Record ocean temperatures put Earth in ‘uncharted territory’...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:35:44 AM UTC+10, boB wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

Interesting that it is time for the earth to be cooling... Not
warming...

https://youtu.be/EplcPK4E7Zk?t=785

Couldn\'t be bothered to watch the video. We used to think that we were due for an integlacial to ice age transition about now, but all the work that has been done on climate change makes it clear that this interglacial would have been a long one, even if we hadn\'t burnt a lot of fossil carbon and dumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:36:14?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Temperatures in the world’s oceans have broken fresh records, testing new highs for more than a month in an “unprecedented” run that has led to scientists stating the Earth has reached “uncharted territory” in the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/26/accelerating-ocean-warming-earth-temperatures-climate-crisis

It\'s English language science journalism at it\'s worst. The reporter has been active in environmental journalism since 2004, but doesn\'t seem to have had any scientific training.

\"The oceans have acted as a kind of global buffer to the climate crisis over recent decades, both by absorbing vast amounts of the carbon dioxide that we have poured into the atmosphere, and by storing about 90% of the excess energy and heat this has created, dampening some of the impacts of global heating on land.\"

This is scientifically illiterate. The oceans don\'t \"store heat\". They just get warmer, as does the mass of the planet underneath them.

For once I find myself in agreement with Bill.

He isn\'t.

There is no climate crisis.

True. Things are getting progressively worse, but there\'s no \"crisis\" which is \"the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.\" The general sense ‘decisive point’ dates from the early 17th century, and it\'s inappropriate in this sitaution

It\'s all a great big stinking pile of BS.

It isn\'t but Cursitor Doom subscribes the great big stinking pile of self-serving BS otherwise known as climate change denial propaganda.

The planet may be warming, but even if it is, it\'s a natural, organic process, and part of a cycle which has *nothing* to do with CO2 levels.

This happens to be completely wrong, but it is what the climate change denial propaganda machine is tryong to feed to people silly enough to believes it.

I\'ve put together a selection of snippets from the world\'s leading encyclopaedias which show that CO2 levels have not changed in over 160 years. See here:

If you search through stuff published at the end of the 19th century you can find defective observations that appear to support that idea.

A more comprehensive literature search would show it to be wrong.

Says someone who hasn\'t picked up a book since the Web was invented!

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any
dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses
to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

 

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 10:35:15 UTC+3, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any
dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses
to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Wikipedia is indeed made for dumbasses to understand what is going on
so its text can be silly and simplistic, but each page has \"References\" section
and there you can find links to sources. Those are often peer-reviewed
articles in scientific literature. If you can\'t read those then don\'t \"LOL\"
around but do something about it. Or live on in denial, your tragedy.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:35:15 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Really? My preferred link is

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

The American Institute of Physics doesn\'t cater for dumbasses like you, and the link does take some exploring. I do prefer to cite Wikipedia here because it\'s written down to the level that dumbasses like you ought to be able to follow, if you were prepared to invest the effort. Since I got a Ph.D, in Physical Chemistry I do understand the science involved and put in some effort to make it accessible to clowns like you, but Wikipedia has lots more people with experience in spelling out complicated ideas in ways that even the moderately intelligent can follow. Less intelligent people - like you - resent being talked down to, usually because the stuff is still goes over their heads.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:33:20 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:36:14?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

For once I find myself in agreement with Bill.

He isn\'t.

There is no climate crisis.

True. Things are getting progressively worse, but there\'s no \"crisis\" which is \"the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.\" The general sense ‘decisive point’ dates from the early 17th century, and it\'s inappropriate in this situation

It\'s all a great big stinking pile of BS.

It isn\'t but Cursitor Doom subscribes the great big stinking pile of self-serving BS otherwise known as climate change denial propaganda.

The planet may be warming, but even if it is, it\'s a natural, organic process, and part of a cycle which has *nothing* to do with CO2 levels.

This happens to be completely wrong, but it is what the climate change denial propaganda machine is trying to feed to people silly enough to believes it.

I\'ve put together a selection of snippets from the world\'s leading encyclopaedias which show that CO2 levels have not changed in over 160 years. See here:

If you search through stuff published at the end of the 19th century you can find defective observations that appear to support that idea.

A more comprehensive literature search would show it to be wrong.

Says someone who hasn\'t picked up a book since the Web was invented!

A nonsensical claim. I\'ve got a copy of

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

sitting on my bookshelf, which was published in 2010, some 17 years after the world wide web was invented, and I read it when I first bought it.

You should do the same. It\'s still in print, but cheaper on a kindle.

https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Merchants_of_Doubt&i=stripbooks&crid=WHOAMDBRCLW6&sprefix=merchants_of_doubt%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Öö Tiib wrote:
---------------------

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any
dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses
to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Wikipedia is indeed made for dumbasses to understand what is going on
so its text can be silly and simplistic,

** Wikis are like encyclopedia articles - pithy, pseudo objective and better than nothing for satisfying the merely curious.

but each page has \"References\" section
and there you can find links to sources. Those are often peer-reviewed
articles in scientific literature.

** Peer review is almost meaningless - certainly not any proof of accuracy or truth.


..... Phil

 

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 15:00:43 UTC+3, Phil Allison wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:
---------------------


Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any
dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses
to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Wikipedia is indeed made for dumbasses to understand what is going on
so its text can be silly and simplistic,

** Wikis are like encyclopedia articles - pithy, pseudo objective and better than nothing for satisfying the merely curious.

but each page has \"References\" section
and there you can find links to sources. Those are often peer-reviewed
articles in scientific literature.

** Peer review is almost meaningless - certainly not any proof of accuracy or truth.

Nothing in this universe works 100%. And all people are even more fallible than
devices we design. So bullshit, fraud, joke or error being accepted into
peer-reviewed science journals happen just because nothing works 100%.

That does not make it meaningless. Proving that others are wrong is dream
of every scientist. Each such misinformation case is sooner or later found
out and that is considered note- and news-worthy. As result the level of
garbage in scientific journals is far under 1%. Meanwhile rest of internet is
over 75% of confused nonsense. That difference is *huge* and rather far
from meaningless.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:00:43 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:
---------------------


Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any
dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses
to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Wikipedia is indeed made for dumbasses to understand what is going on
so its text can be silly and simplistic,
** Wikis are like encyclopedia articles - pithy, pseudo objective and better than nothing for satisfying the merely curious.
but each page has \"References\" section
and there you can find links to sources. Those are often peer-reviewed
articles in scientific literature.

** Peer review is almost meaningless - certainly not any proof of accuracy or truth.

It blocks the obvious nonsense, and catches a lot of questionable assertions - I\'ve done it, and I\'ve got papers through it.

Scientific journals also publish comments on published papers, which catch a few more errors, and I\'ve get ten of them into the literature.

It certainly doesn\'t guarantee accuracy or truth but it is part of system which works reasonably well, and nobody seems to have come up within anything else that works anything like as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:29:43?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Blooming and extinction are nothing new.

And extinctions due to mankind include saber-tooth cats, mammoths,
dodos, passenger pigeons...

Newness isn\'t why we should stop doing that; novelty is irrelevant.

Climate despair is.

Totally irrelevant, again. Climate change with drought, crop loss,
tornados, increased flooding and hurricane damages... those are killers.
Despair just changes a mood. You can recover from that.

https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/climate-related-deaths-1920-2020-1024x786.png

https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg

There\'s lots more. Look it up.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:26:34 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:29:43?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Blooming and extinction are nothing new.

And extinctions due to mankind include saber-tooth cats, mammoths,
dodos, passenger pigeons...

Newness isn\'t why we should stop doing that; novelty is irrelevant.

Climate despair is.

Totally irrelevant, again. Climate change with drought, crop loss, tornados, increased flooding and hurricane damages... those are killers.
Despair just changes a mood. You can recover from that.
https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/climate-related-deaths-1920-2020-1024x786.png

https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg

There\'s lots more. Look it up.

And understand what it is telling you, which John Larkin can\'t manage. There are fewer climate related deaths at the moment because we have gotten better at stopping lots of people die when there is a famine, which is mainly trains shipping food around to where it is needed.

Floods still kill people. US corn grain yields are up because the crop has been massively subsidised, so the farmers can irrigate and fertilise their fields extravagantly. and use expensive machinery to plant huge areas. The graph is record of massive investment in getting farmers to vote for particular politicians.

Australia is even worse. We have a separate political party - the Country Party - which is huge in rural areas, and dedicated to getting subsidies for farmers.

They don\'t believe in global warming, because digging up coal is also a rural industry, and the fact that it\'s side effects are making farming more difficult are not obvious enough for them to register with the average rural yokel. There are some bright farmers, but the Country Party doesn\'t try to pander to them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:33:20?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:36:14?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

For once I find myself in agreement with Bill.

He isn\'t.

There is no climate crisis.

True. Things are getting progressively worse, but there\'s no \"crisis\" which is \"the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.\" The general sense ‘decisive point’ dates from the early 17th century, and it\'s inappropriate in this situation

It\'s all a great big stinking pile of BS.

It isn\'t but Cursitor Doom subscribes the great big stinking pile of self-serving BS otherwise known as climate change denial propaganda.

The planet may be warming, but even if it is, it\'s a natural, organic process, and part of a cycle which has *nothing* to do with CO2 levels.

This happens to be completely wrong, but it is what the climate change denial propaganda machine is trying to feed to people silly enough to believes it.

I\'ve put together a selection of snippets from the world\'s leading encyclopaedias which show that CO2 levels have not changed in over 160 years. See here:

If you search through stuff published at the end of the 19th century you can find defective observations that appear to support that idea.

A more comprehensive literature search would show it to be wrong.

Says someone who hasn\'t picked up a book since the Web was invented!

A nonsensical claim. I\'ve got a copy of

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

sitting on my bookshelf, which was published in 2010, some 17 years after the world wide web was invented, and I read it when I first bought it.

You should do the same. It\'s still in print, but cheaper on a kindle.

https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Merchants_of_Doubt&i=stripbooks&crid=WHOAMDBRCLW6&sprefix=merchants_of_doubt%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss

It won\'t matter. Cursitor is a far right Trumper type who would
rather be on the side of conspiracy theories even if the truth says
different. Everybody has the right to believe anything they want.
That\'s what we have to realize these days.

boB

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

... Climate change with drought, crop loss,
tornados, increased flooding and hurricane damages... those are killers.
Despair just changes a mood. You can recover from that.

https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/climate-related-deaths-1920-2020-1024x786.png

What laughable assertion does that PowerPoint attempt to address?

That doesn\'t cover drought and crop loss, it doesn\'t call tornados \'climate\', it
completely washes out everything downstream of a global climate change that doesn\'t
kill you during a catastrophic weather event...

The 2010 forest fires and crop failures in eastern Europe were taking out
fuel and food that would be needed to survive through the subsequent winter,
or would export to other regions at affordable prices. The death toll from
those losses isn\'t immediate and local.

It\'s a graph for oversimplification. Life is not, in my experience, simple like that.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:08:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:26:34?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

... Climate change with drought, crop loss,
tornados, increased flooding and hurricane damages... those are killers.
Despair just changes a mood. You can recover from that.

https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/climate-related-deaths-1920-2020-1024x786.png

What laughable assertion does that PowerPoint attempt to address?

That doesn\'t cover drought and crop loss, it doesn\'t call tornados \'climate\', it
completely washes out everything downstream of a global climate change that doesn\'t
kill you during a catastrophic weather event...

The 2010 forest fires and crop failures in eastern Europe were taking out
fuel and food that would be needed to survive through the subsequent winter,
or would export to other regions at affordable prices. The death toll from
those losses isn\'t immediate and local.

It\'s a graph for oversimplification. Life is not, in my experience, simple like that.

Wallow in gloom and doom with your buddies Bloggs and Sloman.

The objective reality is that the decades of predicted catastrophe
haven\'t happened. But gloom springs eternal in the hearts of chickens.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:35:15?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Really? My preferred link is

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

The NASA site also has echoes the same BS. There\'s nothing on the
internet that one can place any faith in if the subject matter is
politically-loaded, as is the case with \"Climate Change\"[tm].
If you want to find out the truth about *anything* which might have a
political slant to it, you have to read acredited print media sources
from the time *before* the subject became politically-loaded.

