Tesla is fast...

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn\'t CO2
that did it.

Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears? It doesn\'t do anything else.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:56:44 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn\'t CO2
that did it.

It can be greener and more luscious.

Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears? It doesn\'t do anything else.

Get to the point.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:56:44 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears? It doesn\'t do anything else.

Get to the point.

The point being that John Larkin, as well as Commander Kinsey, are
posting nonsense? I thought that was clear.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 02:08:44 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:56:44 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears? It doesn\'t do anything else.

Get to the point.

The point being that John Larkin, as well as Commander Kinsey, are
posting nonsense? I thought that was clear.

You\'re going to have to come up with some facts.

 

[server]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:45:24 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:23:11 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.

Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.

Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?

Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?

Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

No, it\'s you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.

Not true; where did that idea come from?

Your belief we\'re killing the world with a bit of gas.

John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
histories,

No, he\'s just not concerned about something that will never happen.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUiURrUVIAI7I38?format=jpg&name=900x900

Various professional private-jet-owning doomsters have put us 10 years
from climate extinction for, what, 60 years now?

Things just keep getting better. Those curves WILL flatten out when we
run out of poor people.

and complete engineering failure to deal with \'a bit of gas\'.
He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
change is no fiction. The \'end of the world\' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.

We\'re tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn\'t enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Precisely. Why do these alarmists lack common sense?

A lot of professional alarmists are in it for power and money. Their
energy source is the fears of neurotic masses.

Actually, the public is mostly bored about AGW. They are not bored
with $7 gasoline.





--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[server]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...

... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"

Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"

because India isn\'t doing denialism like John Larkin.

Nope, they - and China - are burning coal.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[rbowman]

On 06/09/2022 02:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Doesn\'t gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?
http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gas-truck.jpg
Wow, that\'s the biggest rearview mirror I\'ve ever seen.

Gasoline, as in petrol.

https://www.anstertrailer.com/lng-lpg-tank-trailer-guide/

Remember that -162 degrees C?

 

[rbowman]

On 06/09/2022 04:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:15:47 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in
the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less
of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing
fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it
probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t
like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.

Somebody told me they froze it, but that\'s -181 degrees, which is maybe
unfeasible on ships.

About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
pressure. Boil off is a problem.

When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a
bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.

Isn\'t high pressure easier than low temperature?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-tube-trailers

Nope. That\'s the problem with hydrogen. It liquefies at −252.87 °C for
atmospheric pressure. The payload of hydrogen on a tube trailer is
ridiculously low although carbon fiber has reduced the tare somewhat.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0

The market or desperation?

 

[rbowman]

On 06/09/2022 05:13 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...

... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"

because India isn\'t doing denialism like John Larkin.

They\'ll get around to it by 2092...

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 2:27:48 AM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 23:33:55 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
C...@nospam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.

Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.

Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?

Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?

Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

No, it\'s you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.

He is sensibly pointing out life would be shit without mod cons. So yes, he is being rational in that assumption. Imagine no transport for trade for example.

Imagine hoping for a good harvest so your family will survive the
winter.

What\'s required to prevent that is more energy. You don\'t have to burn oil or gas to get it, and it\'s cheaper to get it from solar cells and windmills.

Imagine not having fresh fruits or veggies for months or years.
Imagine rickets and scurvy and smallpox and things. Kids are still
going blind for want of a few cents a day of Vitamin A.

What\'s required to prevent that is more energy. You don\'t have to burn oil or gas to get it, and it\'s cheaper to get it from solar cells and windmills.

The fossil carbon extraction industry isn\'t happy about that and they are paying for a lot of denialist propaganda to keep gullible twits like John Larkin and Commander Kinsey from noticing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 9:54:26 PM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 06:58:45 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.

Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.

It\'s rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
and electricity.

Inability to complete the CO2 cycle so that the atmosphere stays \'a lot
like the recent past\' is a major issue. John Larkin is in denial, spinning
absurd \'good times ahead\' predictions.

Greenhouse gas problems are not soluble with denial; that takes some
engineering changes on a global scale. John Larkin is just a denial-cult member
spouting dogma.

You\'re showing classic signs of a religious nut. What you spout is similar to the responses you get from religious nuts when you try to explain god doesn\'t exist.
You\'re believing things without any sense or proof whatsoever.

Get a better education, and you\'d find out that there\'s all the proof you\'d ever need, if you had the brains to get the education.

