg, either.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:37:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so >>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously >>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >>monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
I wish people wouldn't call CO2 "pollution."
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the
monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.
This is good news.
However, what is the Tau time constant of your observation.
What's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a rising
sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 14:58:42 +0000, Pomegranate Bastardrise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
<pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:37:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, soCrops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly >>>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's >>>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously >>>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching
You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
There's a demo available on Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about >>>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 C and max 427 C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."
Paul
Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the >>>atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the >>>monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same >>>time-frame.
You are an imbecile.
That is not a very quantitative observation. Nor a very nice one.
But you cross-post to a legal group, so you may be a lawyer so we must
make allowances for innumeracy and lack of civility.
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:24:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>[...]
wrote:
You don't fool Greta Thunberg, either.
She's another mentally-ill basket case that needs locking up.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:01:08?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 08:45:20 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Greenhouse effect is already exposing us to climatic costs that
exceed our past experience. Just as nitrogenous waste from
agriculture can close the Chesapeake bay to oysters, carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is making entire forests unsuitable
for their tree species. It's pollution; don't try to maximize it.
We will have more CO2. Get used to it.
That's a narrow view; human tolerance for atmospheric
gasses is good (people live with factor-of-two variation in
atmospheric pressure, for instance). But a planet has a LOT
of parts, and while a shoe won't threaten me, throwing it into
the gears is criminally irresponsible.
You don't fool Greta Thunberg, either.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:[...]
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:23:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 17:12, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:42:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and >>>>>>> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social >>>>>>> than rational.
That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to >>>>>> try and understand the truth.
I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
intelligent professionals.
Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus because eveyone agrees.
SemEsterConSensus
EveRyone
You can be an english teacher in your future career. I'm an engineer.
I am already an engineer, but it's no excuse for not using a spell checker
OK, give me a D-. I'd be so ashamed.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
now more than a hundred years ago now.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >[...]
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
die and decompose.
On 2/02/2024 10:51 am, Rod Speed wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
<snip>
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
now more than a hundred years ago now.
It's worse than that. He claims to have spent a lot of time and money on >getting of peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1890's, which report
high - if erratic - CO2 measurements taken in laboratories heated by
coal fires in cities heated by coal fires, lit by burning coal gas, and >housing small, but horribly inefficient coal-fired electricity generators
He goes on to rejects the much better and faster and more recent
measurements made by physical methods. Charles Keeling used automated >infra-red absorbtion spectroscopy back in 1958 and could make enough
reliable measurements fast enough to realise that he had to put his CO2 >observatory at the top of Manua Loa on Hawaii to get stable and
reproducible results.
According to Cursitor Doom, Charles Keeling was already part of a world
wide conspiracy to foist anthropogenic global warming on the world.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
If you happen to share Cursitor Doom's addiction to utterly preposterous >conspiracy theories,you might even take him seriously.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >[...]
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
die and decompose.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:<snip>
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea thatWhat's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a risingQuite. So by selective highlighting of particular ranges on the x axis of >> > the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a
sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending
vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic
anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:18:14 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>[...]
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
die and decompose.
Trees have been growing and dying and burning or decomposing for
billions of years. It's worked OK so far.
The real problem with trees is that they sequester CO2 and have been >straining it out of our air too much and starving themselves. We are
fixing that now.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:50:24 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:<snip>
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea thatWhat's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a risingQuite. So by selective highlighting of particular ranges on the x axis of >>> > the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a
sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending
vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic
anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out. >>>>>>>>
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific >>>>>>> consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be >>>>>> possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, >>>> was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard. >>>>
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm >>> to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of
the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to >>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate >>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will >>cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive today". >>
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children >>and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through >climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording >>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific >>>>>>>> consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris >>>>>>>> throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are >>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be >>>>>>> possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>>>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, >>>>> was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise, >>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard. >>>>>
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent >>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm >>>> to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of >>>> the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to >>>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate >>>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will >>>cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive today". >>>
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children >>>and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through >>climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:01:18?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >> >>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >> >>>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >> >>>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be >> >>>>>> possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, >> >>>> was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard. >> >>>>
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent >> >>> of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm >> >>> to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of >> >>> the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive today".
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children >> >>and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
due to CO2. End of.
be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
You and this ridiculous engineer:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240201-a-us-engineer-had-a-shocking-plan-to-improve-the-climate-burn-all-coal-on-earth
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and >>>>>> lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change >>>>> is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was >>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard.
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm
to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of
the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
their media allies across the globe.
The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled
only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelors degree
in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology. >>
The key question of the survey asked: In your judgement, what will be
the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for
people alive today, across the globe? Fifty-nine percent said
significant harm. Thirty-nine percent said either significant
improvement, slight improvement, no change, or slight harm. Two
percent were not sure.
Among respondents with the most experience those at least 50-years-old
less than half expect significant harm for people alive today.
Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which
more than 60 percent expect significant harm.
Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority
of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents
attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More
importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future
warming will be much of a problem.
The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has
been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events.
The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.
In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
recent decades."
So much for 'consensus'
This shows one of the ways consensus was arrived at in the output of one >organisation:
<https://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/01/13/bbcs-shameful-climate-propaganda-seminar-exposed/comment-page-1/>
[safe, except for alarmists and the dim]
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists >>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent >>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause significant harm >>>>> to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far short of >>>>> the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and >>>>> their media allies across the globe.
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording >>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the >>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are >>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior >>>>>>>>> fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian >>>>>>>>> public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific >>>>>>>>> consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking."
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris >>>>>>>>> throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are >>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be >>>>>>>> possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out >>>>>>>>
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free >>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, >>>>>> was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise, >>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas Vineyard. >>>>>>
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to >>>>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate >>>>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will >>>>cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive today". >>>>
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children >>>>and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being >>>bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the >>>decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through >>>climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which >>>thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming >>>due to CO2. End of.
There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our >>lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
from reproducing.
responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
have determined they will never have children on account of it.
Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's >intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
were any mileage in it.
https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
something's done: the BBC needs to go. It's a poisonous and
disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
of the masses. Defund it!
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of scientists >>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording >>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways >>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a >>>>>>>>>>> senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and >>>>>>>>>>> libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific >>>>>>>>>>> consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking." >>>>>>>>>>>
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris >>>>>>>>>>> throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand >>>>>>>>>>> smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are >>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to >>>>>>>>>> be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out >>>>>>>>>>
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate >>>>>>>>>> change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. >>>>>>>>> Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
President,
was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level >>>>>>>> rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas
Vineyard.
percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause significant >>>>>>> harm
to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far
short of
the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists and >>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to >>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate >>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change >>>>>> will
cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive >>>>>> today".
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
children
and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them >>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through >>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if >>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn >>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming >>>>> due to CO2. End of.
There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both >>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
from reproducing.
It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
If your prospective child has no future, how can you
responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen collegeI suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
have determined they will never have children on account of it.
Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
were any mileage in it.
https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841 >>
getting wider and maybe bimodal.
No evidence of that except maybe with serious genetic
deficiencys, but even with those, unlikely given that
cousins marrying is much less common now.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:03:01 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:
On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:"ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) A new poll of
On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording >>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> senior
fellow at The
Heartland Institute.
Wikipedia:
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and >>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarian
public
policy think tank known for its rejection of both the >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
consensus on
climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris >>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the
1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand >>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke and
lobby
against smoking bans."
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact >>>>>>>>>>>> are
generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not >>>>>>>>>>>> to
be
possible.
And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out >>>>>>>>>>>>
More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made >>>>>>>>>>>> climate
change
is not a major issue.
60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. >>>>>>>>>>> Feel free
to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US >>>>>>>>>> President,
was
that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level >>>>>>>>>> rise,
mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Marthas >>>>>>>>>> Vineyard.
scientists
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 >>>>>>>>> percent
of respondents think global climate change will cause significant >>>>>>>>> harm
to the living conditions for people alive today. That is far >>>>>>>>> short of
the 97 percent consensus narrative pushed by climate alarmists >>>>>>>>> and
their media allies across the globe.
That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to >>>>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on
climate
change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change >>>>>>>> will
cause significant harm to the living conditions for people alive >>>>>>>> today".
Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our >>>>>>>> children
and our children's children.
It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them >>>>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the >>>>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable
through
climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if >>>>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle. >>>>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the >>>>>>> dawn
of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which >>>>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO*
warming
due to CO2. End of.
There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to
both
be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that >>>>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people >>>>> from reproducing.
It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
If your prospective child has no future, how can you
responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and >>>>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what >>>>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton >>>>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there >>>>> were any mileage in it.
https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are >>>> getting wider and maybe bimodal.
No evidence of that except maybe with serious genetic
deficiencys, but even with those, unlikely given that
cousins marrying is much less common now.
Young things are leaving farms and small towns andgoing to college and
meeting other young things.
And there is a lot more mobility of
adults now than there used to be.
But even with movements over vast distances
by migration of some like the kurds and turks,
the buggers still mostly marry cousins from the
same small village, and then the new bride migrates
as well. Same with the leganese and indians. Those
groups are still into arranged marraige.
In past centuries, most people married people thatlived within walking
distance of their birthplace.
And were thoroughly inbred.
International migration, brain drain, addsto the geek concentration
effect.
Not clear what you mean by that.
Our next-door neighbors are from Bulgaria and Romania and metas google
employees. Their only common language is English.
We get the same effect with Italians who are massively
dominant in my town and most of the actual migrants don't
actually bother to speak anything except their dialect.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:18:14 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:[...]
CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.
That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
die and decompose.
Trees have been growing and dying and burning or decomposing for
billions of years. It's worked OK so far.
The real problem with trees is that they sequester CO2 and have been straining it out of our air too much and starving themselves. We are
fixing that now.
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:42:19 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
something's done: the BBC needs to go. It's a poisonous and
disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
of the masses. Defund it!
Anyone seen this? She was OK on whites, but when she moved on to Jews...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/bbc-employee-called-jewish-people-nazis-and-uk-bigoted/
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:32:32 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:50:24 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea that
There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.
I think "sheep" covers it more concisely.
John Larkin and Cursitor Doom are our resident sheep, and they do bleat
a lot. Their opinions have been manipulated by the climate change denial propaganda machine, which is a real and well-documented conspiracy, but
they seem to think that they have come up with their silly ideas
entirely on their own, which is amusing.
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:32:32 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:50:24 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>> > On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
<snip>On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>> > >>On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea thatWhat's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a risingQuite. So by selective highlighting of particular ranges on the x axis of
sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a >>>> > compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending
vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic
anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.
I think "sheep" covers it more concisely.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
John Larkin and Cursitor Doom are our resident sheep, and they do bleat
a lot. Their opinions have been manipulated by the climate change denial
propaganda machine, which is a real and well-documented conspiracy, but
they seem to think that they have come up with their silly ideas
entirely on their own, which is amusing.
When you resort to abusing individuals who have expressed their opinions
and presented the facts which support them, it suggests that you cannot >dispute those facts and you have no facts which support your own
opinion.
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
Right so the handful of airport locations, where the readings are adjusted, is going to mislead the authorities on their declaration of average temperature for a 200 million square mile surface area??? Looks like someone here is a 3rd grade dropout.
But appearances can be wrong, you are in fact a very special person by not being taken in by all the hype...and such incisive thinking too, well as long as you're being mentored by zerohedge on just how to think.
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 10:29:07?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
He doesn't have ideas and doesn't design electronics. He's stuck in a
loop of repeating lame insults to everyone. What a life!
Says the guy who specializes in crap theories and
repeatedly insults others... but doesn't think he's talking about himself.
I always wonder what these constant flamers are like in real life.
But, never achieves any kind of understanding. That's sometimes a
sign of poor social skills.
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:40:46?PM UTC+11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:with
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
John Larkin and Cursitor Doom are our resident sheep, and they do bleat
a lot. Their opinions have been manipulated by the climate change denial >> > propaganda machine, which is a real and well-documented conspiracy, but
they seem to think that they have come up with their silly ideas
entirely on their own, which is amusing.
When you resort to abusing individuals who have expressed their opinions
and presented the facts which support them, it suggests that you cannot
dispute those facts and you have no facts which support your own
opinion.
I have no shortage of facts that I use to dispute their opinions. John Larkin just ignores them.
Cursitor Doom kindly explains to me that entire field of climate science has been conspiring to lie to the rest of us since Charles Keeling started systematically measuring atmospheric CO2 levels back in 1958. In fact he seems to think it all started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
back in 1896.
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:04:02 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
Right so the handful of airport locations, where the readings are adjusted, is going to mislead the authorities on their declaration of average temperature for a 200 million square mile surface area??? Looks like someone here is a 3rd grade dropout.
But appearances can be wrong, you are in fact a very special person by not being taken in by all the hype...and such incisive thinking too, well as long as you're being mentored by zerohedge on just how to think.
What airport temp measurements do is set records that get a lot of
press to demonstate that the planet is on fire.
