Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
 

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
 

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

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.

>
Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful
lot of wasted time.
>

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.

>
Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level
equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in
the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of
mountains.
>

If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

>
Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the
period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this.
You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on
the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b)
time-starved to actually look into this matter for themselves. The
most they can do is click on a link and that's when they get
hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to find out more on a subject such as
this is the equivalent of ordering a pizza, having it delivered and
spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while you vegetate on your couch
because you're too bone idle to actually get off your arse and get it
for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy approach is about as
beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.
>

https://sealevel.info/co2.html
 
uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

>
So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for
the mind.
>

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.

>
The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your
thermometers so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney
figures. Areas with high concentrations of concrete structures and
close to airport runways are being utilised for the same purpose.
>

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.

>
We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I
just hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their
own, proper, book-based research and find out the truth for
themselves: AGW is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I
suspect you know that damn well.

 
Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds
the energy of most.
 
We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What
Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".
 
Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:
 
.<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>
 
Joe Gwinn

>
What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online
source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the
subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things are
trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. Anything
that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about pretty much
the same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text books and if you
don't have the time to do that, forget about easier and quicker
alternatives and just don't bother at all.

 
Not exactly.  It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about
the atmosphere.  The original article was in German, but the Royal
Society published the same article in English.
 
I'd venture that you have no idea who Savante Arrhenius is.
 
Joe Gwinn

>
His name does crop up in an awful lot of chemistry textbooks so he clearly
knew his stuff. But as I say, there's no way of verifying his authorship
of this article without sight of the original.

Well, he does seem to know his stuff:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>


Copies in old journals are available, but only in very large
libraries, and it's unlikely that anyone will let you touch those old
and fragile copies.

But images are definitely available. 


Your position is that only people who have spent two years reading
2,000 old but original papers are entitled to an opinion.

How does this position differ from the Climate Change folk who point
to the 20,000 CC articles published per year and say that one must
read them all to have an informed opinion?

Joe Gwinn