OT: An Appeal by everyone's favourite eco-loon, Greta Thunbe

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:48:31 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Sadly, thousands of scientists have looked into all the other source
candidates, and none of them are the right size, or have the right
timing, or observed side effects, or isotope signature. The time during which
this was a reasonable doubt, not yet dispelled, was thirty years
ago.

The Paris Accord had over a hundred nations, all with competent
advice, come together on this issue; it's NOT a conspiracy by
some cabal, it's real.

It's disturbing that you thought

" If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless"

because it is NOT TRUE EITHER. Reduction of human CO2 contribution is
the right size to stabilize the sum of all sources at an
equilibrium that's close to historic norms, so it
certainly is NOT pointless. Why would anyone think otherwise?

I'm thinking an excuse for being dismissive was sought, and found,
and Greta isn't the only person who can and should disturb
such smug complacency.

 

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd wrote:

-------------------------

Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Sadly, thousands of scientists have looked into all the other source
candidates,

** As if you would know.

The Paris Accord had over a hundred nations,

** Politicians gab fest.

" If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless"

because it is NOT TRUE EITHER.

** See the "if" word - dickhead.

The logic in my point is perfectly fine.

YOU just don't like it.





....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is all ours.

** Don't see those words in the link, anywhere.

That's why I spelled it for you ..

** So it is YOUR conclusion ?


Thought so.



....... Pphil

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 05:53:21 UTC, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'. It's an important principle.

Of course. Persecuting people for being gay is crass stupidity as well as counterproductive & antisocial.

If Greta's simple message doesn't get through, it's nonsense to Phil,
but that's not on her; he lacks the bandwidth.

Her message contains enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through.


NT

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 04:46:23 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:

Win is a true expert at electronics.

** That facetious - or not?

no.

** Crikey ....


FYI:

Win failed hopelessly here with simple questions common about issues
with audio amplifiers.

Every expert fails hopelessly in some areas,


** Then he is not what you claimed.



" Man's gotta know his - limitations... "

Precisely. Win does well when he sticks to electronics.


** Audio amplifiers are "electronics" - simple stuff to.

Win is nasty, smug shit.

So no surprise you feel the need praise him.

Like honour among thieves.



..... Phil

Just a reality check. We have an assortment of experts here. Claiming people can't do what they do successfully on a daily basis is a bit pointless.

But being an expert in electronics does not make someone competent in politics.


NT

 

[Phil Allison]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

------------------------

Phil Allison wrote:

----------------------

FYI:

Win failed hopelessly here with simple questions common about issues
with audio amplifiers.

Every expert fails hopelessly in some areas,


** Then he is not what you claimed.



" Man's gotta know his - limitations... "

Precisely. Win does well when he sticks to electronics.


** Audio amplifiers are "electronics" - simple stuff to.

Win is nasty, smug shit.

So no surprise you feel the need praise him.

Like honour among thieves.



Just a reality check.

** That would be one place you never visit.

> We have an assortment of experts here.

** Really, who are they ?

Claiming people can't do what they do successfully on a daily basis
is a bit pointless.

** Especially when you a have no idea what they actually do.

And pour scorn on them, because of that fact.

Cos you are a smug, unthinking asshole.

But being an expert in electronics does not make someone
competent in politics.

** No-one is competent in day to day politics.

It's fundamentally chaotic, like the weather.


FYI:

I nailed what was wrong here two decades ago.

The dominant posters are ugly bullies and egomaniacs.

Creates a toxic culture in which nothing good can ever happen.

Worked in places like that once, but not for long.



..... Phil

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 06:09:00 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:28:08 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 03:16:30 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's not difficult to understand where people as dim and gullible as Cursitor Doom are coming from. I know exactly what he's thinking - or rather feeling, since organised thought seems to be quite beyond him.

Delusions of mind reading. Classic stuff.

NT has the delusion that he has a mind to read. He's got an image that he wants to present, and that's easy to decode.

is that a 3rd example of your delusion of mind reading? I'm not sure.

It's not as if there's any actual content to be read.

He gets very evasive if asked to supply that, and the most economical explanation is that there isn't any content there to be supplied.

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 8:57:53 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is all ours.

** Don't see those words in the link, anywhere.

That's why I spelled it for you ..

** So it is YOUR conclusion ?

The Suess effect was first discovered when radio-carbon dates started looking odd.

The write-up of the effect is biassed by this. You don't have to read much about anthropogenic global warming to learn that it is also unimpeachable evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from us digging up and burning fossil carbon.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

There a plenty more where that came from.

So while it does happen to be my conclusion, I've been lead to it by a whole lot of published material, and it's certainly not just my conclusion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 2:02:39 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

whit3rd wrote:

" If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless"

... is NOT TRUE EITHER.

** See the "if" word - dickhead.

That logic is faulty. The human contribution is the right size to cause the imbalance, and
that means removing it restores balance. And, it's under human control, so we CAN do that.
Removing volcanic sources (not possible, as far as I know) or boosting mineralization of carbonates
(has been proposed) could also suffice, if you did enough of it.

It's like money: you don't have to pay in paper dollars, you could use quarters. The amount
has to match the price, but the pile of currency doesn't have to match any particular pattern.

Honestly, how can you claim to speak a language, if you cannot perceive a message clearly
presented in words? Or, are you just trying to jerk me around?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 9:02:39 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

-------------------------


Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Sadly, thousands of scientists have looked into all the other source
candidates,

** As if you would know.

Their publications are part of the peer-reviewed literature, which some of us can and do access.

The Paris Accord had over a hundred nations,

** Politicians gab fest.

Politicians don't hold gab fests if there isn't some to gabble about that will get written up by the media, and catch the voter's attention.

Clearly not yours, but your poltical insight seems to stop at "Liberals good, Labour bad, and Greens despicable".

" If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless"

because it is NOT TRUE EITHER.

** See the "if" word - dickhead.

The logic in my point is perfectly fine.

Logic isn't much use if you are reasoning from inadequate evidence.

> YOU just don't like it.

It not the logic we dislike. It's the premises from which you drew your conclusion.

If you get your ideas about anthropogenic global warming from denialist propaganda - which seems very likely - you are going to end up coming to conclusions that suite the people who want to keep on making money from digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel.

This does seem to come with an increased risk of bushfires and drought (at least for the east coast of Australia, though California does seem to be having similar problems), but these aren't a problem for people who live in habourside mansions. Sea level rise might worry them, but that's further off..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:00:40 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 04:46:23 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:

<snip>

> But being an expert in electronics does not make someone competent in politics.

NT manages to have silly ideas about politics and electronics.

The expert in everything doesn't exist, any more than the man who is always wrong, but stupidity and ignorance can be evident over a broad spectrum of subjects.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:04:30 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 05:53:21 UTC, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'. It's an important principle.

Of course. Persecuting people for being gay is crass stupidity as well as counterproductive & antisocial.


If Greta's simple message doesn't get through, it's nonsense to Phil,
but that's not on her; he lacks the bandwidth.

Her message contains enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through.

NT likes to claim this, but is unwilling to do the work required to demonstrate it.

He may not realise how difficult the job might be, but he's probably well aware that he doesn't do well when he tries to do it.

Here's the message again.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see NT drive his fleet of trucks through it. He has declined the offer before, but he may yet work out that pretentious generalisations are the hall-mark of the pretentious clown.

He's in my books as a pretentious clown, and has been for some time. He's getting to be a remarkably predictable pretentious clown, which make him stupid as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:07:22 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 06:09:00 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:28:08 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 03:16:30 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's not difficult to understand where people as dim and gullible as Cursitor Doom are coming from. I know exactly what he's thinking - or rather feeling, since organised thought seems to be quite beyond him.

Delusions of mind reading. Classic stuff.

NT has the delusion that he has a mind to read. He's got an image that he wants to present, and that's easy to decode.

Is that a 3rd example of your delusion of mind reading? I'm not sure.

If NT had a mind that worked he wouldn't have bothered posing the question.

When a pretentious clown acts in a predictable way, it doesn't take mind-reading to do the prediction.

NT clearly thinks that he has right to post vague generalisations. When he gets heckled about it, he doesn't seem to understand the content of the criticism, and writes it off as nonsense (which is to say he can't make sense of what is being said, apart form the fact that it's hostile). It's fairly transparent attitude, and you don't need mind-reading skills to decode it.

It's not as if there's any actual content to be read.

He gets very evasive if asked to supply that, and the most economical explanation is that there isn't any content there to be supplied.

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

I wouldn't. It doesn't seem to happen. Dimwits like you and Cursitor Doom do seem to think that they can make that claim, and that doesn't worry me at all.

People have pointed out where I have fallen short at higher levels, and I've been grateful for the correction - search on posts by me containing the word "oops".

You and Cursitor Doom seem to be sea-green in-educatable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:34:46 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis of Greta
Thurnberg's address to the UN that picks out any deviation from
scientific orthodoxy.

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without even
comprehending it is beyond me. Certainly no one who's been posting here
for any length of time and seen your dismissive attitude to anything that
didn't appear in the NYT, WaPo or CNN would!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

lørdag den 9. november 2019 kl. 02.33.49 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:07:17 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual
thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like
people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

Bill has become a somewhat pitiable, sad and tragic figure clinging on
for dear life to the outer periphery of S.E.D. Go easy on him. ;-)

"idleness (an idle mind) is the root of all evil"

or something...

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:07:17 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual
thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like
people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

Bill has become a somewhat pitiable, sad and tragic figure clinging on
for dear life to the outer periphery of S.E.D. Go easy on him. ;-)



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 12:44:52 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:34:46 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis of Greta
Thurnberg's address to the UN that picks out any deviation from
scientific orthodoxy.

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without even
comprehending it is beyond me.

One might wonder why Cursitor Doom thinks that I wouldn't be able to comprehend the evidence involved. He obviously can't.

My Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry didn't have anything to do with climate science, but it did leave me rather better placed than Curusitor Doom to comprehend the basics of anthropogenic global warming.

One of the three people who examined my Ph.D. thesis was a certain Dr. H.S.Johnson from California. The following year he was the first person to point out the danger to the ozone layer of a large fleet of supersonic aircraft dumping lots of oxides of nitrogen in the stratosphere.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QWAP3pAkcp8C&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=%22H.S.Johnson%22+ozone+hole&source=bl&ots=9TU8BulZe_&sig=ACfU3U3h2zHmpwLEDYWsYc0sk3R4ekNwNg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibx4zoitzlAhUXU30KHXoOBLwQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22H.S.Johnson%22%20ozone%20hole&f=false

> Certainly no one who's been posting here for any length of time and seen your dismissive attitude to anything that didn't appear in the NYT, WaPo or CNN would!

Cursitor Doom hasn't notice that I don't have any access to CNN, and haven't had for years.

He seems to think that the main stream media is a left wing equivalent of the right-wing thought bubble that he inhabits, where the Daily Mail and Russia Today specialise in giving right-wing idiots like him the kind of nonsense that they like to read.

They've earned the dismissive attitudes they generate in people who aren't Cursitor Doom style gullible idiots (aka rational).

The main stream media all tell roughly the same story because they work hard on finding out out what's really going on and tend to get it right.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 1:56:49 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

----------------------------------


I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis ...

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without ...

What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

** FFS you fuckwit asshole, you again snipped and changed the context !!

Snipping Cursitor Doom isn't cheating, and certainly wasn't in this case.

> If you got a kick in the backside EVERY time you performed this filthy cheat your bum would look like the black hole of Calcutta.

I recently caught you cheating in exactly this way - you hadn't even marked your snip. You certainly deserved a kick up the backside then, but since you don't seem to have realised that you were cheating, a spot of education might be a more appropriate response.

> But I bet it wound not stop a maniac like you.

Phil is lot more like an maniac that whit3rd, but probably isn't aware of this.

That would take a lot more.

Cos you are 100% insane.

Not an accurate diagnosis. Whit3rd did actually have a rational point to make, even if Phil couldn't understand it. Since Cursitor Doom doesn't understand the difference between opinion and evidence, whit3rd was wasting his time, but we all do quite a bit of that when coping with the demented fraction of the people who post here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 12:37:20 PM UTC+11, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

lørdag den 9. november 2019 kl. 02.33.49 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:07:17 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual
thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like
people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

Bill has become a somewhat pitiable, sad and tragic figure clinging on
for dear life to the outer periphery of S.E.D. Go easy on him. ;-)

"idleness (an idle mind) is the root of all evil"

or something...

Cursitor Doom does have these bizarre delusions.

I asked him to identify the recent thread where I'd posted a link to my website.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/PMT-transformer.html

and suggested that he might explain why I might have done that.

His mind seems to be a bit too idle to have been able to cope with the challenge.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 5:44:52 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:34:46 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis ...

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without ...

What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.
Analysis, you just have to explain. Evidence, you'd have to produce
(possibly artifacts or somesuch).

Learn to read, to extract meaning from text, and try to post
something vaguely related when you 'reply'. Or, is this NOT
a mistake, are you certain of refutation if you try to present
your own analysis? Greta , a teenager, can analyze for
publication, but you fear to do so?