Of course 20,000 RTDs sampled every 5 minutes are going to set
records.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:40:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:04:02 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 5:45:44?PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
Right so the handful of airport locations, where the readings are adjusted, is going to mislead the authorities on their declaration of average temperature for a 200 million square mile surface area??? Looks like someone here is a 3rd grade dropout.
But appearances can be wrong, you are in fact a very special person by not being taken in by all the hype...and such incisive thinking too, well as long as you're being mentored by zerohedge on just how to think.
What airport temp measurements do is set records that get a lot of
press to demonstate that the planet is on fire.
Of course 20,000 RTDs sampled every 5 minutes are going to set
records.
It's not just the hot aircraft exhausts, though (bad enough though
that is). Airports are massive slabs of concrete and asphalt which
trap sunlight and re-radiate it as heat. They are consequently x
degrees hotter than grassland in the same area. The only reason to
site thermal monitoring there is to artificially raise the recorded >temperatures and give a misleading impression to support "Climate
Change" [tm]
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:46:02?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Here's the short-cut evidence which clearly shows CO2 has remained at
broadly the same level over the past 160 years - in clear
contradiction to everything we are told today. It's only a 10 minute
read:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/8SdXQui3DaKy_g
But surely this is PART OF "everything we are told today". It's
not the most credible part.
Looks here:
<https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data>
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge* unreported scandal.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge* unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more
than a bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate
to think what the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew
at least one person
- my own age - who died of it!
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
In article <20240207142849.174a24cb@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more than a
bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate to think what the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew at least one person
- my own age - who died of it!
On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:56:12?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:45:36 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:46:02?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:You're citing online sources which aren't worth jack. That's why I
Here's the short-cut evidence which clearly shows CO2 has remained at
broadly the same level over the past 160 years - in clear
contradiction to everything we are told today. It's only a 10 minute
read:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/8SdXQui3DaKy_g
But surely this is PART OF "everything we are told today". It's
not the most credible part.
Looks here:
<https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data>
bought a ton of books and did my research the hard way - the *only*
reliable way.
I've looked at some of those 'sources'; the error bars on the Brittanica >numbers (1985 edition) for instance imply 200 to 400 parts per million; not >at all inconsistent with the ice-core research I cited.
There's dead-trees copy of those ice-core works, if you want to follow up, >and known authors and dates, and site info. The Brittanica articles are presumably signed,
but your listing doesn't include that info: there's no way to follow up for >date and conditions under which the measurements were made.
The modern ice-core data is widely discussed, and has no
known issues preventing acceptance as accurate data. Much better
accuracy, as a world-spanning sample, than casual laboratory measures.
In article <20240207142849.174a24cb@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more than a
bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate to think what >the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew at least one person
- my own age - who died of it!
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 15:45:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <20240207142849.174a24cb@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>, Joe
<joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000 Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of people simply don't have the time to look
into it properly as I did and just rely on the BS they get from the
TV and radio. It's a *huge* unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more than
a bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate to think >what the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew at least one >person - my own age - who died of it!
Twice as long in bed! That was my experience of Covid without vaccination
and I'm guessing I'm a good 10 years older than you.
It was just like having a very short bout of flu. In fact I now refer to Covid as "48hr flu" 'cos that's what it gave me. A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask
in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is
confined to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt
from the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without
masks, when they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask
in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
In article <8bq7si5h1lv7npjt6g5er50i52ik6n13es@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask
in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
Actually no, but to do it properly you'd have had to close restaurants.
On 07/02/2024 15:45, charles wrote:
In article <20240207142849.174a24cb@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,+1.
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more than a
bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate to think
what
the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew at least one
person
- my own age - who died of it!
I am not sure whether or not I had it, but I took all my shots and never
got seriously ill, but I live in splendid rural isolation.
Friends who got it who had been vaccinated didn't die.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <8bq7si5h1lv7npjt6g5er50i52ik6n13es@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined >>>> to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from >>>> the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when >>>> they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask
in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
Actually no, but to do it properly you'd have had to close restaurants.
And wear masks that can actually filter viruses.
I suspect that cloth masks make an infected person more infectuous.
And don't filter incoming viruses.
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 15:45:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <20240207142849.174a24cb@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:56:04 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
The problem is 99.9% of
people simply don't have the time to look into it properly as I did
and just rely on the BS they get from the TV and radio. It's a *huge*
unreported scandal.
I think it's worse than that. Almost everyone has been conditioned to
accept authority unconditionally. They find it difficult to even
understand the concept of questioning what they are told on the TV.
The climate change thing has been around for half a century at least
(though originally it was an ice age coming) so most people were
originally fed it at school.
But look at the government/WHO COVID narrative, which only appeared in
2020. At first, everyone believed what they were told, including me,
but after a few months it was clear that it was orders of magnitude
less dangerous than we had been told. Even today, intelligent people
still get 'vaccinated', though far fewer now than at first. There are
still colleges in the USA requiring 'full' vaccination to attend, even
though it is widely accepted that the vaccines, at the very least,
neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Well, I was vaccinated and stil caught Covid, But - it was no more than a
bad cold. I only needed a day in bed to sleep it off. I hate to think what >> the effect would have been without vaccination. I knew at least one person >> - my own age - who died of it!
Twice as long in bed! That was my experience of Covid without
vaccination and I'm guessing I'm a good 10 years older than you. It
was just like having a very short bout of flu. In fact I now refer to
Covid as "48hr flu" 'cos that's what it gave me. A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
On 07/02/2024 21:54, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <8bq7si5h1lv7npjt6g5er50i52ik6n13es@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined >>>>> to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules, >>>>> which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of >>>>> us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from >>>>> the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when >>>>> they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask >>>> in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
Actually no, but to do it properly you'd have had to close restaurants.
And wear masks that can actually filter viruses.
I suspect that cloth masks make an infected person more infectuous.
And don't filter incoming viruses.
Masks were never intended to filter incoming viruses and nor were they
to filter outgoing ones. They were to stop, reduce the number of or
reduce the distance travelled, of droplets breathed or coughed out ...
as large quantities of virus could be contained in the droplets.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 08:54:11 +1100, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <8bq7si5h1lv7npjt6g5er50i52ik6n13es@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000confined
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of >>>> >us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from >>>> >the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when >>>> >they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask >>>> in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
Actually no, but to do it properly you'd have had to close restaurants.
And wear masks that can actually filter viruses.
I suspect that cloth masks make an infected person more infectuous.
You'd be wrong.
And don't filter incoming viruses.
No one said that they do.
I still see people wearing masks.
Even medical professionals. Funny that.
Even outdoors.
Even alone in cars.
Because it makes no sense to keep taking it off and putting it on again.
It's hard to understand what they are saying in meetings.
Didnt realise you were deaf and needed to lip read,
On 07/02/2024 19:32, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is
confined to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest
of us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves
exempt from the requirement for vaccination, gathered together
without masks, when they were served by waiters in masks.
Any breaking of the rules in number 10 were not like other people
breaking the rules. Any mixing there was amongst people who were
already in contact with each other for work purposes, while two
separate households meeting up, against the rules, were raising the
risk of transmission.
A simple rule was needed, but, with care, rules could be broken with
no real increase of risk - our houshold was isolating as my wife is clinically vulnerable, while my parents were isolating due to their vulnerability due to age. I did occasionally break the rules and
visit them - but there was no real risk in two isolating household
meeting up. It would have been very different if I had not been able
to work from home and had to go into work - in which case, I would
not have risked going to my parents and would have had to do my best
to keep away from my wife!
I'm retired, stupid.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves exempt from
the requirement for vaccination, gathered together without masks, when
they were served by waiters in masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a mask
in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers and
unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
On 07/02/2024 21:54, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <8bq7si5h1lv7npjt6g5er50i52ik6n13es@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease
was already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease
is confined to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the
rules, which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on
the rest of us. The same was true in the US where senators,
themselves exempt from the requirement for vaccination, gathered
together without masks, when they were served by waiters in
masks.
At least the experts recognized that it's difficult to eat with a
mask in place. We had restaurants and bars with masked servers
and unmasked patrons.
Actually, the whole masking/distancing thing was absurd.
Actually no, but to do it properly you'd have had to close
restaurants.
And wear masks that can actually filter viruses.
I suspect that cloth masks make an infected person more infectuous.
And don't filter incoming viruses.
Masks were never intended to filter incoming viruses and nor were
they to filter outgoing ones. They were to stop, reduce the number of
or reduce the distance travelled, of droplets breathed or coughed out
... as large quantities of virus could be contained in the droplets.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I'm retired, stupid.
Glad you put the comma in there :-)
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:27:22 +0000
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 07/02/2024 19:32, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is
confined to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest
of us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves
exempt from the requirement for vaccination, gathered together
without masks, when they were served by waiters in masks.
Any breaking of the rules in number 10 were not like other people
breaking the rules. Any mixing there was amongst people who were
already in contact with each other for work purposes, while two
separate households meeting up, against the rules, were raising the
risk of transmission.
A simple rule was needed, but, with care, rules could be broken with
no real increase of risk - our houshold was isolating as my wife is
clinically vulnerable, while my parents were isolating due to their
vulnerability due to age. I did occasionally break the rules and
visit them - but there was no real risk in two isolating household
meeting up. It would have been very different if I had not been able
to work from home and had to go into work - in which case, I would
not have risked going to my parents and would have had to do my best
to keep away from my wife!
Yes, we know all that, but anyone breaking rules, even when there was
good reason and no increased risk, if caught would have been prosecuted
if they were not people in positions of great power and/or wealth. It
wasn't about health issues, because health issues affect people high
and low.
An analogous situation is that people in the US lost jobs or were
discharged from the military for refusing to take the experimental
genetic vaccines
On 08/02/2024 09:09, Joe wrote:
An analogous situation is that people in the US lost jobs or were discharged from the military for refusing to take the experimental
genetic vaccines
They were and are neither genetic nor experimental.
Cells in the body produce proteins in response to receiving mRNA. The vaccines use mRNA to trigger the cells to produce proteins that have
a spike similar to the virus, to train the immune system to attack
it. mRNA, just as in the normal functioning of the body is used up
and disappears from the body ... it does not change a person's DNA.
The vaccines went through *ALL* the normal testing,
but unlike in
normal times, they did not finish phase 1 testing and then spend a
couple of years requesting funding, before moving on to phase 2
testing. Instead, with guaranteed funding, they ran phase 1, until
the vaccines were shown to be safe enough to use, started phase 2,
but CONTINUED phase 1 to its conclusion. Similarly, they started
phase 3, when phase 2 was appearing successful and again continued
phase 2. The combination of not having to wait for the next tranche
of funding and overlapping the test phases, simply allowed the normal
testing to be completed in a fraction of the time normally taken.
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:59:55?AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 18:43:03 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:56:12?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:45:36 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:46:02?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Here's the short-cut evidence which clearly shows CO2 has remained at >> >> >> broadly the same level over the past ...
You're citing online sources which aren't worth jack.https://disk.yandex.com/d/8SdXQui3DaKy_g
But surely this is PART OF "everything we are told today". It's
not the most credible part.
Look here:
<https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data>
Your assessment of worth is worthless. There's a trail back to the
authors, who can (and have) answered most of the objections you could raise.
I've looked at some of those 'sources'; the error bars on the Brittanica
numbers (1985 edition) for instance imply 200 to 400 parts per million; not >> >at all inconsistent with the ice-core research I cited.
...the Brittanica articles are presumably signed,
but your listing doesn't include that info: there's no way to follow up for >> >date and conditions under which the measurements were made.
The modern ice-core data is widely discussed, and has no
known issues preventing acceptance as accurate data. Much better
accuracy, as a world-spanning sample, than casual laboratory measures.
These are not "casual laboratory measures" but scrupulously carried
out measurements of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by highly
qualified scientists.
Every chemist who does experiments in air needs some idea of the
atmospheric composition IN HIS LAB where people exhale and burners
are active. He'll make a good measurement, but NOT of a world-typical >sample . He will note not only the concentration, but his error estimate. >Such sources as encyclopedias don't present full information on these details.
From what I have seen, all the major and most popular online sources
have been compromised, and the same applies to the links Google
provides ...
Nah.. No one looking for real data stops with a Google search, there's
real chemistry literature in good reference libraries.
Cursitor Doom has apparently decided there's liars on one side of a new >controversy, and wants to trust only data that precedes modern times.
He doesn't examine the old data closely, he just wants to call someone
a liar (and the dates on old work convince him that only the old
work is useful). That's a head-in-the-sand denial of current reality.
Me, I'm a scientist; I trust confirmation from multiple sources who
are themselves scientists (with known funding and affiliations) and
who describe their methods and procedures to other knowledgable folk.
I can see the sun coming up, even if a record from yesterday says it's going >down.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
A ton of fuss over
nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
us.
no mask that passes
air under lung power filters particles as small as viruses.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.
Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.
Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
Putin. Kim. Maduro. Mao. Hitler. Stalin.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:16:20 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,358,468 |
| Posted today: | 1 |