Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:
>

On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

>
John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He had
much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science degree.
>

Even "computer science" can be useless.

>
John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.
>

I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a fortune
to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually get a
job.

>
A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic content.
The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools as technical
universities, which wasn't a good idea.
>

Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

>
"Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the
WEF tell them.

>
Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
pretty soon and then drop off.

>
John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.
>
John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

>
The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly as
possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I prefer
data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't expect you
to understand that, Bill.

Cursitor Doom is wedded to his fatuous conspiracy theories. I'm not gullible enough to fall for that kind of rubbish.

There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels are
the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the pollution
pumped out during the 20th century.

A false assertion.

CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More would
be great.

CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water.
It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming, which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does cause problems.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com