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

might be a good place to start, if you\'d graduated in phsyics. I found it easy to follow, but I\'ve got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. John Larkin seems to find that it makes unflattering demands on his mind.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:55:27 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

No, it\'s you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.

Not true; where did that idea come from?

Your belief we\'re killing the world with a bit of gas.

More CO2 in the atmosphere won\'t kill the world, but enough of it would kill quite a few human beings.
Climate change is already killing off people in droughts, floods and bigger forest fires than people are used to.

John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood histories,

No, he\'s just not concerned about something that will never happen.

He\'s been persuaded by some thoroughly immoral denialist propaganda that there actually isn\'t a problem. He\'s a gullible idiot, just like you.

and complete engineering failure to deal with \'a bit of gas\'.
He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
change is no fiction. The \'end of the world\' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.

We\'re tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn\'t enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

Think about how much lack of food you would have to tolerate if the extra CO2 fed weeds well enough to let them out-compete our food crops.

Our current range lof food crops is exquisitely well adapted to our current environement. It\'s a bit rash to change that environment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:54:26 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:23:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

We\'re tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn\'t enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

I\'ve looked up most of those things, but YOU
Don\'t shout, I\'m not fucking deaf.

Just dumb.

need to know that \'plants\' includes weeds and inedible parts,
So?
and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level,
Double the CO2, double the growth. I have a farmer friend who pumps CO2 into polytunnels.

And water, and fertiliser. Polytunnels are just cheap greenhouses.

there\'s a whole bunch of other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren\'t a friend of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Within limits. Global warming shifts the limits.

Grazing for cattle doesn\'t have a rosy trend,
Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.
and some forests are dying of heat-related infestations and fires. More to come.
And some forests are getting the heat they need. Swings and roundabouts.

Not exactly. Name the ones that are doing better..

Denial doesn\'t do the next generation any good at all, old guy.

Oh do grow up. This is you this is.... \"You\'re a denier! Ner ner ner ner ner! You can\'t handle the truth! I know better! I believe any old shite, and I\'m right because everyone else says so! The majority is always right!\"

You are a denier because you are pig-ignorant. The idea that global warming was a real problem was originally an elite insight, because it took a lot of research to nail down the problem. It\'s now a truism, because the elite worked out how to present the case in a way that most of the population could understand. Dimbos like you and John Larkin still don\'t get it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:23:23 AM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

CO2 isn\'t actually greening enough of the planet to make much difference. Warm used to be good, now hot spells have taken to killing people.

<snipped graphs about what had happened in the past. The problem is what is likely to happen in the future.>

So why are so many people hysterical about how bad things are? It\'s
weird.

Hardly anybody is hysterical - you may be one of the exceptions. sensible people are worried about what looks increasingly likely to happen, at least to people with a better grasp of the science involved than you have.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:45:33 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:23:11 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Precisely. Why do these alarmists lack common sense?

Common sense is all about applying the lessons of the past without thinking too hard about what is actually going on. In this context it is more like ignoring the truck that is hurtling towards you because there has never been anything but bicycles on that track before.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:49:04 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:23:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

<snip>

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

John van Neumann worked out that they wouldn\'t help back around 1956

> And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.

It\'s a different kind of problem. We can predict the distribution, even if we can\'t predict when the extreme events will actually happen.

Grazing for cattle doesn\'t have a rosy trend,

Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.

Don\'t be obtuse; the real food that cattle eat hasn\'t increased with CO2, which is
a genuinely interesting bit of food-value data that refutes the \'benefit\' of an increase
in food due to CO2 and climate change.

The increase of CO2 is fucking negligible. It hasn\'t even doubled:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/3obcvx7NiuU-YLF2tKkd4os9Oq0=/1000x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/PVDCDGZ3SBBABANK5AGCGWFF5M.png

It has raised average surface temperature of the planet by about one degree Celcius. That isn\'t negligible.

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

It\'s going up twice as fast around the Arctic Circle.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:13:21 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 02:08:44 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:56:44 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears? It doesn\'t do anything else.

Get to the point.

The point being that John Larkin, as well as Commander Kinsey, are
posting nonsense? I thought that was clear.

You\'re going to have to come up with some facts.

There are plenty of them, but you can\'t understand any of them, and comfort yourself with the idea that they don\'t mean what more expert observers tell you that they mean. You don\'t want to know.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...

... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"

Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"

Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.

Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

> And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.

Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to yourself
undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties (temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties (Brownian motion)
are not.