Tesla is fast...

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
C...@nospam.com> wrote:

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
quantum mechanics will scramble things.

We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.
One cosmic ray could change next winter too.

More accurate? More accurate than... what?
What does \'more and more\' mean? Do you really mean to extrapolate some kind
of trend, starting with zero knowledge of current state of the art?

> Now that\'s something the alarmists don\'t understand, the change of climate is natural.

Poor listening skills, guy: SOME state information is hidden, not ALL (and long-term climate
bits are covered by conservation of energy, which is NOT a \'chaotic theory\' in any sense).

Alarmists, like Nazis and the monster in your closet, aren\'t an important feature of reality.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:17:46 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:

On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:
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:

... 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.

For the history challenged:

https://wordhistories.net/2019/08/23/how-many-divisions-pope/

Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: \'alligator mouth,
paper asshole, and no fire insurance\'.

I wouldn\'t take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate
effects; the IPCC is suited to its purpose. Words from Stalin are... a quaint detour through history.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html



The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/


Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/

He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html



The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/


Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/

He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you\'re joking. Most yanks don\'t know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:33:40 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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

How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?

I\'d be upset if iodine were that high (and if it were too low, I\'d have a goiter).
Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.

Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.

Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate
minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.

Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon.

Dimwit alert! It\'s not the carbon in the soil that matters, it\'s the CO2 in the atmosphere that is
out of control.

Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is \'good\', but being able to
control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale.
I\'m calling that bad, and I\'ve got real criteria to judge by.

> In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.

Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of
bombast from John Larkin.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html




The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/



Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/


He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you\'re joking. Most yanks don\'t know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

I\'ll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html




The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/



Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/


He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you\'re joking. Most yanks don\'t know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

I\'ll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....

And really, name ANY country, and they don\'t think of er.... America?

 

[rbowman]

On 06/12/2022 08:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html





The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/




Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/



He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you
never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda
though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you\'re joking. Most yanks don\'t know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

I\'ll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....

And really, name ANY country, and they don\'t think of er.... America?

There was a certain degree of unbelievability... Most US residents can
find the US on a map. The states are another story. Other than out
congress critters I doubt many in DC could find Montana on a map -- and
we like it that way.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 06:53:50 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/12/2022 08:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

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?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html





The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/




Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global
warming, it\'s weight!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/



He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you
never
can tell. At least you didn\'t make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda
though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you\'re joking. Most yanks don\'t know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

I\'ll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....

And really, name ANY country, and they don\'t think of er.... America?

There was a certain degree of unbelievability... Most US residents can
find the US on a map. The states are another story. Other than out
congress critters I doubt many in DC could find Montana on a map -- and
we like it that way.

I can tell you where Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland are. But not the counties (which is the closest thing to states we have here). Well actually Scotland is more like your states, but going by numbers, counties.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:07:15 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:52:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

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:

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.

No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
is an absolute feature of our universe.

Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn\'t travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:20:16 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

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.

Now THAT is hilarious! Will China attack India, or the reverse,
because the other is burning too much coal? Will they use nukes?

Will Germany attack Australia for selling all that coal?

Funnier and funnier.

Indeed, we\'re not even attacking Russia for using cluster bombs. We\'re just tutting, that\'s all \"civilised\" countries do nowadays.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:11:46 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:17:46 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: \'alligator mouth,
paper asshole, and no fire insurance\'.

I wouldn\'t take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate
effects

I wouldn\'t take advice on anyone on climate effects when I can see with my own two eyes that nothing is changing.

When was that? You can fire up Google Earth today, and examine a polar icecap through a decade or
three, if you cared to do so. The appearances were subtle three decades ago, but not nowadays.

Unwillingness to consult with experts is not a good social skill.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:07:15 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
is an absolute feature of our universe.

Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn\'t travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.

No, I don\'t remember any such thing. Barney Olds didn\'t believe that, certainly!
I\'m not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I\'d advise you to do likewise.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:08:48 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:53:34 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

And just why is the gasoline so expensive? Because of greenies like you.

Hey! Leave my friend Kermit out of this!

Kermit loses to a GIRL!
https://youtu.be/hZ4CNyjjt3Y

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:04:51 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
C...@nospam.com> wrote:

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
quantum mechanics will scramble things.

We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.
One cosmic ray could change next winter too.

More accurate? More accurate than... what?

Than previously.

> What does \'more and more\' mean?

Continuously increasing.

Do you really mean to extrapolate some kind
of trend, starting with zero knowledge of current state of the art?

What is this zero knowledge you speak of?

Now that\'s something the alarmists don\'t understand, the change of climate is natural.

Poor listening skills, guy: SOME state information is hidden, not ALL (and long-term climate
bits are covered by conservation of energy, which is NOT a \'chaotic theory\' in any sense).

Oh how convenient, the things you need for your theory can be detected.

> Alarmists, like Nazis and the monster in your closet, aren\'t an important feature of reality.

The alarmists I refer to are people like you, screwing up the world with shit like carbon credits.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:09 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:33:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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

How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?

Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon. Let\'s keep at it.

In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.

I think he is getting worse. It\'s probably an age issue.

What on earth makes you disagree with any of the points made by John above?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 08:55:29 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:33:40 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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

How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?

I\'d be upset if iodine were that high (and if it were too low, I\'d have a goiter).
Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.

And you\'d survive on low oxygen and a lack of food too, you wouldn\'t produce much meat on you though. We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.

Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.

Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate
minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.

Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

But plants could do so much better if they could breathe more easily.

Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon.

Dimwit alert! It\'s not the carbon in the soil that matters, it\'s the CO2 in the atmosphere that is
out of control.

WTF? We\'re moving it from the soil to the air, where it used to be before it was moved from the air to the soil.

Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is \'good\', but being able to
control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale.
I\'m calling that bad, and I\'ve got real criteria to judge by.

Oooh a whole centigrade or two!

In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.

Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of
bombast from John Larkin.

No, a scientific fact.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 8:39:49 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 08:55:29 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:33:40 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.
And you\'d survive on low oxygen and a lack of food too, you wouldn\'t produce much meat on you though. We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.

And water, and nitrates, and phosphates. Give plants more CO2 and their leaves have fewer stomata so they can get all the CO2 thye nedd while losing less water.

> >> Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.

Not remotely true. John Larkin recycling idiotic denialist propaganda.

Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate
minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.

Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

But plants could do so much better if they could breathe more easily.

Twaddle.

Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon.

Dimwit alert! It\'s not the carbon in the soil that matters, it\'s the CO2 in the atmosphere that is
out of control.

WTF? We\'re moving it from the soil to the air, where it used to be before it was moved from the air to the soil.

Commander Kinsey isn\'t very bright.

Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is \'good\', but being able to
control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale.
I\'m calling that bad, and I\'ve got real criteria to judge by.

Oooh a whole centigrade or two!

So far. And that enough for more frequent extreme weather events, which are already killing people.

In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.

Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of
bombast from John Larkin.

No, a scientific fact.

But not one that means what you and John Larkin would like it to mean.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 07:36:48 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:09 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:33:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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

How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?

Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon. Let\'s keep at it.

In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.

I think he is getting worse. It\'s probably an age issue.

What on earth makes you disagree with any of the points made by John above?

Problem is, there\'s just not enough thinking going around these days.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 11:23:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:04:51 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.

Denial isn\'t improved with lame excuses like that. It\'ll be true forever, in any
situation, but has no logical connection to any current decision.


> >> Now that\'s something the alarmists don\'t understand, the change of climate is natural.

Extract of strychnos nux vomica is natural, too, but we don\'t
embrace any use of strychnine. Greenhouse gas pollution is not natural at this time.

...SOME state information is hidden, not ALL (and long-term climate
bits are covered by conservation of energy, which is NOT a \'chaotic theory\' in any sense).

Oh how convenient, the things you need for your theory can be detected.

It\'s theory due to Boltzman, and Thompson, and... lots of other folk. It\'s
good theory, widely applicable, and \'way more convenient than trial-and-error. It\'s
called thermodynamics.

Alarmists, like Nazis and the monster in your closet, aren\'t an important feature of reality.

The alarmists I refer to are people like you, screwing up the world with shit like carbon credits.

Oh, I see; you have a conspiracy theory to slap on any critic. What you do NOT have,
is any credible prospect for Greta Thunberg to grow up into a pleasant world like her ancestors
enjoyed.