Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <v71kng$b7mr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <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> <v70amp$3lr4$3@dont-email.me>
	<v7105p$7mtq$2@dont-email.me> <ou689jh1pi93p9govqdkc8koaq1kr5ngs3@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b826fa01c646e6fd46d0340fac6219c";
	logging-data="368347"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19E+Vq9CNvneWadEMNvie+338A3PwNLYfc="
User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rHuIkLrD6PAbNHilG3hDygIrYPU=
Bytes: 11428

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