The American Institute of Physics doesn\'t cater for dumbasses like you, and the link does take some ex
ploring. I do prefer to cite Wikipedia here because it\'s written down to the level that dumbasses like
you ought to be able to follow, if you were prepared to invest the effort. Since I got a Ph.D, in Physical
Chemistry I do understand the science involved and put in some effort to make it accessible to clowns l
ike you, but Wikipedia has lots more people with experience in spelling out complicated ideas in way
s that even the moderately intelligent can follow. Less intelligent people - like you - resent being talked down to, usually because the stuff is still goes over their heads.

If you\'re going to post a load of old nonsense, at least have
word-wrap on as a common courtesy to others.
Wikipedia\'s a joke. You wheel it out every time because it\'s all
Globalist-approved just as you like it to be. It concurs with your own
world-view. And it\'s 100% BS. The only reason I would research
anything using Wiki is if it\'s something stupid like how many husbands
Za Za Gabor had. THAT sort of crap is all the Wikipedia can be trusted
on; nothing more.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:46:08 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:33:20?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:36:14?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

For once I find myself in agreement with Bill.

He isn\'t.

There is no climate crisis.

True. Things are getting progressively worse, but there\'s no \"crisis\" which is \"the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.\" The general sense ‘decisive point’ dates from the early 17th century, and it\'s inappropriate in this situation

It\'s all a great big stinking pile of BS.

It isn\'t but Cursitor Doom subscribes the great big stinking pile of self-serving BS otherwise known as climate change denial propaganda.

The planet may be warming, but even if it is, it\'s a natural, organic process, and part of a cycle which has *nothing* to do with CO2 levels.

This happens to be completely wrong, but it is what the climate change denial propaganda machine is trying to feed to people silly enough to believes it.

I\'ve put together a selection of snippets from the world\'s leading encyclopaedias which show that CO2 levels have not changed in over 160 years. See here:

If you search through stuff published at the end of the 19th century you can find defective observations that appear to support that idea.

A more comprehensive literature search would show it to be wrong.

Says someone who hasn\'t picked up a book since the Web was invented!

A nonsensical claim. I\'ve got a copy of

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

sitting on my bookshelf, which was published in 2010, some 17 years after the world wide web was invented, and I read it when I first bought it.

You should do the same. It\'s still in print, but cheaper on a kindle.

https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Merchants_of_Doubt&i=stripbooks&crid=WHOAMDBRCLW6&sprefix=merchants_of_doubt%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss


It won\'t matter. Cursitor is a far right Trumper type who would
rather be on the side of conspiracy theories even if the truth says
different. Everybody has the right to believe anything they want.
That\'s what we have to realize these days.

boB

Okay, fair enough. I\'ve put up my evidence, Bill\'s put up his, and
everyone\'s free to reach their own conclusions on the matter. I know
from long experience that I\'ll never shake Bill out of his convictions
and he\'ll never shake me out of mine. Most of the time he\'s not
interested in the underlying subject matter anyway; it\'s just an
opportunity for him to get attention and waste everyone else\'s time.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:43:37 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:08:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:26:34?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

https://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/climate-related-deaths-1920-2020-1024x786.png

What laughable assertion does that PowerPoint attempt to address?

It\'s a graph for oversimplification. Life is not, in my experience, simple like that.

Wallow in gloom and doom with your buddies Bloggs and Sloman.

When you hear the same thing from multiple directions, it\'s
called \'common sense\'.

The objective reality is that the decades of predicted catastrophe
haven\'t happened. But gloom springs eternal in the hearts of chickens.

Chickens aren\'t associated with common sense; their social structure
isn\'t about concensus, but pecking order. You\'re looking in the wrong place,
making a false analogy.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:55:01 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:35:15?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail..com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Really? My preferred link is

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
The NASA site also has echoes the same BS. There\'s nothing on the
internet that one can place any faith in if the subject matter is
politically-loaded, as is the case with \"Climate Change\"[tm].
If you want to find out the truth about *anything* which might have a
political slant to it, you have to read acredited print media sources
from the time *before* the subject became politically-loaded.
The American Institute of Physics doesn\'t cater for dumbasses like you, and the link does take some ex
ploring. I do prefer to cite Wikipedia here because it\'s written down to the level that dumbasses like
you ought to be able to follow, if you were prepared to invest the effort. Since I got a Ph.D, in Physical
Chemistry I do understand the science involved and put in some effort to make it accessible to clowns l
ike you, but Wikipedia has lots more people with experience in spelling out complicated ideas in way
s that even the moderately intelligent can follow. Less intelligent people - like you - resent being talked down to, usually because the stuff is still goes over their heads.
If you\'re going to post a load of old nonsense, at least have
word-wrap on as a common courtesy to others.
Wikipedia\'s a joke. You wheel it out every time because it\'s all
Globalist-approved just as you like it to be. It concurs with your own
world-view. And it\'s 100% BS. The only reason I would research
anything using Wiki is if it\'s something stupid like how many husbands
Za Za Gabor had. THAT sort of crap is all the Wikipedia can be trusted
on; nothing more.

That statement amply demonstrates your pathetic level of ignorance. Some of the articles on wiki are total crap written by amateurs, but many others are positively authoritative. But even the total crap articles can be a good starting point for further research. The article on the UK ring circuit was obviously written by a lightweight, but he did regurgitate enough basic information to start on fairly comprehensive research of the topic. Your problem is you have no clue which is which because you lack critical thinking. And forget about putting anything into perspective. It\'s a totally alien concept.

Here\'s some more crap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notable_people_who_have_edited_Wikipedia

There are many other highly expert contributors not considered notable in a glamorous way to impress the mASSES.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:55:01?PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:35:15?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:44:26?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:36:06 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:58:46?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

Never ceases to amaze me how some people cite \"sources\" like this and present it as evidence.

Your own ideas about what constitutes evidence - duff observations selectively culled from the 19th century literature - are equally comical.

Whereas - as we all know - you prefer to cite Wikipedia, which any dumbass can write articles for (and plenty have) for other dumb-asses to cite as \"evidence\" LOL!

Really? My preferred link is

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
The NASA site also has echoes the same BS. There\'s nothing on the
internet that one can place any faith in if the subject matter is
politically-loaded, as is the case with \"Climate Change\"[tm].
If you want to find out the truth about *anything* which might have a
political slant to it, you have to read acredited print media sources
from the time *before* the subject became politically-loaded.
The American Institute of Physics doesn\'t cater for dumbasses like you, and the link does take some ex
ploring. I do prefer to cite Wikipedia here because it\'s written down to the level that dumbasses like
you ought to be able to follow, if you were prepared to invest the effort. Since I got a Ph.D, in Physical
Chemistry I do understand the science involved and put in some effort to make it accessible to clowns l
ike you, but Wikipedia has lots more people with experience in spelling out complicated ideas in way
s that even the moderately intelligent can follow. Less intelligent people - like you - resent being talked down to, usually because the stuff is still goes over their heads.
If you\'re going to post a load of old nonsense, at least have
word-wrap on as a common courtesy to others.
Wikipedia\'s a joke. You wheel it out every time because it\'s all
Globalist-approved just as you like it to be. It concurs with your own
world-view. And it\'s 100% BS. The only reason I would research
anything using Wiki is if it\'s something stupid like how many husbands
Za Za Gabor had. THAT sort of crap is all the Wikipedia can be trusted
on; nothing more.

That statement amply demonstrates your pathetic level of ignorance. Some of the articles on wiki are total crap written by amateurs, but many others are positively authoritative. But even the total crap articles can be a good starting point for further research.

That\'s true in a way; I\'ll concede that point. However - and this is
the key thing - the further research needs to be *book-based* only and
from accredited sources. Nothing on the Internet nowadays has any
credibility. You\'ve worked yourself up into a state of delirium over
this environmental panic. You need to sit down in a decent reference
library and do some *proper* research with a substantial pile of
authoritative books. There are no short-cuts to get to the truth.