OT: more evidence of AGW scam

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 7:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 14/07/19 00:17, bitrex wrote:
On 7/13/19 5:09 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not
understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just
love to tell stories)

Yep, all they ever do is talk shit for attention all day long and
never present any substantive research of their own.

theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories
(none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly
well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One
part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and
chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all
of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one
tried to actually write *the* partial differential equation for the
global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes
equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms - if one can
actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S
equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in
mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand!

OMG, did you know that the vast majority of practical physics problems
applicable to the real world, and not simplified toy systems, are
complex multivariate PDEs with "nasty nonlinear coupling" that don't
have closed-form solutions? this habitual man-splainer acts like this
is news to somebody other than anti-AGW beard-stroking head-nodders
who are impressed he can use those big words.

Based on CD's technical background and achievements that he
himself has stated, I doubt he did know that.

But then his opinion is "just as valid" as anyone else's.
Isn't it?



If the climate were not described by that kind of equation then the
climate would show almost no interesting behavior worth predicting. duh!

Global Climate Models are children's toys in comparison to the actual
underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers
setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively
available.

Being anti-AGW pundit, is easy job, like being "pro-life." Don't
actually have to ever do anything. Just have to run your mouth and
collect checks.

Just so.

if all the pro-life climate skeptics out there were busily researching
alternative climate models which disprove AGW, in between caring for
their adopted children, they'd have no time to talk so much they'd be
far too busy.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 4:48:40 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:48:15 -0700, Rick C wrote:

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around
like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started
increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then
maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more
evidence than crying "rain forest".

You must have missed the point I was making so I'll repeat it for you:
YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT THE HELL YOU LIKE.

I'm glad I have your approval. Obviously you believe what you want irrespective of the evidence.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures!

Timescales that transcend species identity, or humanity's existence, and far
outstrip civilizations and societies, are the wrong ones for climate
change; the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

 

[whit3rd]

Climate change is real, happening now, and poses a severe strain on
the biosphere; all the food we need is from fish, fields , flocks,
and when that life is in danger, so is ours.

We can remove the immediate change-inducer by reducing (or eliminating)
the mining of carbon from the lithosphere and plolluting the atmosphere
with it.

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it
doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much,

'much'? Numbers? The credible caltulations say it's a big hit, though
of course it's not the only greanhouse gas we humans vent (some of the
chlorinated refrigerants of yesteryear, for instance).

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures!

Timescales that transcend species identity, or humanity's existence, and far
outstrip civilizations and societies, are the wrong ones for climate
change; the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

Which of these are severe problems?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:54:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

... the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

Which of these are severe problems?

So, you do agree at least that that scientist is a fool?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

that's not a problem, it's a graph. It seems to show benefits of thermostat
controlled heat/air conditioning. Honeywell ought to be proud. Or maybe
it's more about fiberglass insulation? Owens-Corning deserves a medal, too.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

that's not a problem either; population/market growth means it's worthwhile doing
more mineral/fertilizer/premium-seed purchases to boost crops from limited cultivation area.
If the additives/fallow times aren't maintained, the soil gets to be worthless after too
much cultivation, though.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

what does leaf area mean to you? Weeds used to be smaller? Folk have stopped
cutting trees for firewood? Compensation for efficiency diminished by smog?
If the cedars of Lebanon were coming back, that'd be notable for species
diversity. Lignum vitae, Bermuda cedar, pink ivory... be nice to see those rebound.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

Yeah, less pollution in the US because my fireplace hasn't burned wood in
thirty years (and that contributes to the greenery of the 'leaf area' plot).

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

That's just silly; production per capita might be interesting, but recall that all
grasslands have 'produced grain', for millennia, alongside of human harvest.

 

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

They do tend to get ostracized from the mainstream scientific community
for doing it because a) their evidence/theories/models to the contrary
are generally poor and b) you tend to get ostracized from any group of
people when you implicitly call all your colleagues frauds but don't
back up your claim very good.

The same thing would happen in the National Society of Lumber
Scientists, too, if you said the bulk of lumber scientists were
publishing fraudulent data/claims about lumber.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 10:04 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures!

Timescales that transcend species identity, or humanity's existence, and far
outstrip civilizations and societies, are the wrong ones for climate
change; the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

He says "let me tell you in a few short words" and then follows up with
a ten paragraph Gish Gallop.

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop>

 

[bitrex]

On 7/14/19 2:00 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.


"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

At least in Europe, the main problem is that the media has been
spreading climate hysteria. Especially teenagers have taken part in
large demonstrations, some running a demonstration outside the
parliament every Friday afternoon. Politicians have jumped on the AGW
bandwagon, in the parliament of Finland 8 out of 9 parties demand
carbon neutrality before the EU is ready to do so. They also demand
stopping eating meat, since meat production harms the climate.

You may be aware that in nominally free countries all citizens are free
to (non-violently) protest, to (non-violently) demand things, to lobby
their government for redress of grievances, to elect elected officials
who represent their views, etc.

Saying something negative in public about feminism or LGBT and you
will be crushed in the social media.

Saying something negative about all sorts of topics will get you
"crushed" in the social media. Like try it with umm, saying negative
things about Tesla or Elon Musk.

What did you expect? That when you don't have anything nice to say the
people you're saying negative things about are going to sit there and
nod their heads and say "oh, I see, I see, I understand your
position..." Some very relaxed and open-minded ones, may. But are very
few true saints of any politics or creed in the world.

that is to say, sweet heavens, honey, get real.

From this it is not a long time before activists starts to physically
harm sceptical people or their property.

Sounds a bit like a slippery-slope argument. It is sometimes the risk
you take for having opinions and telling everyone them, in the real
world. Getting beaten, shot, stabbed, or blown up by a bomb by someone
who doesn't like 'em very much is a very real risk those "LGBT" people
take every day, too, just by existing. so. Looks like you folks got at
least one thing in common.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/14/19 2:22 AM, bitrex wrote:

What did you expect? That when you don't have anything nice to say the
people you're saying negative things about are going to sit there and
nod their heads and say "oh, I see, I see, I understand your
position..." Some very relaxed and open-minded ones, may. But are very
few true saints of any politics or creed in the world.

Naturally I like to consider myself one of the more relaxed and
open-minded "leftists" I doubt I'd have hung around in this NG very long
if I weren't. By world standards I'm confident I'm pretty
middle-of-the-road but perhaps not by American standards.

I'm confident enough to be relatively polite even with people I don't
really agree with at all. That's what my post above was - polite. If you
think that kind of reply from someone who vehemently doesn't agree with
you on something, on social media or otherwise, is rude or mean then you
are too sensitive it is normal, not being "crushed."

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 10:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures!

Timescales that transcend species identity, or humanity's existence, and far
outstrip civilizations and societies, are the wrong ones for climate
change; the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

Which of these are severe problems?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

If AGW is all an elaborate fraud then I am confident it will come out in
the wash and I wouldn't at all feel bad if it were, AGW is real bad news.

No conspiracy or manipulation of that magnitude can last for long. The
truth will come out, it will be undeniable, and the downfall for the
conspirators will be swift, and terrible.

If the contrary should become undeniable the downfall for the skeptics
will also be swift, and terrible.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 02:51:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 10:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:09:07 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures!

Timescales that transcend species identity, or humanity's existence, and far
outstrip civilizations and societies, are the wrong ones for climate
change; the so-called scientist needs to pay more attention to the
order of magnitude (at least) on his time axis, lest he make a fool of
himself again. Modern humanity has a severe problem, and these
remarks are observations by a blind fool.

Which of these are severe problems?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1


If AGW is all an elaborate fraud then I am confident it will come out in
the wash and I wouldn't at all feel bad if it were, AGW is real bad news.

When will all those bad things happen? Things look pretty good just
now.

No conspiracy or manipulation of that magnitude can last for long. The
truth will come out, it will be undeniable, and the downfall for the
conspirators will be swift, and terrible.

People have been making doomsday climate predictions for about 50
years now, and have been wrong, and there was no resulting "downfall."

If the contrary should become undeniable the downfall for the skeptics
will also be swift, and terrible.

The predictions of doom are always 10 years out, and can't be
disproven. The real proof will the the next ice age, which is
inevitable. Meanwhile, life on Earth seems to be improving.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Which of these are severe problems?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain
.PNG?raw=1

Congratulations John. You have proven that rising CO2 and rising temperatures
help plants, and global warming is a fact.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:42:25 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Which of these are severe problems?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5skqcj8mn5qwm5/Climate_Deaths2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain
.PNG?raw=1

Congratulations John. You have proven that rising CO2 and rising temperatures
help plants,

I haven't proven it, but it seems to be so.

> and global warming is a fact.

Things have warmed up a lot since the last ice age, and a little since
the LIA. The temperature record seems to be very noisy.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:09:38 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> The temperature record seems to be very noisy.

Temmperature IS noise. Energy intensity in random motions is
the definition.

That's why all of thermodynamics has the alternate name 'statistical mechanics'.

 

[LM]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.


But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it
doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much, or
that the added CO2 is bad for the planet. Lots of people want it to
be, for various reasons.

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Leftist are jealous of other peoples cars

 

[bitrex]

On 7/14/19 4:37 PM, LM wrote:

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it
doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much, or
that the added CO2 is bad for the planet. Lots of people want it to
be, for various reasons.

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Leftist are jealous of other peoples cars

What does your hillbilly welfare ass roll that's so exciting?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 9:08:17 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:11:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".


Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Ironically the effect of long-term lead exposure to the CNS probably
results in the firm conviction that leaded gasoline is the best.

Leaded gas was bad, as were the old cars without emission controls.
When one of the "classics" passes down the street, it really stinks.
100% of the cars on the road used to be that nasty. Diesel trucks and
busses were horrible; most are better now.

Added CO2 is probably a net benefit to Earth.

It may be fine for the Earth as a whole. It's not doing anything good for the human population, which depends for its food on an agricultural system that is finely tuned to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 270ppm.

There are other potential problems, but John Larkin absorbs only denialist propaganda pushed out by the fossil carbon extraction industry, so there is little point in explaining them to him.

The other gunk wasn't.
The Popular Press uses "CO2" and "carbon" and "pollution"
interchangeably.

Not the news sources I read, but they also include stuff about Donald Trump acting like a petulant twit, which don't seem to show up in the branches of the popular media that John Larkin patronises.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 6:29:41 PM UTC+2, bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.

That digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel is good thing does seem to be asserted as a matter of dogma.

Scientist do seem to feel free to question this dogma, but true believers, like Cursitor Doom, do seem to see them as dangerous heretics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 6:25:11 PM UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qgcq8a$133$2@dont-email.me>:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

The art of taxing is to make people believe it is good for them,
so that they INSIST to pay for it (to save the climate).

Well done job!!

The art of selling people fossil carbon as fuel, and making money from it does seem to involve blinding the gullible to the unfortunate side effects of this business.

The industry spends a lot on denailsit propaganda, and twits like Jan Panteltje, Cursitor doom and John Larkin are too dim to realise that they are being mislead.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney