Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:38:26 +0000
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400
Message-ID: <56o89jdh2i55uma2rsh6pu268v99qtbm37@4ax.com>
References: <v6mfov$20818$3@dont-email.me> <6tht8j9kcaomraffha67s0ih4qeesl8hj6@4ax.com> <v6n40v$20818$7@dont-email.me> <rf9u8jh9anq08pcgr3ommovhtp2para8h8@4ax.com> <v6o1r7$2blhc$5@dont-email.me> <v6rnj6$344nh$1@dont-email.me> <v6suq5$3e2fd$4@dont-email.me> <v6ua44$3lm73$2@dont-email.me> <v6vjd9$3vr4c$3@dont-email.me> <v703k0$2hni$1@dont-email.me> <v70amp$3lr4$3@dont-email.me> <v7105p$7mtq$2@dont-email.me> <ou689jh1pi93p9govqdkc8koaq1kr5ngs3@4ax.com> <v71kng$b7mr$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 223
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zhA6MBVLdyl49EEcp41KlB2hveFdauv/oyr70wryOS1rg57rtcin4CGLDZNeaY2aaDG4cXW/hYspPim!O4jqwaOceBktLH41UHNCGPt2yaR/rZmx6mnlDHTJv+0DqHT47AwwaR0tcQMfg/zPEsT8QbU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 11991

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,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========