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

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:55:01 AM UTC+10, 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].

You do like to think that Climate Change is poltically loaded.

In reality it is a scientific fact, and the the politcal content all comes from the fossil carbon extraction industry which wants to keep on making money in the same way that it has been doing for the last century or so. and is lying enthusiastically as it tries to extract the last few dollars from a destructive business model.

> 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.

Because nobody knew about the damage being done at the time. Read about asbestos in publications from the same period.

> >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 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 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.

I read your posts on Google and have to undo the word-wrap you impose whenever I respond to the nonsenses you post from your antiquated newsreader program.

> Wikipedia\'s a joke. You wheel it out every time because it\'s all Globalist-approved just as you like it to be.

Your imaginary globalists do get around a lot.

> It concurs with your own world-view.

Not always, but I don\'t post links to those that don\'t.

> And it\'s 100% BS.

Actually it isn\'t. You like to think that because you prefer your own BS, which is nasty toxic nonsense.

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.

Any rabid conspiracy theory freak would tell you the same thing. Go back to the original \"Protocols of the Elders of Zion\" and accept no substitutes.

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

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

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.

Also wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

boB

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:04:58 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:46:08 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@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.

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.

Cursitor Doom\'s \"evidence\" is antiquated rubbish, text-chopped into appearing to support Cursitor Doom\'s demented delusions.

He doesn\'t deal with the ice core historical data

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

probably becasue he\'s nver heard of it

> I know from long experience that I\'ll never shake Bill out of his convictions

That because Cursitor Doom doesn\'t have access to reliable information. From, time to time people catch me getting something wrong and I do acknowledege their corrections. but Cursitor Doom hasn\'t managed this yet, and probably never will.

> and he\'ll never shake me out of mine.

Cursitor Doom is a conspiracy theory junkie, with a taste for particularly absurd theories.

> 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.

Whereas Cursitor Doom has a altrusitic desired to spread the most absurd conspiracy theories he can find on the assumption that everybody else finds reality just as dull and unsatisfying as he does. As Fox News has just found out, lying can be a expensive way of entertaining people.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:45:25 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.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>

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.

There\'s nothing special about books these days. In time\'s past it took quite a while to pit a book-sized pile of data together, and quite a lot of money to turn it into type which could be used to print a book, and even more to get those books out to bookshop and reviewed and adverstised.

This didn\'t stop the

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

from being a steaming heap of anti-semitic propaganda. You treat Russia Today as an accredited source.

> Nothing on the Internet nowadays has any credibility.

Not to Cursitor Doom. H ewants his conspiracy theories to able a stupid and implauislbe as possible.

> You\'ve worked yourself up into a state of delirium over this environmental panic.

Nobody s panicking nor delirious. We\'ve known about it for some thirty years now and it has been a plausible hypothesis since
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

first publshed on the subject in 1896.

> 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.

But if you read the texts selectively enough, you can still come up with the wrong answer. And you\'ve totally failed to find out anything about ice core data.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35 PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

The roiling rantfest on climate change is not interesting, to science.
The propoganda machine cannot be stopped because it\'s free speech, and
won\'t run out of money because it has deep-pocket sponsors, and because
hired authors start at twenty cents a word (or get an AI to do the dirty work).
In other controversy, there was published work as late as the 1980s that deplored
\"Jewish science\" from Einstein\'s 1905 work. It\'s fishwrap-quality
publication, by a vanity press, but it was there.

Real science and tech journals have editors (Bill Sloman is one) who clip
the nonsense parts out. Newsgroups like this one get some
volunteers, is the only difference.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35 PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

<snip>

> Real science and tech journals have editors (Bill Sloman is one) who clip the nonsense parts out. Newsgroups like this one get some volunteers, is the only difference.

I\'ve only been a referee, never an editor. My father and my wife were both editors of peer-reviewed journals , from time to time, so I know what the job entails, but I\'ve never done it. The editors don\'t snip out the nonsense - they ship the articles out for peer-review by referees who do the snipping for them (and I have done that).

The editors are well known. The referees are anonymous - though they can sign their review, as I did once when the article I was reviewing cited my own work incorrectly.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:34:05 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:45:25?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.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

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.

There\'s nothing special about books these days. In time\'s past it took quite a while to pit a book-sized pile of data together, and quite a lot of money to turn it into type which could be used to print a book, and even more to get those books out to bookshop and reviewed and adverstised.

This didn\'t stop the

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

from being a steaming heap of anti-semitic propaganda. You treat Russia Today as an accredited source.

I don\'t know why you had to drag that into it. I\'ve told you before
it\'s an obvious forgery with all the authenticity of Barak Obama\'s
birth certificate.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm. All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants
and oceans, keeping it perfectly in balance. When this is presented to
the likes of you and Bill, it fries your brains and you can\'t process
it. The fact is that if warming is happening, it\'s got *nothing* to do
with carbon dioxide, methane/farting cows etc. And that\'s even *if*
warming is happening at all.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:04:58?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:46:08 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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.

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.

Cursitor Doom\'s \"evidence\" is antiquated rubbish, text-chopped into appearing to support Cursitor Doom\'s demented delusions.

He doesn\'t deal with the ice core historical data

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

probably becasue he\'s nver heard of it

I know from long experience that I\'ll never shake Bill out of his convictions

That because Cursitor Doom doesn\'t have access to reliable information. From, time to time people catch me getting something wrong and I do acknowledege their corrections. but Cursitor Doom hasn\'t managed this yet, and probably never will.

and he\'ll never shake me out of mine.

Cursitor Doom is a conspiracy theory junkie, with a taste for particularly absurd theories.

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.

Whereas Cursitor Doom has a altrusitic desired to spread the most absurd conspiracy theories he can find on the assumption that everybody else finds reality just as dull and unsatisfying as he does. As Fox News has just found out, lying can be a expensive way of entertaining people.

Well, I could tell you that the US government paid umpteen billion
dollars of tax payers money to Rupert Murdoch to pull the exposure of
the stolen election off their screens and dump Tucker Carlson. In
return Murdoch paid a fraction of that back again to Dominion. The
whole thing was a set-up. The truth *will* come out fully sooner or
later, though. We haven\'t heard the last of Carlson....

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:43:39 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm. All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants
and oceans, keeping it perfectly in balance. When this is presented to
the likes of you and Bill, it fries your brains and you can\'t process
it. The fact is that if warming is happening, it\'s got *nothing* to do
with carbon dioxide, methane/farting cows etc. And that\'s even *if*
warming is happening at all.

It\'s not like everything on earth will suddenly drop dead and sink
beneath the seas when average temps hit 1.5c above \"pre-industrial
levels\", when \"pre-industrial\" is the tail of the Little Ice Age. [1]

It used to be sensible to be afraid of tigers and murderous tribes and
cholera. But the world is so much safer now, and most people are just
as afraid as their ancestors, if not more. I think our brains have
sort of an AGC amp for fear; most people are scared about the same no
matter what the actual threats. And of course fear has always been a
business opportunity.

[1] that timing is interesting.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:36:53 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:34:05 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:45:25?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.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

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.

There\'s nothing special about books these days. In time\'s past it took quite a while to pit a book-sized pile of data together, and quite a lot of money to turn it into type which could be used to print a book, and even more to get those books out to bookshop and reviewed and adverstised.

This didn\'t stop the

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

from being a steaming heap of anti-semitic propaganda. You treat Russia Today as an accredited source.

I don\'t know why you had to drag that into it. I\'ve told you before it\'s an obvious forgery with all the authenticity of Barak Obama\'s birth certificate.

Even Wikipedia points out that it is a well known forgery. Most of the stuff you post here is equally implausible, including the claim about Barak Obama\'s birth certificate. The particular point I was making was that a lot of your \"book-based\" research comes from books that are no more credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:36:53?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:34:05 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:45:25?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.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

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.

There\'s nothing special about books these days. In time\'s past it took quite a while to pit a book-sized pile of data together, and quite a lot of money to turn it into type which could be used to print a book, and even more to get those books out to bookshop and reviewed and adverstised.

This didn\'t stop the

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

from being a steaming heap of anti-semitic propaganda. You treat Russia Today as an accredited source.

I don\'t know why you had to drag that into it. I\'ve told you before it\'s an obvious forgery with all the authenticity of Barak Obama\'s birth certificate.

Even Wikipedia points out that it is a well known forgery. Most of the stuff you post here is equally implausible, including the claim about Barak Obama\'s birth certificate. The particular point I was making was that a lot of your \"book-based\" research comes from books that are no more credible.

