Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 15/07/2024 7:12 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:20:57 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:
 

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>

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.

>
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.

Cite?

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.

  It's an on-line source, but - unlike you - it cites the published references from which it's data was extracted.
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt
Here's one of them
Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele,
R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan. 1996.
Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the
last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn.
Journal of Geophysical Research 101:4115-4128.
The Journal of Geophysical Research isn't a textbook you can buy, but it's going to be accessible in a university library near you.

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.

That's Anthony Watts' demented theory. Measuring the average surface temperature of the earth has gotten a little more sophisticated in recent years.

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>

>
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.

>
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.

Not so much large libraries as specialised libraries, and the paper from back then wasn't noticably fragile the last time I looked at it (which was quite a while ago).

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?

They don't.The field has long since split into sub-specialties, and only the specialists feel the need to read everything published in their sub-specialty. There are papers that get more widely read, but not all that many of them. Sturgeons Law say that 90% of everything is rubbish, and while published scientific paper rarely rubbish, most of them are of very specialised interest.

If you're going to wade through academic papers on 'climate change' you're
going to need a background in the relevant sciences in order to make sense
of them. OTOH, spending an hour at most over some books in a library to
compare two sets of figures requires zero scientific background - and a
bare minimum of effort.

But the problem is that you need to know what the numbers mean, and that does require the scientific background that you clearly lack.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com