On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 10:43:09 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 22/12/2022 1:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Peter Jason wrote
>>
>>>>>> Just how much CO2 does one human produce during a lifetime?
>>
>>>>>> Heaps!
>>
>>>>>> If there were fewer people there would be less CO2...and:
>>>>>> Malaria,
>>
>>>>> Possibly. Will you kill yourself and you family to prove a point?
>>
>>>> But I'm just one, so with negligible effect.
>>
>>> So you claim.
>> Fact actually.
>>
>>> Your CO2 emissions are roughly equivalent to THREE Chinese citizens.
>> Even if that is true, 'But I'm just one, so with negligible effect'
>> is still true.
>>
>>>>>> Poverty,
>>
>>>>> Possibly. Will you kill yourself and you family to prove a point?
>>
>>>> See above...
>>
>>>>>> Wars,
>>
>>>>> I very much doubt that.
>>
>>>> If wars are about economies and living space, then it's true.
>>
>>> Wars are fought about many things.
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> Not just money and space.
>> Certainly religious bigotry as well and even that isnt
>> common anymore. Political system too.
>>
>>>>>> Trolls,
>>>>>> Academics,
>>
>>>>> Academics? I take it that you don't drive modern automobile, use a
>>>>> cell 'phone, a computer (which I KNOW you use), modern medical
>>>>> equipment, etc, etc. All those things and many more would not have
>>>>> been
>>>>> possible without academics.
>>
>>>> ...Huh? Did you know Invention is the Mother of Necessity?
>>
>>> OK, lemme ask you:
>>
>>> How would WiFi have been developed without the academics at CSIRO?

>> CSIRO aren't academics, they are in fact scientists.

> Two sides of the same coin:

Nope, very different in fact.

> https://armacad.info/blog/difference-between-scientific-and-academic

Just because some fool claims something...

Most obviously with arts academics and most academic wankers.

>> And wifi came out of radio physics.

> And it was developed by the academics at CSIRO.

Nope, engineers. Nothing like scientists in fact.

>> And would have happened later anyway.

> You cannot possibly know that.

Corse we do. Wifi is just one form of radio communication
and packet and various other forms of digital communication
preceeded it.

>>> How would nuclear fission (and fusion) have been developed without
>>> many academics, including Albert Einstein?

>> He wasnt an academic

> Yes, he was.

He was never involved in fission research,
he just observed what others had done.

>> when he warned about what the
>> krauts were up to. Certainly the massive spend on the
>> Manhattan project would not have happened if it had
>> not been due to WW2 at the time but fission would
>> have happened eventually.

>>> Modern CPUs?

>> Nothing whatever to do with academics.

> Wrong.

Nope.

> Modern CPUs rely heavily on theoretical research done by academics.

BULLSHIT. Fuck all theoretical reseach involved at all in fact.

>>> GPS (which relies on Einstein's theories)?

>> Bullshit it did, in fact all GPS did was prove his theorys.

> Wrong.

Nope.

> GPS relies on Einstein's theories to work.

Nothing ever relies on theorys to work.

Any theory is just describing how things actually work.

Plenty of stuff like gravity and what makes GPS work
works even when the theory isnt understood at all.

>>> Etc.
>>
>>> Facts are facts.
>> You wouldn't know what a real fact was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>
>>> Most of the modern world has been developed through the input of
>>> academics.
>> Nope, mostly scientists and engineers.

> And academics.

Fuck all in fact by academics.

>>> You don't like people who are (much) smarter than you. I get that.
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>>> Disparaging academics merely displays the enormity of your ignorance..

>> Ditto.

> I don't disparage the work of academics.

I never said you did. That ditto was about your pathetic excuse
for bullshit in the sentence above it.

> I disparage bullshit artists,

So do we, with pathetic excuses for bullshit artists like you.

> who don't understand the effects of CO2 on the climate

I understand fine that while we have seen a massive increase
in atmospheric CO2 levels and sweet fuck all increase in
temperatures and it isnt even clear that the fuck all change
in temperatures are in fact due to the massive increase in
atmospheric CO2 levels.

> and your wilful ignorance of the thousands of scientists who have
> stated, unequivocally, that you are wrong.

