Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:31:27 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 14/07/2024 6:57 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:56:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
 

On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

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>
>

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.

>
There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

>
Not a widely shared delusion.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
>
list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for
half the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's
surface was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse
gases turned out to be the explanation.

 
??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

 
Meaning of glibness in English "the quality of being confident, but too
simple and lacking in careful thought : The author's writing has a
glibness that sometimes passes as wit".
 
It's difficult to avoid being glib when faced with such a brain-dead
assertion. It would certainly have been a waste of time to ofer a more
elborate explanation to a dim clown like you.
 

You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful
ignorance that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.
>

Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not
Earth.
So,
which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It
clearly isn't this one.

>
It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal
confusion to anybody with working brain.

 
Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in
any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole
AGW agenda is a SCAM.

 
A rather curious definition of a "working brain". Mastering the science
behind the anthropogenic global warming question would take even a
scientifically sophisticated reader (and you aren't that) rather more
than an hour. Realising that you didn't have a clue about what was being
said might be managed in a hour, and you could throw in the ill-informed
conclusion that it was a scam in even less time, but you'd be wrong - as
you happen to be , which is evidence that you have a non-working brain,
fit only for posturing and pontificating.
 
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I've noticed you love to make this subject appear more complicated than it
is and throw in all sorts of diversions and links to this and that to
distract the reader away from the simple truth that they can ascertain for
themselves very easily should they so choose: compare the CO2 levels of
today with those of the Victorian era *USING REFERENCE BOOKS* in any
decent library. That's all anyone need do.