\"No more credible\" - what nonsense! As for Obama\'s 100% FAKE birth
certificate, check out this clip and see for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1NfIhzR5g

(3 minute YT video)
BTW, I\'m not doing this for your benefit, Bill. I know you\'ll come up
with your customary dismissal. This is for anyone else here who may be
curious.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:56:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:43:39 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm.

They didn\'t. The Keeling Curve was the first first systematic and sustained measurement of CO2 levels, and it tells a very different story.

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

Charles Keeling didn\'t start of with his measuring station at the top of Manua Loa - it turned out to be one of the few places where you do get stable and consistent figures for the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Cape Grim on the North West coast of Tasmania, about sixty miles west of where I grew up, is another

https://capegrim.csiro.au/

All the antiquated measurement you wan to rely on were taken where local CO2 sources produce higher and much more erratic measurements.

And you chose to ignore the ice core data which takes us back about 800,000 years.,

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

>All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants and oceans, keeping it perfectly in balance.

Actually, about half of it, at the moment. As the oceans warm up, CO2 will be become less soluble in sea-water, but at present the CO2 level in the atmosphere is going up a lot faster than the CO@ solubility in the oceans is falling

> When this is presented to the likes of you and Bill, it fries your brains and you can\'t process it.

I\'m sure you like to think so. Being present with fatuous nonsense by a clown like you doesn\'t \"fry my brain\" - I\'ve been listening to pompous idiots sounding off about stuff they don\'t understand since I was a kid in school, and I\'m perfectly used to it, though I still find it irritating.

> The fact is that if warming is happening, it\'s got *nothing* to do with carbon dioxide, methane/farting cows etc.

That\'s no a fact. It\'s a deluded assertion, of the kind that ignorant half-wits make al the time,

> And that\'s even *if* warming is happening at all.

It\'s happening. It got big enough to stick out of the more or less random climatic noise - El Nino and the like - around 1990, and has been progressing steadily since then, if not all that fast.

> It\'s not like everything on earth will suddenly drop dead and sink beneath the seas when average temps hit 1.5c above \"pre-industrial levels\", when \"pre-industrial\" is the tail of the Little Ice Age.

The natural experiment happened some 55 million year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Global temperatures went up something between 5 and 8 degrees Celcius. It seems to have been driven by a massive methane release (which turns into atmospheric CO2 with a half-time of about twelve years). It had quite a lot of effects, but the only mass extinction was in the oceans - 35–50% of benthic foraminifera died off (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years.

> It used to be sensible to be afraid of tigers and murderous tribes and cholera. But the world is so much safer now, and most people are just as afraid as their ancestors, if not more. I think our brains have sort of an AGC amp for fear; most people are scared about the same no matter what the actual threats. And of course fear has always been a business opportunity.

John Larkin claims not to feel fear, and clearly doesn\'t understand the difference between panic, fear, and sensible concern about potential dangers.

Nobody is panicking about anthropogenic global warming - it\'s happening and it would be a good idea if we slowed it down or reversed it. There\'s discussion about how much effort it would be sensible to put into that. The fossil fuel extraction industry would prefer to ignore the problem, and spend quite a bit on clim,ate chagne denial propaganda, but it\'s lame stuff, only ood enough to delude gullible clowns like Cursitor Doom and John Larkin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:14:43 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:36:53?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:34:05 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:45:25?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.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

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.

There\'s nothing special about books these days. In time\'s past it took quite a while to pit a book-sized pile of data together, and quite a lot of money to turn it into type which could be used to print a book, and even more to get those books out to bookshop and reviewed and adverstised.

This didn\'t stop the

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

from being a steaming heap of anti-semitic propaganda. You treat Russia Today as an accredited source.

I don\'t know why you had to drag that into it. I\'ve told you before it\'s an obvious forgery with all the authenticity of Barak Obama\'s birth certificate.

Even Wikipedia points out that it is a well known forgery. Most of the stuff you post here is equally implausible, including the claim about Barak Obama\'s birth certificate. The particular point I was making was that a lot of your \"book-based\" research comes from books that are no more credible.

\"No more credible\" - what nonsense!

I\'m sure that you like to think so. Your enthusiasm for posting implausible nonsense is very well established. You incapacity to realise quite much of a clown you look like is equally obvious.

As for Obama\'s 100% FAKE birth certificate, check out this clip and see for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1NfIhzR5g

It\'s blocked in Australia , but this text did show up \"Sheriff Arpaio says Obama\'s birth certificate is forged\".

What\'s a famously rabid Arizona Sheriff going to know about a Hawaiin birth certificate? And would anybody sane pay any attention to what he might think he knew?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

> BTW, I\'m not doing this for your benefit, Bill. I know you\'ll come up with your customary dismissal. This is for anyone else here who may be curious.

Cursitor Doom\'s cabinet of implausible idiocies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.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.

The Renaissance ended about 400 years ago, people don\'t do that kind of thing anymore, mainly because they can\'t, too complex and requires possibly years of study on a single topic. Advanced civilizations learned quite some time ago that the way to progress is the division of labor. Read the Wiki article on the subject, written by an apparently very learned author, without which you would be clueless:

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

Your mindset doesn\'t even rise to the level of Neolithic.

Truth is a guesstimate.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:43:48 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm.

Not true. Air samples trapped in layers of ice don\'t verify the old
results (probably from chem labs in cities) that generated the \"broadly constant\"
reports. The hockey-stick curve has credibility, partly because it isn\'t ONE
indicator, but a multiplicity of different ones with the same behavior.

>All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants ...

Again, nonsense; CO2 comes out of volcanoes, and gets reabsorbed into
minerals, and plants just borrow it for a while in the middle. The
\'balance\' is a match in mineral-to-biosphere and biosphere-to-mineral rates..

The human contribution from oil and coal mining is an abrupt change in
generation from volcanoes-only to human-mining-and-volcanoes as the
source term, with plants being... mainly harmless bystanders.

 

[boB]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:56:11?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:43:39 +0100, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm.

They didn\'t. The Keeling Curve was the first first systematic and sustained measurement of CO2 levels, and it tells a very different story.

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

Charles Keeling didn\'t start of with his measuring station at the top of Manua Loa - it turned out to be one of the few places where you do get stable and consistent figures for the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Cape Grim on the North West coast of Tasmania, about sixty miles west of where I grew up, is another

https://capegrim.csiro.au/

All the antiquated measurement you wan to rely on were taken where local CO2 sources produce higher and much more erratic measurements.

And you chose to ignore the ice core data which takes us back about 800,000 years.,

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants and oceans, keeping it perfectly in balance.

Actually, about half of it, at the moment. As the oceans warm up, CO2 will be become less soluble in sea-water, but at present the CO2 level in the atmosphere is going up a lot faster than the CO@ solubility in the oceans is falling

When this is presented to the likes of you and Bill, it fries your brains and you can\'t process it.

I\'m sure you like to think so. Being present with fatuous nonsense by a clown like you doesn\'t \"fry my brain\" - I\'ve been listening to pompous idiots sounding off about stuff they don\'t understand since I was a kid in school, and I\'m perfectly used to it, though I still find it irritating.

The fact is that if warming is happening, it\'s got *nothing* to do with carbon dioxide, methane/farting cows etc.

That\'s no a fact. It\'s a deluded assertion, of the kind that ignorant half-wits make al the time,

And that\'s even *if* warming is happening at all.

It\'s happening. It got big enough to stick out of the more or less random climatic noise - El Nino and the like - around 1990, and has been progressing steadily since then, if not all that fast.

It\'s not like everything on earth will suddenly drop dead and sink beneath the seas when average temps hit 1.5c above \"pre-industrial levels\", when \"pre-industrial\" is the tail of the Little Ice Age.

The natural experiment happened some 55 million year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Global temperatures went up something between 5 and 8 degrees Celcius. It seems to have been driven by a massive methane release (which turns into atmospheric CO2 with a half-time of about twelve years). It had quite a lot of effects, but the only mass extinction was in the oceans - 35–50% of benthic foraminifera died off (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years.

It used to be sensible to be afraid of tigers and murderous tribes and cholera. But the world is so much safer now, and most people are just as afraid as their ancestors, if not more. I think our brains have sort of an AGC amp for fear; most people are scared about the same no matter what the actual threats. And of course fear has always been a business opportunity.

John Larkin claims not to feel fear, and clearly doesn\'t understand the difference between panic, fear, and sensible concern about potential dangers.

Nobody is panicking about anthropogenic global warming - it\'s happening and it would be a good idea if we slowed it down or reversed it. There\'s discussion about how much effort it would be sensible to put into that. The fossil fuel extraction industry would prefer to ignore the problem, and spend quite a bit on clim,ate chagne denial propaganda, but it\'s lame stuff, only ood enough to delude gullible clowns like Cursitor Doom and John Larkin.

And this is what I meant. The science that shows global warming is
real and important is out there for all to see. So it is a
non-winning argument with those who deny it.

boB

 

[boB]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:50:35 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:04:58?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:46:08 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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.

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.

Cursitor Doom\'s \"evidence\" is antiquated rubbish, text-chopped into appearing to support Cursitor Doom\'s demented delusions.

He doesn\'t deal with the ice core historical data

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

probably becasue he\'s nver heard of it

I know from long experience that I\'ll never shake Bill out of his convictions

That because Cursitor Doom doesn\'t have access to reliable information. From, time to time people catch me getting something wrong and I do acknowledege their corrections. but Cursitor Doom hasn\'t managed this yet, and probably never will.

and he\'ll never shake me out of mine.

Cursitor Doom is a conspiracy theory junkie, with a taste for particularly absurd theories.

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.

Whereas Cursitor Doom has a altrusitic desired to spread the most absurd conspiracy theories he can find on the assumption that everybody else finds reality just as dull and unsatisfying as he does. As Fox News has just found out, lying can be a expensive way of entertaining people.

Well, I could tell you that the US government paid umpteen billion
dollars of tax payers money to Rupert Murdoch to pull the exposure of
the stolen election off their screens and dump Tucker Carlson. In
return Murdoch paid a fraction of that back again to Dominion. The
whole thing was a set-up. The truth *will* come out fully sooner or
later, though. We haven\'t heard the last of Carlson....

My guess is that TC will end up at Newsmax

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 09:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:25?PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.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.

The Renaissance ended about 400 years ago, people don\'t do that kind of thing anymore, mainly because they can\'t, too complex and requires possibly years of study on a single topic. Advanced civilizations learned quite some time ago that the way to progress is the division of labor. Read the Wiki article on the subject, written by an apparently very learned author, without which you would be clueless:

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

Your mindset doesn\'t even rise to the level of Neolithic.

Truth is a guesstimate.

I see. So you can save yourself all those hundreds of hours in
research just by reading someone\'s 5 minute synopsis on the subject on
Wikipedia? What a fool I\'ve been! I could have saved myself all that
time just by pulling up a page that anyone could have written on the
Internet!
Seriously, now I can see why you\'ve become so unhinged, deranged and
psychotic over this \"Global Warming\" garbage. If someone of your years
and life experience can fall for this BS then what hope is there that
the smartphone generation will be any better? We are totally fucked.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 09:43:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:43:48?AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:13:35?PM UTC-7, boB wrote:

... wasiting time with an off topic topic.

It can be an interesting topic though. Just a topic where nobody wins
either side of the argument.

Usually it\'s politics or religion that have this result but these
days, science does also.

Nonsense. The science behind global warming is basic, all the
important causes were known to science and conclusions supported
since the early 1990s (the controversial period was the seventies and eighties).

You people have no answer as to the most fundamental point here. Over
the entire course of the 20th Century - the most polluting century in
the history of mankind - CO2 levels remained broadly constant at
385ppm.

Not true. Air samples trapped in layers of ice don\'t verify the old
results (probably from chem labs in cities) that generated the \"broadly constant\"
reports. The hockey-stick curve has credibility, partly because it isn\'t ONE
indicator, but a multiplicity of different ones with the same behavior.

All the CO2 produced by man\'s activity was absorbed by plants ...

Again, nonsense; CO2 comes out of volcanoes, and gets reabsorbed into
minerals, and plants just borrow it for a while in the middle. The
\'balance\' is a match in mineral-to-biosphere and biosphere-to-mineral rates.

The human contribution from oil and coal mining is an abrupt change in
generation from volcanoes-only to human-mining-and-volcanoes as the
source term, with plants being... mainly harmless bystanders.

\"The hockey-stick curve has credibility\" Oh dear. Now YOU have zero
credibility. That was Al Gore\'s ruse and it was exposed for what it
was. It had all the integrity of the last US election and the
authenticity of Obama\'s birth certificate. Busted!