| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v72p54$kofh$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:12:04 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 265 Message-ID: <v72p54$kofh$1@dont-email.me> References: <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$1@dont-email.me> <56o89jdh2i55uma2rsh6pu268v99qtbm37@4ax.com> <v71nt6$b7mr$3@dont-email.me> <j5q89jp2r4s3gtqu5ddnk7o9gfj5pgleoo@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:12:05 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b826fa01c646e6fd46d0340fac6219c"; logging-data="680433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vWnKnXo9+trcPMwAbFnl21ECA+hy/WsI=" User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba) Cancel-Lock: sha1:r/hR7pskjvKuk5PmTaL85zrKaVY= Bytes: 14155 On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:20:57 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom > <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> >>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========