Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
 

On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom 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>
>

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.

>
This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised"
until the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global
warming for it show up over the natural variation form effects like
the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal
Oscillation.
>
Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.
>
Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).
>

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.

>
Wrong.
>
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
>
https://capegrim.csiro.au/

>
Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

>
You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality,
you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an ignorant
nitwit.
>

The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as
directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort of
Bond villain) and his cronies.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab
>
I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to
influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has rather
less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab wouldn't
have had much influence in Australia at the time.
>

Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
see a completely different picture emerge.

>
I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial
reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.
>
The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.
>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of wasted
time!

They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals always are.

The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so-
called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900 from
reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all that good.
If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.
https://sealevel.info/co2.html
uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900
Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all over the place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less homogeneous.

Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse
individual that since those levels didn't change over the course of the
most polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2
cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW
agenda is an outrageous scam.

Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires, next to factories powered by burning coal.
They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't going to let mere facts get in your way.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com