Driving Too Slow...

[Flyguy]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:33:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
snipped Flyguy being as moronic as ever

Yes. The greenies tend to be elitist and selfish and cruel. They want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

The actual green movement is perfectly sane.

Then WHY do they want to kill millions, SNIPPERMAN?

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

Again, NO EVIDENCE that this exists, SNIPPERMAN.

John Larkin may be silly enough to believe in these implausible inventions, Flyguy definitely is. Cursitor Doom demands that his conspiracy theories are grossly implausible, so he\'d insist on it.

Crazy people like you, SNIPPERMAN, think that EVERYONE ELSE are the crazy ones.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

Again, NO EVIDENCE that this exists, SNIPPERMAN.

Evidence of a myth? Why would there be any?

That\'s as crazy as refusing to believe in invisible forces, because there\'s
no pictures of magnetism.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:37:05 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:33:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
snipped Flyguy being as moronic as ever

Yes. The greenies tend to be elitist and selfish and cruel. They want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

The actual green movement is perfectly sane.

Then WHY do they want to kill millions, Sloman?

They don\'t. It\'s the mythical anti-technology greenies who are claimed to want to do that. I\'ve seen no evidence that they actually exist.

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

Again, NO EVIDENCE that this exists, Sloman.

That is what I was saying.

John Larkin may be silly enough to believe in these implausible inventions, Flyguy definitely is. Cursitor Doom demands that his conspiracy theories are grossly implausible, so he\'d insist on it.

Crazy people like you, Sloman, think that EVERYONE ELSE are the crazy ones.

I\'ve named three obvious lunatics. The doesn\'t constitute any kind of assertion that anybody else is crazy. You are crazy, so you may think it does.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:67dgvgtm4cv250mgvlhjr0u5v4rkturiij@4ax.com:

Yes. The greenies tend to be elistist and selfish and cruel. They
want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

There goes fuckin\' Loony Larkin mumbling stupid shit again.

First, he segregates himself from \"the greenies\", then the stupid
twerp motherfucker acts like he knows all about where their heads are
at.

Larkin, the elite anti-elitist. And the dopey twerp cannot even
spell it. Larkin keeping himself stupid so that all he makes is CO2
and methane laden flatulence.

 

[server]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:hd0hvg98cuapl8cuap4igj9to9lemobe14@4ax.com:

> woke urbanites.

More proof that John Larkin is an absolute fucking idiot. An
unamerican total piece of shit.

 

[server]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:hd0hvg98cuapl8cuap4igj9to9lemobe14@4ax.com:

Cold kills many times what heat waves do. Sea level is rising a
couple of mm per year, hardly a Great Flood.

If the oceans rise and your place is compromised, the right response to
a putz like you is \"no quarter\".

It does not get more stupid than John Larkin.

 

[server]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:l11hvgtsfl92vcoomrgu1e408pisj61co8@4ax.com:

> Hurricanes and tornados are down.

You\'re an idiot!

Kentucky had the deadliest twister in their history and it came in
December, a month in which tornados are practically unheard of.

Those TrumpShitSmear blinders you are wearing from having your head
up his ass has you blinded, little boy.

 

[server]

FlyTurd soreass2morrow@yahoo.com wrote in news:cfd4b124-4ea7-4161-8081-
812109b15aden@googlegroups.com:

Then WHY do they want to kill millions, SNIPPERMAN?

You\'re mumbling again, boy.

 

[David Brown]

On 01/02/2022 02:12, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:37:24 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 00:32, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:11:19 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:31:53 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Energy costs and supply intermittents drive energy-intensive things to
imports, usually from countries that burn coal.

That sort of thing is, in the long term, a worldwide income equalizer.
And a good source of CO2.

The quality of life that we currently enjoy is dependent on an ecosphere
that evolved with vulcanism as the only supplemetal source of CO2.
Excess CO2 in the atmophere is noted at a few mass extinctions...
quality of life was low at those times, and that\'s more important to a
dinosaur than income equality. More than income, actually. Suffering
the cost is better than suffering a mass extinction.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

and

\"During the Cambrian explosion, when multi-cellular life first came on
the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are
today.\"



Multi-cellular life existed at least 1600 million years ago. The
Cambrian explosion brought new types, and has the ancestors of most
modern branches of life.

Yes.


CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era. These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/

I don\'t think that\'s right. Animals are critters that eat other
critters, versus using photosynthesis. Critters that live off
chemical gradients are probably considered animals.


The term \"Animal\" is now used just for multi-cellular animals -
organisms that were known as \"single-celled animals\" are now referred to
as \"protozoa\". I\'m not sure of the exact definition of the term, but
animals get their nutrition by eating organic matter (plants, fungi,
bacteria, other animals, etc.) and move around - that separates them
from fungi and plants.

Hmm. So they changed the name. I learned the prior definition in
school. At the same times as I learned of amoebas, and watched them
hunt using a microscope in the bio lab. This was the standard \"drop
of pond water\" lesson.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba

I too learned that amoeba were examples of \"single-celled animals\". The
definitions change as scientists learn more, or find better (or at least
different) ways to classify lifeforms. I suppose we also need to
distinguish between more formal and precise use of terms, and more
colloquial uses (where \"animal\" just means it moves about and eats stuff).

But the basic point remains.

Indeed.

The earliest animals are around 600 million years old, while the
Cambrian explosion was about 540 million years ago. Animals evolved
very rapidly in the early days.

Viruses appear to have evolved very early as well, along with
bacteria.


Possibly before, possibly later, possibly simultaneously - there are
various theories, but evidence is hard to find.

Yes. May well be unknowable.

Almost certainly, yes. Like a lot of early biological history, the best
we can hope for is clear evidence and justification of plausible
development paths (possibly several different such paths), rather than
finding which paths were actually taken.

Anyway, there were lots of one-cell critters that ate other one-celled
critters, long before multi cellular animals evolved.

Yes, but those are not classified as \"animals\".

Hairsplitting, don\'t you think?

Maybe - I didn\'t make the terms. But I guess it\'s worth noting the
formal terms as well as accepting the common use.

Here is the
early store, the three kingdoms.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea


Archaea are not animals either. They are prokaryotes, like bacteria,
but with a metabolism and biology that bears some resemblance to
eukaryotes. There are vast numbers of archaea species, including some
that photosynthesise, some that eat rocks and inorganic matter, some
that eat organic matter.

Well, I bet that they had their predators, by whatever name, and some
of them did eat one another.

Sure.

You are using the past tense here - while it was once thought archaea
were early ancestors to bacteria (hence the name) with only a few types
still around, it is now clear that there are huge numbers of them around
in all sorts of environments, many having been misclassified as
bacteria. So while they certainly did eat each other and get eaten,
they still do.

Which lifestyle may not have survived the great oxygen crisis, the
greatest environmental catastrophe of all time:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

I\'d hazard that the renaming of what is an animal was fallout from the
discovery of the Archaea.

I don\'t know when or why the term was changed (or even if the term
\"single-celled animal\" was always considered inaccurate, and the
scientific definition of \"animal\" didn\'t change).

Anyway, the biology and evolution is more fun than the terms used, most
of which are far too Latiny for me to pronounce!

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:37:05 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:33:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:

<snipped Flyguy being as moronic as ever>

Yes. The greenies tend to be elitist and selfish and cruel. They want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

The actual green movement is perfectly sane.

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

Then WHY do they want to kill millions, Sloman?

Because - as a complete invention for propaganda purposes - they do have to be ugly and repulsive. Granting that they are designed to rope in gullible twits like you and John Larkin, there\'s absolutely no need to make them even faintly credible

> Again, NO EVIDENCE that this exists, Sloman.

That is what I was saying.

John Larkin may be silly enough to believe in these implausible inventions, Flyguy definitely is. Cursitor Doom demands that his conspiracy theories are grossly implausible, so he\'d insist on it.

Crazy people like you, Sloman, think that EVERYONE ELSE are the crazy ones.

I\'ve named three specific lunatics. That isn\'t any kind of suggestion that I think that everybody else is crazy.

You may enough misplaced confidence in your own sanity to imagine that nobody sane could question it, but you do need to think that one out more carefully, if you can.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:25:43 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:37:05 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:33:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:

snipped Flyguy being as moronic as ever

Yes. The greenies tend to be elitist and selfish and cruel. They want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

The actual green movement is perfectly sane.

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

Then WHY do they want to kill millions, Sloman?

Because - as a complete invention for propaganda purposes - they do have to be ugly and repulsive. Granting that they are designed to rope in gullible twits like you and John Larkin, there\'s absolutely no need to make them even faintly credible

Any group that WANTS to kill millions can only be considered to be an international terrorist organization. I don\'t think that the greenies want to kill millions - they are just too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions.

Again, NO EVIDENCE that this exists, Sloman.

That is what I was saying.

Translation: \"I don\'t know WTF I am talking about\"
Yeah, you don\'t.

John Larkin may be silly enough to believe in these implausible inventions, Flyguy definitely is. Cursitor Doom demands that his conspiracy theories are grossly implausible, so he\'d insist on it.
Crazy people like you, Sloman, think that EVERYONE ELSE are the crazy ones.

I\'ve named three specific lunatics. That isn\'t any kind of suggestion that I think that everybody else is crazy.

You may enough misplaced confidence in your own sanity to imagine that nobody sane could question it, but you do need to think that one out more carefully, if you can.

Coming from an IDIOT who wants to nuke his OWN COUNTRY! This IS the definition of insanity, moron.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 7:41:38 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 12:00:48 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 6:07:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:21:57 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:56:16 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:03:19 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 05:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa....@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

The Northeast US is really suffering from Global Warming just now.

It\'s actually suffering from Climate Change, which can go both ways locally even as the average temperature over the year and over the globe goes up.

Why is the concept of statistics so difficult for you? It applies to the globe, on average. It refers tothe /climate/ - the long-term weather patterns, over years, not the local weather on in the scale of a few days. The world is getting warmer, and extreme weather conditions are becoming more common and more extreme - on /average/.

Probably not. What we have is a zillion times more instrumentation than we used to have.

It doesn\'t take much instrumentation to detect a hurricane or a blizzard or other examples of extreme weather.

It applies to the globe, on average. It refers to the /climate/ - the long-term weather patterns, over years, not the local weather on in the scale of a few days. The world is getting warmer, and extreme weather conditions are becoming more common and more extreme - on /average/.

Hurricanes and tornados are down.

Really? where are your statistics?

LOL! Sloman NEVER provides data to back up his wild claims, but expects others to back up THEIRS!

Actually, I post links quite often. You don\'t understand what they say, probably because you don\'t want to.

No you don\'t.

Since I went on to post two links, Flyguy was suffering from his usual premature ejeculation.

Hey Sloman, where is YOUR data that refutes this?

John Larkin made the claim. Ask him.

I\'m asking YOU!

Without good reason.

There you go again - not backing up your claim.

It was John Larkin\'s claim, not mine.

https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/

talks about hurricanes. Climate science predicts that global warming won\'t make hurricanes and more frequent, but does expect them to become more intense when they do happen - at lot of the energy stored in an area of warm seawater gets transferred into the air above it and a bigger area of warmer water has more energy to transfer.

Media measures hurricanes by property damage - this has nothing to do with intensity.

It has got quite a lot to do with intensity. More intense hurricanes have higher wind speeds over larger areas, and do quite a bit more damage than less intense hurricanes. It has also got quite a bit to do with there the hurricane hits the coast. If there\'s no property where it hits, no property gets damaged.

Over the years areas have been built up with homes, businesses and other structures where there were none before. Therefore, the same hurricane does much more property damage, both in numbers and dollars, than had been done before, something your feeble mind doesn\'t seem to comprehend.

Since I said \" If there\'s no property where it - the hurricane - hits, no property gets damaged\" the failure of comprehension is all yours.

Here is what the IPCC says about hurricanes:

\"Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.\"

\"There is no strong evidence of increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, or of Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes or major hurricanes since the late 1800s.\"

There aren\'t enough of then to let you extract any statically significant trend. The IPCC says as little as it can get away with.

Newsflash: because there IS NO trend, exactly what climate skeptics have been saying and contrary to what the typical climate alarmists are spouting..

Hurricanes and tornadoes are too rare to generate useful trend data. More frequent climatic events don\'t present the same problem. Anthropogenic global warming hit statistical significance around 1990 - at about 0.8 degrees Kelvin. It\'s now around 1.09 degrees Kelvin. We would like to limit it to 1.5 degrees Kelvin, but what we are doing at the moment looks more likely to take us up to 2.0 degrees Kelvin, if we don\'t raise our game in a hurry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_climatology

They seem to be even more random, but they don\'t seem to be down as John Larkin claimed.

Every time the same storm system touches down to the ground it is counted as a separate tornado, even though it is the same storm. Our radar technology can now count EVERY touch down that previously required a human observer. Result: more tornadoes.
Perhaps.There aren\'t enough of then to let you extract any statically significant trend either.

Newsflash: Sloman actually AGREES with something I said!!!

Flyguy claims this more or less non-stop. It generally isn\'t true, and it isn\'t true here.

But, yes, there ARE enough of them to generate meaningful statistics. And here are TEN:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/42387/pdf

The link is to a report about a Cessna 172 that got pushed into a hangar by a gust of wind when the pilot decided to go around again rather than land the plane.

It doesn\'t have anything to do with tornadoes. Flyguy is looking more senile by the day.

> There hasn\'t been a tornado that makes the Top Ten list in SEVENTY YEARS! If global warming makes more intense tornados then we must have had global COOLING happening for 70 years.

Nobody has made any predictions about how global warming might affect tornado intensity. There has been some work on hurricanes, which are very different - and much bigger - events. Flyguy seems to be as confused as ever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney