Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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,uk.d-i-y
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <v70amp$3lr4$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v64kvk$2cc3j$2@dont-email.me> <v6ffko$ii8v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6hfnm$10h93$2@dont-email.me> <v6icsb$18bnm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6ivke$1b3ak$1@dont-email.me> <iufq8jhjsia1qdm4pt2vgrovkhrpt8nj8u@4ax.com>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:53:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1379ac5737e1afe87bf41eb3f217bbc2";
	logging-data="120676"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Iy0LRgS9GjtgmhyuIWrLKQtdadv/hiME="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UqYi+Pe6CRxmolm0aOHZuCw3zIE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240714-4, 14/7/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <v703k0$2hni$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8234

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.

> 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.

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

https://sealevel.info/co2.html

uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

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.

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.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com