OT: \\\"Global Warming\\\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally the evidence!...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:18:56 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:47:50 +1000, David Eather <eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
From: jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather <eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.

More CO2 is good too.

Don\'t be thick!

Don\'t be obnoxious!

John Larkin may find it obnoxious to be called out for reposting intellectually inadequate climate change denial propaganda, but he certainly has to be thick to fail to recognise what he is doing, and whose interests he serves by doing it.

The rest of us do find this habit of his decidedly obnoxious (leaving out obnoxious lunatics like Cursitor Doom, John Doe and Flyguy who have their own ways of being antisocial ).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Eather]

On 22/02/2022 12:18 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:47:50 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: OT: \"Global Warming\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally
the evidence!
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:40:38 -0800
From: jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,uk.legal,sci.electronics.design
References: <gcup0h1snntabuj4866mt84mtopojl153p@4ax.com
16d560ab5c12b50a$1$3266748$c2465acb@news.newsdemon.com

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:



https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.






FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.

1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.

You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.

It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.

The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.

More CO2 is good too.


Don\'t be thick!

Don\'t be obnoxious!

don\'t look up!

 

[Fredxx]

On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.

Well done in providing the data you were relying on.

Some notes:
1) The Smog you mention wasn\'t down to CO2, but with the volatile
components of burning coal. Hence only smokeless coal could be burnt in
many areas. We haven\'t seen smogs since.
2) It is difficult to know whether figures represent by way of volume or
mass. It can be confusing when it comes to partial pressures, % volume
and % mass. CO2 is heavier than the major components of air. I assume
numbers are by volume.
3) Most of the numbers actually agree with convention measurements:

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/responsive_large_webp_A_scz8Y6sCzTd7i3vVgemDn9D2qgQTvHub_WbT5avHI.webp

4) Your sources:
America 1960: 0.03% (Can rise to 0.06% in a subway)
Britannica 2009: 0.038%
Chambers 1860: 0.04% (0.06 by weight)
Chambers 1959: Can\'t see a figure.
Everymans 1910: 0.04%
Lavoisier 1: Can\'t see a figure.
Lavoisier 2: Can\'t see a figure.
New Britannica 1985: 0.03%
Oldhams Modern 1961: 0.03%

5) It is well known that low-level CO2 levels can be much higher.
Without further details I suspect the older measurements were taken in
laboratories in populated areas.

6) What is notable that none of these provide error margins and where
the samples were taken. If I see 0.03% I take the error margins to be
+/-0.01% The Britannica 2009 seems to be in agreement with most records.
The lack of details and references for the above measurements cause me
to take the numbers as approximations, so consistent with known data
like that above.

7) Science has moved on a long way, in terms of measurement details and
aspects like Confirmation Bias.

My two-penny\'s worth.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:59:06 AM UTC+11, Fredxx wrote:

On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.

Well done in providing the data you were relying on.

Less well done in choosing that particular sample of antiquated and inadequate data to rely on. Cursitor Doom seems to have made up whatever it is he uses instead of a mind and only then gone out of his way to find \"data\" that he imagines will support his opinion.

<snipped the perfectly correct objections to the data - such as it is. I\'ve made similar points in the past, but Cursitor Doom has his preferred delusions and isn\'t going to let anything change his mind>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 00:58:55 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.

Well done in providing the data you were relying on.

Some notes:
1) The Smog you mention wasn\'t down to CO2, but with the volatile
components of burning coal. Hence only smokeless coal could be burnt in
many areas. We haven\'t seen smogs since.
2) It is difficult to know whether figures represent by way of volume or
mass. It can be confusing when it comes to partial pressures, % volume
and % mass. CO2 is heavier than the major components of air. I assume
numbers are by volume.
3) Most of the numbers actually agree with convention measurements:

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/responsive_large_webp_A_scz8Y6sCzTd7i3vVgemDn9D2qgQTvHub_WbT5avHI.webp

4) Your sources:
America 1960: 0.03% (Can rise to 0.06% in a subway)
Britannica 2009: 0.038%
Chambers 1860: 0.04% (0.06 by weight)
Chambers 1959: Can\'t see a figure.

https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw/CO2%20DATA%20FOR%20THE%20SIGHT-IMPARED/chambers%201959.JPG

Everymans 1910: 0.04%
Lavoisier 1: Can\'t see a figure.
Lavoisier 2: Can\'t see a figure.

The Lavoisier reference was simply to show that highly precise
methodologies for the measurement of atmospheric gases had been around
since the 1700s. It was just a suggested starting point for anyone
interested in the historical development of quantitative analysis of
gases.

New Britannica 1985: 0.03%
Oldhams Modern 1961: 0.03%

5) It is well known that low-level CO2 levels can be much higher.
Without further details I suspect the older measurements were taken in
laboratories in populated areas.

6) What is notable that none of these provide error margins and where
the samples were taken. If I see 0.03% I take the error margins to be
+/-0.01% The Britannica 2009 seems to be in agreement with most records.
The lack of details and references for the above measurements cause me
to take the numbers as approximations, so consistent with known data
like that above.

7) Science has moved on a long way, in terms of measurement details and
aspects like Confirmation Bias.

My two-penny\'s worth.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 10:35:16 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 00:58:55 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:

The Lavoisier reference was simply to show that highly precise
methodologies for the measurement of atmospheric gases had been around
since the 1700s. It was just a suggested starting point for anyone
interested in the historical development of quantitative analysis of
gases.

They weren\'t all that precise, and they were much too tedious to allow people to get a handle on the variations on CO2 levels from place to place.

Charles Keeling used automated near-infrared measurements - when they finally got to be practical - to get lots of measurements easily, and it was only after he\'d done a lot of measurements and had got a grip on precisely how much CO2 levels varied form place to place in areas that were easy to get at that he realised he\'d have to set up a CO2 observatory on top Mauna Loa before he could start getting consistent and meaningful results.

There\'s a second station on the northwest tip of Tasmania, set up about 20 years later to take advantage of equally favourable prevailing winds.

https://research.csiro.au/acc/capabilities/cape-grim-baseline-air-pollution-station/

You seem to be blind to the defects of the historical data you\'ve wasted so much time finding.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[M Kfivethousand]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-6, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 16/02/2022 14:30, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:12:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u

There you go: all the leg-work done for you.





Sadly me old mucker, I had as a child an copy of an encyclopedia series
that detailed the piltdown man or \'missing link\' as a clearly
established fact.

I am afraid that the penchant of scholars and academics to copy \'facts\'
from each other was no less prevalent then than it is today.

Especially when compiling encyclopedias.

My own encounter with this was in a totally obscure Wiki article about a
German WWII aircraft engine, where the power expressed in kW only
matched the power expressed in bhp if two digits were transposed.

I altered them, The original author altered them back citing numerous
references, all of which contained the same obvious typo.

I gave up.

In short I admire your scholarship, but it proves sadly nothing more
than the penchant for plagiarism that pervades the scholastic mind.

Check out any book on the dark ages before the 1950s. Compare with books
after that where scientific archaeology reveals something utterly different.

Yes, and tomorrow\'s books on the Dark Ages will show the original
ancient Britons were actually sub-saharan Africans who were
exterminated by the Anglo Saxons.
No thanks, NP, I\'ll stick with the *old* pre-Agenda books!
Dahling we is *all* sub Saharan Africans, we is just \'faded a bit\'.


Or you changed what you eat

House finches redness is related to diet

mk5000

“Night flight to San Francisco; chase the moon across America. God, it’s been years since I was on a plane. When we hit 35,000 feet we’ll have reached the tropopause, the great belt of calm air, as close as I’ll ever get to the ozone. I dreamed we were there. ==― Tony Kushner, Perestroika

 

[M Kfivethousand]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:27:41 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:

On 16/02/2022 16:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 1:47:43 AM UTC+11, newshound
wrote:
On 16/02/2022 14:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Dahling we is *all* sub Saharan Africans, we is just \'faded a
bit\'.

Not exactly. Europeans mostly have a few Neanderthal genes, and
sub-Saharan Africans don\'t. Further east you see Denisovian genes
too.

And where do you think those Neanderthals and Denisovian, or their
ancestors, came from?

I cannot tell

mk5000

“The world of literature has everything in it, and it refuses to leave
anything out. I have read like a man on fire my whole life because the
genius of English teachers touched me with the dazzling beauty of language.
― Pat Conroy

 

[M Kfivethousand]

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:38:35 AM UTC-6, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:36:25 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 17/02/2022 10:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:30 PM UTC+11, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/2022 22:18, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/02/2022 14:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dahling we is *all* sub Saharan Africans, we is just \'faded a
bit\'.

Apart from the odd admix of Neanderthal and Denisovian that is...


They were also sub Saharan Africans. They just went for a walk and
got lost .

They weren\'t. Neanderthals don\'t ever seem to have shown up in
Africa. Denisovians didn\'t even get as close as Israel.

You are talking about different things here.

According to current best hypotheses, the first humanoids to move out of
Africa were Homo Erectus, around 2 million years ago. As different
parts of the populations became more isolated in different regions of
the world, they evolved and we got Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in
Asia, and no doubt many more - fossil remains never give a complete
picture. Later migrations of Homo Sapiens from Africa led to
intermixing in different parts of the world.

The Neanderthals were never (AFAWK) in Africa. But they are nonetheless
descendants of sub-Saharan Africans.
Sub-Saharan African great apes. I rather doubt that a modern human could interbreed with Homo Erectus. The moderately diverse great apes that started moving out of Africa two million years ago are clearly our near ancestors, but it\'s a long stretch to call them sub-Saharan Africans.

Sub-Saharan African great apes would be fine. The Natural Philosopher seems to be \"natural\" in the Shakespearean sense of being under-educated.
Europeans typically have something like 1 - 5% of their genes from
Neanderthals, and Asians have a mix from Denisovians. But we are all
still descended from sub-Saharan Africans, though every line of ancestry.
Sub-Saharan great apes, and our ancestors were a rather small subset of them.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis

There’s no banana for scale, but it just looks too big to me to be a finch.
It looks robin sized to me.

mk5000


To build a tomb which, since I am not read,
Suffers the stone’s mortality instead;
Which, by the common iconographies
Of simple visual ease,
Usurps the place of the complexities--The Poet Orders His Tomb

By Edgar Bowers

 

[M Kfivethousand]

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 5:24:34 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/02/2022 05:35, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:50:00 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:sulbvd$gis$1...@dont-email.me:
On 17/02/2022 10:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:30 PM UTC+11, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/2022 22:18, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/02/2022 14:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dahling we is *all* sub Saharan Africans, we is just \'faded a
bit\'.

Apart from the odd admix of Neanderthal and Denisovian that
is...


They were also sub Saharan Africans. They just went for a walk
and got lost .

They weren\'t. Neanderthals don\'t ever seem to have shown up in
Africa. Denisovians didn\'t even get as close as Israel.


You are talking about different things here.

According to current best hypotheses, the first humanoids to move
out of Africa were Homo Erectus, around 2 million years ago. As
different parts of the populations became more isolated in
different regions of the world, they evolved and we got
Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in Asia, and no doubt many more
- fossil remains never give a complete picture. Later migrations
of Homo Sapiens from Africa led to intermixing in different parts
of the world.

The Neanderthals were never (AFAWK) in Africa. But they are
nonetheless descendants of sub-Saharan Africans.

Europeans typically have something like 1 - 5% of their genes from
Neanderthals, and Asians have a mix from Denisovians. But we are
all still descended from sub-Saharan Africans, though every line
of ancestry.

No... Not from same roots.

H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are two separate species.

This is debatable. They clearly could interbreed with homo sapiens and the off-spring were clearly fertile, which nominally makes us both members of same species.
That depends on your perspective. There are loads of quite radically
different plant species that will hybridise easily and certain F1
hybrids can have remarkable properties. It even depends critically on
which is the egg donor and which is the pollen donor. There is a naming
convention for such hybrids and the multiple crossing to concentrate the
most desirable traits for houseplants gets very complicated.

https://sgplants.com/blogs/news/echeveria-gibbiflora-hybrids-a-short-history

If you look closely you can see a very faint patch of red

That is fairly characteristic of house finches

Are they feeding this succulent the same thing that finches eat

mk5000

Smelly Cat, Smelly Cat,
What are they feeding you?
Smelly Cat, Smelly Cat
You\'re getting fat --Phoebe Buffay

 

[m syadoz]

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 3:09:02 PM UTC-5, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:38:35 AM UTC-6, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:36:25 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 17/02/2022 10:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:30 PM UTC+11, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/2022 22:18, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/02/2022 14:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dahling we is *all* sub Saharan Africans, we is just \'faded a
bit\'.

Apart from the odd admix of Neanderthal and Denisovian that is...


They were also sub Saharan Africans. They just went for a walk and
got lost .

They weren\'t. Neanderthals don\'t ever seem to have shown up in
Africa. Denisovians didn\'t even get as close as Israel.

You are talking about different things here.

According to current best hypotheses, the first humanoids to move out of
Africa were Homo Erectus, around 2 million years ago. As different
parts of the populations became more isolated in different regions of
the world, they evolved and we got Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in
Asia, and no doubt many more - fossil remains never give a complete
picture. Later migrations of Homo Sapiens from Africa led to
intermixing in different parts of the world.

The Neanderthals were never (AFAWK) in Africa. But they are nonetheless
descendants of sub-Saharan Africans.
Sub-Saharan African great apes. I rather doubt that a modern human could interbreed with Homo Erectus. The moderately diverse great apes that started moving out of Africa two million years ago are clearly our near ancestors, but it\'s a long stretch to call them sub-Saharan Africans.

Sub-Saharan African great apes would be fine. The Natural Philosopher seems to be \"natural\" in the Shakespearean sense of being under-educated.
Europeans typically have something like 1 - 5% of their genes from
Neanderthals, and Asians have a mix from Denisovians. But we are all
still descended from sub-Saharan Africans, though every line of ancestry.
Sub-Saharan great apes, and our ancestors were a rather small subset of them.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis



There’s no banana for scale,

Know your meme

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/banana-for-scale

but it just looks too big to me to be a finch.

It looks robin sized to me.

mk5000


To build a tomb which, since I am not read,
Suffers the stone’s mortality instead;
Which, by the common iconographies
Of simple visual ease,
Usurps the place of the complexities--The Poet Orders His Tomb

By Edgar Bowers