Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: CO2 Funny
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 15:49:45 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v2hclu$f2vb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <044o4j5st4od6fca3lj3pgs9diccmrenjn@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 07:49:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="82f47313fe38806a075b3d191eab6348";
	logging-data="494571"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/L/5dsBZomQqo2wK9kFvRe38e7cqzSyKo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/QpRIBUMUGIKtCmI3KHFU6CWaA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <044o4j5st4od6fca3lj3pgs9diccmrenjn@4ax.com>
Bytes: 2851

On 21/05/2024 1:15 pm, john larkin wrote:
> This is wonderful:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2024/05/20/joe-biden-democrats-green-transition-evs-energy-costs/
> 
> "Contrast Biden voter certainty with their knowledge about carbon
> dioxide. Nearly one in five Biden voters think there should be no
> carbon dioxide at all because it’s a poison..."
> 
> "Forty four per cent of Trump voters and 26 per cent of Biden voters
> were able to correctly identify the approximate concentration of
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; nearly three quarters of Biden
> voters were wrong by a factor of between 100 and 1000."

Typical John Larkin. The link doesn't work, the UK Daily Telegraph is an 
extremely right-wing newspaper, British science journalism sucks, and 
the statements amount to claims that if you put your thresholds in the 
right places you can claim that potential Trump voters are better 
informed than potential Biden voters.

Where those thresholds were put hasn't been specified.

As John Larkin and Cursitor Doom keep on reminding us, right-wing 
lunatics have very strange ideas about climate science.

The idea that 44% of Trump voters "were able to correctly identify the 
approximate concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" doesn't 
say anything about their capacity to understand what it means.

John Larkin seems to think that it is currently too low and should be 
encouraged to get back to the 800ppm our remote ancestors enjoyed during 
the Carboniferous (when the sun was delivering less heat to the earth 
than it does now).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664543/

John is obviously wrong, though he does seem to be incapable of 
realisiing this. His admiration of Donald Trump is similarly irrational.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney