Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

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.

>
You really are an utter imbecile.