There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

No scientist has in fact ever said that I am wrong when
I rub your stupid nose in the fact that while we have
seen a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

> Yet, despite being shown to be wrong, you fail miserably to provide any
> evidence to show that you are right.

There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

>>>> Most
>>>> things are consumer items, grossly overproduced.
>>
>>> Not the fault of academics, moron. That would be the marketers.
>> Nope, the consumers deciding that the consumer item is useful.
>>
>>>>>> Greens,
>>
>>>>> What is your problem with Greens? Take your time explaining. Here are
>>>>> their policy documents:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://greens.org.au/platform/a-z
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect you to read them, CAREFULLY and make your criticisms clear
>>>>> and
>>>>> unambiguous.
>>
>>>> Yes, OK, I will & shall...
>>>> 1/ "Global Warming". Sheer The-Sky-is-Falling nonsense,
>>
>>> Is that so? Prove it.

>> They made the claim, they get to do the proving.

> The proof is already in:

Bullshit it is on why we have seen a massive
increase in atmospheric CO2 level, we have
seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

> Do try reading the premier science on the matter.

Been there, done that and realise that that steaming
turd proves nothing about why we have seen a
massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

>> Thats how it works.

> I have provided the proof many times.

There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

<reams of your endlessly repeated mindless ad hominem
any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>> Should be simple for you. In your rebuttal, I refer you to this:
>>
>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

>> Just because some self interested fools mostly paid by the govt
>> claim something,

> They're CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,

Who are almost all paid by their govts and would
lose their jobs if they didnt toe the party line.

> They report the facts.

And mindlessly hyperventilate about what is
guaranteed to happen if nothing is done about
CO2 without a shred of evidence to support
their stupid claim given that we have seen a
massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

>> particularly with the mindless hysteria about
>> the effect of a very minimal change in average temperatures

> This:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

Like I said, sweet fuck all change in temperatue with
a massive change in atmospheric CO2 levels in the
last 150 years. Yes, the Thames no longer freezes
over in the worst winters, but for some odd reason
the poms do actually manage to carry on regardless]
anyway.

> And this:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

That isn't the timescale being discussed.

> Are not "very minimal" changes in temperature.

Corse they are in the 150 years being discussed.

> I know this, because the guys who study the science of climate tell me..

On 15/12/2022 8:21 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:49:57 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2022 4:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:29:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/12/2022 2:36 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Jason wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63950962
>>>>>>>>>>> Bravo!
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably lasers were used.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Now that all this is in the pipeline, we can start burning
>>>>>>>>>>> all that
>>>>>>>>>>> coal to lower energy prices?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, no. For a bunch of reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Coal generated power is now more expensive than many forms
>>>>>>>>>> of renewables.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  That's a bare faced lie with Victoria's brown coal electricity
>>>>>>>>> generation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electricity costs from various sources:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Their electricity cost isnt true of out brown coal in Victoria,
>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> True. It fails to take into account the cost of increasing CO2
>>>>>> emissions, caused by burning the worst coal available.
>>>>>  Pathetic. There is no cost of increasing CO2 emissions given
>>>>> that it is very far from clear that CO2 emissions have any cost
>>>>> and the difference it CO2 emissions between lignite and the
>>>>> best power generation coal is trivial.
>>>
>>>> **6% is not trivial.
>
> It is nothing like 6%

**Tell us how much it is.

>
>>>  Corse it is for all except terminal rabid fuckwits.
>
>> Good. Give me 6% of your income. We'll see how trivial 6% is by your
>> response.
>
> It is nothing like 6%

**Tell us how much it is.

>
>>>>>>>  And their nuke cost is another stupid lie because it stupidly
>>>>>>> includes the cost of dismantling the nuke after it isnt being
>>>>>>> used anymore. The only sensible thing to do is design it so
>>>>>>> it can just be filled with concrete when it is no longer used
>>>>>>> and build its replacement next to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>>>>>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?
>>>
>>>>>  Don't need to be an expert given that
>>>>> that is the obvious way to do things
>>>>> given the stupid cost of any alternative.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you failed to read my question:
>>>  Nope, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>>
>>>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>>>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?
>
>>> Don't need to be an expert given that
>>> that is the obvious way to do things
>>> given the stupid cost of any alternative.
>>
>> Here, again, is my question:
>>
>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?
>>
>> Simple question.
>
> A stupid one.
>
> Don't need to be an expert given that
> that is the obvious way to do things
> given the stupid cost of any alternative.

**How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
de-commissioning nuclear reactors?

>
>>>  And we aren't actually stupid enough to completely dismantle
>>> and recycle all coal fired power stations that are no longer used
>>> either and none of that stupid cost is included in that stupid
>>> claim about the cost of coal fire power generation, only
>>> flagrantly dishonestly with nukes.
>
>> That's because parts of nukes are highly radioactive.
>
> But clearly there is no problem with filling it with concrete
> and building the replacement next to it.

**How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
de-commissioning nuclear reactors?

>
>>>>>>>  And the cost of the 'renewables' doesnt include the
>>>>>>> immense cost of what you need to have to supply the
>>>>>>> electricity you need when the sun isn't shining and
>>>>>>> the wind isnt blowing enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Sun will continue to shine for the next few billion years. It
>>>>>> won't stop.
>>>
>>>>>  Pity that it stops being able to generate useful electricity
>>>>> for 2/3 of every fucking day.
>>>
>>>> Moron.
>>>  Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>
>> I cite facts. Nothing more.
>
> Everyone can see you lie thru your teeth and spew stupid
> opinions like the terminal stupidity that everyone must
> reduce their CO2 production when in fact plenty don't
> need to do that.

**Pedant.

>
>> Moreover, I back my statements with facts.
>
> Another bare faced lie with your stupid opinions.

**Moron. I suggest you examine my many cites, before you lie again. I
cite proper references frequently and regularly. That you fail miserably
to read or understand those cites is not my responsibility.

>
>> You do not.
>
> Another bare faced lie.

*Fact.

>
>> That makes you a moron.
>
> You are a pathological liar.

**You're staring into a mirror again. I merely parrot what the climate
scientists tell us. You, with zero knowledge and experience in climate
science, disputes what the climate scientists tell us.

>
>>>> The Sun does not stop shining. It ALWAYS shines and will continue to
>>>> do so for the next few billion years. It is always shining somewhere
>>>> on the planet.
>
>>>  Pity it doesnt usefully shine on the solar panels in
>>> this country for more than less than 1/3 of the time.
>
>> Ah, so you admit that the Sun is always shining.
>
> That was never in dispute, fuckwit.
>
>> FINALLY, you accept  facts.
>
> No FINALLY about it it you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>
> Pity it doesnt usefully shine on the solar panels in
> this country for more than less than 1/3 of the time.

**Never in dispute.

>
>>>>>>>> And, of course, those figures do not take into account the CO2
>>>>>>>> problems associated with lignite.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  There are no CO2 problems associated with our lignite.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are. Lignite is the most polluting coal available.IOW:
>>>>>> It  emits the most CO2.
>>>
>>>>>  In fact the CO2 production is only trivially different
>>>>> from the best power generation coal.
>>>
>>>> Lignite is the worst, least efficient coal available.
>
>>>  But by far the cheapest and thats what most care about.
>
>> What most of the morons care about, is not necessarily what is best
>> for the planet.
>
> But it is what determines govt policy, fuckwit.

**Government policy is dictated by many things. Global warming is one.

>
> Neither possible govts is actually stupid enough to shut down all coal
> mining.

On 22/12/2022 1:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

>
> I understand fine that while we have seen a massive increase
> in atmospheric CO2 levels and sweet fuck all increase in
> temperatures and it isnt even clear that the fuck all change
> in temperatures are in fact due to the massive increase in
> atmospheric CO2 levels.

**Wrong again. Temperatures are tracking CO2 levels just like they
always have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Note the CO2 levels and the associated temperature rises (and falls).

Now look at the most rapid rise in temperatures ever seen by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

The rise is at least 100 times more rapid than at any time in past
million years. It is unprecedented.

>
>> and your wilful ignorance of the thousands of scientists who have
>> stated, unequivocally, that you are wrong.
>
> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

**As usual, I supply facts and figures and you call me a liar, whilst
providing zero evidence of your insane claims.

>
> No scientist has in fact ever said that I am wrong

**Climate scientists have explained in exquisite detail, that your
OPINIONS are based on bullshit.

when
> I rub your stupid nose in the fact that while we have
> seen a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
> we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

>
>> Yet, despite being shown to be wrong, you fail miserably to provide
>> any evidence to show that you are right.
>
> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

**Nope. I supply data you supply nothing but bluff and bluster.

>
>>>>>    Most
>>>>> things are consumer items, grossly overproduced.
>>>
>>>> Not the fault of academics, moron. That would be the marketers.
>>>  Nope, the consumers deciding that the consumer item is useful.
>>>
>>>>>>> Greens,
>>>
>>>>>> What is your problem with Greens? Take your time explaining. Here are
>>>>>> their policy documents:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://greens.org.au/platform/a-z
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect you to read them, CAREFULLY and make your criticisms
>>>>>> clear and
>>>>>> unambiguous.
>>>
>>>>>  Yes, OK, I will & shall...
>>>>>  1/ "Global Warming".  Sheer The-Sky-is-Falling nonsense,
>>>
>>>> Is that so? Prove it.
>
>>>  They made the claim, they get to do the proving.
>
>> The proof is already in:
>
> Bullshit it is on why we have seen a massive
> increase in atmospheric CO2 level, we have
> seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

>
>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
>
>> Do try reading the premier science on the matter.
>
> Been there, done that

**BULLSHIT! If you understand any science at all (and I doubt that you
do), then you would not have made that idiotic claim. The evidence
provided by the IPCC is accurate, peer-reviewed and compelling. Which
you would know, if you had bothered to read it. Not that you'd
understand it anyway.

and realise that that steaming
> turd proves nothing about why we have seen a
> massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
> we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

>
>>>  Thats how it works.
>
>> I have provided the proof many times.
>
> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth as always.

**Nope. Review the thread. Who has supplied credible, peer-reviewed
cites and who has supplied nothing.

Hint: It was you who has failed to supply a single shred of data to
justify your lunacy.

>
> <reams of your endlessly repeated mindless ad hominem
> any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
>>>> Should be simple for you. In your rebuttal, I refer you to this:
>>>
>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
>
>>>  Just because some self interested fools mostly paid by the govt
>>> claim something,
>
>> They're CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,
>
> Who are almost all paid by their govts and would
> lose their jobs if they didnt toe the party line.

**Oh really? Do you mean like the guys at NASA, the US EPA, the US
National Weather Service, who were issuing clear and unequivocal
warnings during the Bush era. Bush was an oil man, who was on record as
being a global warming denier. Same deal with that moron Trump. And
let's not forget Australia. CSIRO, BoM and other organisations, whose
income is largely or fully government derived were issuing the same
warnings to John Howard's government, that prize idiot, Abbott's
government and let's not forget that huge idiot: Scummo. All were global
warming deniers, yet were given clear warnings by government employees
that CO2 was a big problem and should be dealt with.

Thing is this: Scientists report (wait for it) the SCIENCE. Weird huh?
How do I know? I live with a (recently retired) Solar physicist, who
worked within BoM. She was never asked to make shit up to suit the
government of the day. She was merely asked to present the facts. It's
what scientists do.

>
>> They report the facts.
>
> And mindlessly hyperventilate about what is
> guaranteed to happen if nothing is done about
> CO2 without a shred of evidence to support
> their stupid claim given that we have seen a
> massive increase in atmospheric CO2 level,
> we have seen only a tiny change in temperatures.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

>
>>>  particularly with the mindless hysteria about
>>> the effect of a very minimal change in average temperatures
>
>> This:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg
>
> Like I said, sweet fuck all change in temperatue with
> a massive change in atmospheric CO2 levels in the
> last 150 years. Yes, the Thames no longer freezes
> over in the worst winters, but for some odd reason
> the poms do actually manage to carry on regardless]
> anyway.

**The temperature rise has been more rapid and higher than at any time
in the past million years. It is truly significant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

>
>> And this:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg
>
> That isn't the timescale being discussed.

**OK. Any future comments from you about ice ages, etc, will be ignored.
Well, probably not, as I will likely point out your rank hypocrisy and
monumental stupidity.

>
>> Are not "very minimal" changes in temperature.
>
> Corse they are in the 150 years being discussed.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

>
>> I know this, because the guys who study the science of climate tell me.
>
> And you are too stupid to even notice that
> those temperature changes are sweet fuck
> all in the 150 years we are discussing.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

>
>> You know fuck-all about climate science,
>
> I have in fact worked in that field, unlike you.

**Really? Cite your education and your experience. In your explanation,
you may care to tell just how you managed to ignore the science.

>
>> so what you say is utterly unimportant. You haven't even read the most
>> important documents about the science of the climate.
>
> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

**Nope. It's a fact. You have not read the IPCC documents.

>
>>> which we have seen plenty of times in the past without that
>>> producing anything even remotely like the catastrophe those
>>> fools claim is guaranteed...
>
>> We have NEVER seen a rise in temperature as rapid and as high in human
>> existence.
>
> Wrong with the recovery from the climate catastrophe seen
> after the Mt Pinatubo explosion.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 16:43:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 15/12/2022 8:21 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:49:57 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/12/2022 4:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:29:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/12/2022 2:36 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Jason wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63950962
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bravo!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably lasers were used.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that all this is in the pipeline, we can start burning
>>>>>>>>>>>> all that
>>>>>>>>>>>> coal to lower energy prices?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, no. For a bunch of reasons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Coal generated power is now more expensive than many forms
>>>>>>>>>>> of renewables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's a bare faced lie with Victoria's brown coal electricity
>>>>>>>>>> generation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Electricity costs from various sources:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their electricity cost isnt true of out brown coal in Victoria,
>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True. It fails to take into account the cost of increasing CO2
>>>>>>> emissions, caused by burning the worst coal available.
>>>>>> Pathetic. There is no cost of increasing CO2 emissions given
>>>>>> that it is very far from clear that CO2 emissions have any cost
>>>>>> and the difference it CO2 emissions between lignite and the
>>>>>> best power generation coal is trivial.
>>>>
>>>>> 6% is not trivial.

>> It is nothing like 6%

> Tell us how much it is.

How many of you are there between those ears of yours ?

You posted the numbers, retake arithmetic 101, you silly
little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

>>>> Corse it is for all except terminal rabid fuckwits.
>>
>>> Good. Give me 6% of your income. We'll see how trivial 6% is by your
>>> response.

>> It is nothing like 6%

> Tell us how much it is.

How many of you are there between those ears of yours ?

You posted the numbers, retake arithmetic 101, you silly
little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

>>>>>>>> And their nuke cost is another stupid lie because it stupidly
>>>>>>>> includes the cost of dismantling the nuke after it isnt being
>>>>>>>> used anymore. The only sensible thing to do is design it so
>>>>>>>> it can just be filled with concrete when it is no longer used
>>>>>>>> and build its replacement next to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>>>>>>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't need to be an expert given that
>>>>>> that is the obvious way to do things
>>>>>> given the stupid cost of any alternative.
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you failed to read my question:
>>>> Nope, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>>>>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?
>>
>>>> Don't need to be an expert given that
>>>> that is the obvious way to do things
>>>> given the stupid cost of any alternative.
>>>
>>> Here, again, is my question:
>>>
>>> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
>>> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?

>>> Simple question.

>> A stupid one.

>> Don't need to be an expert given that
>> that is the obvious way to do things
>> given the stupid cost of any alternative.

> How long have you been an expert on the design,construction and
> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?

Don't need to be an expert given that
that is the obvious way to do things
given the stupid cost of any alternative.

And you clearly arent an expert at anything
at all, not even at bullshitting and lying.

>>>> And we aren't actually stupid enough to completely dismantle
>>>> and recycle all coal fired power stations that are no longer used
>>>> either and none of that stupid cost is included in that stupid
>>>> claim about the cost of coal fire power generation, only
>>>> flagrantly dishonestly with nukes.

>>> That's because parts of nukes are highly radioactive.

>> But clearly there is no problem with filling it with concrete
>> and building the replacement next to it.

> How long have you been an expert on the design, construction and
> de-commissioning nuclear reactors?

Don't need to be an expert given that
that is the obvious way to do things
given the stupid cost of any alternative.

And you clearly arent an expert at anything
at all, not even at bullshitting and lying.

>>>>>>>> And the cost of the 'renewables' doesnt include the
>>>>>>>> immense cost of what you need to have to supply the
>>>>>>>> electricity you need when the sun isn't shining and
>>>>>>>> the wind isnt blowing enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Sun will continue to shine for the next few billion years. It
>>>>>>> won't stop.
>>>>
>>>>>> Pity that it stops being able to generate useful electricity
>>>>>> for 2/3 of every fucking day.
>>>>
>>>>> Moron.
>>>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>>
>>> I cite facts. Nothing more.

>> Everyone can see you lie thru your teeth and spew stupid
>> opinions like the terminal stupidity that everyone must
>> reduce their CO2 production when in fact plenty don't
>> need to do that.

> Pedant.

Pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

>>> Moreover, I back my statements with facts.

>> Another bare faced lie with your stupid opinions.

> Moron. I suggest you examine my many cites,

Fuck all of which are actually relevant facts.

> before you lie again. I cite proper references frequently and regularly.

In fact you only ever cite a tiny handful, repeatedly
and only one of them is actually a 'proper' reference
whatever the hell that is when it is at home.

<reams of your shit and lies flushed where it belongs>

>>>>> The Sun does not stop shining. It ALWAYS shines and will continue to
>>>>> do so for the next few billion years. It is always shining somewhere
>>>>> on the planet.
>>
>>>> Pity it doesnt usefully shine on the solar panels in
>>>> this country for more than less than 1/3 of the time.
>>
>>> Ah, so you admit that the Sun is always shining.

>> That was never in dispute, fuckwit.

>>> FINALLY, you accept facts.

>> No FINALLY about it it you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

>> Pity it doesnt usefully shine on the solar panels in
>> this country for more than less than 1/3 of the time.

> Never in dispute.

But you keep ignoring that fundamental problem with
your terminal stupidity that is the reason that no one is
actually stupid enough to fund that stupid HVDC line
to SE Asia. Or to fund the massive infrastructure cost
of covering 3% of our land mass with solar panels,
and have to replace the whole fucking lot every 20 years.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

> On 22/12/2022 1:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

>> I understand fine that while we have seen a massive increase
>> in atmospheric CO2 levels and sweet fuck all increase in
>> temperatures and it isnt even clear that the fuck all change
>> in temperatures are in fact due to the massive increase in
>> atmospheric CO2 levels.

> Wrong again.

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of
it, fuckwit.

> Temperatures are tracking CO2 levels just like they always have:

More of your bare faced lies given that the atmospheric CO2
level has almost doubled in the last 150 years with sweet fuck
all change in temperatue, nothing even remotely like the change
in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And they don't even track in the last 10 years either.

<reams of your mindlessly repeated lies flushed where they belong>

>>> You know fuck-all about climate science,

>> I have in fact worked in that field, unlike you.

> Really?

Fraid so.

> Cite your education and your experience.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

You have no way of verifying what I listed, you pathetic excuse for a
lying bullshit artist.

>>> so what you say is utterly unimportant. You haven't even read the most
>>> important documents about the science of the climate.

>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

> Nope. It's a fact. You have not read the IPCC documents.

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

I have in fact pointed out some of their stupiditys and
I would not have been able to do that that if I had not
in fact read it to be able to list them, you stupid fuckwit.

And since this is the best you can manage, here goes
the chain in the rest of your bare faced stupid lies any
3 year old could leave for dead.

Rod Speed wrote on 22/12/22 8:29 pm:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> On 22/12/2022 1:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>  I understand fine that while we have seen a massive increase
>>> in atmospheric CO2 levels and sweet fuck all increase in
>>> temperatures and it isnt even clear that the fuck all change
>>> in temperatures are in fact due to the massive increase in
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels.
>
>> Wrong again.
>
> Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of
> it, fuckwit.

Incorrect, AS ALWAYS, asswipe, in fact the SIG DELIMITER consists of
'Dash Dash SPACE' with nothing else on the line, asswipe!!

https://www.karelbemelmans.com/2015/05/netiquette-email-signature-separator/

Quote
The Usenet standards specify that a signature block should be delimited
from the body of the message by a single line consisting of exactly two
hyphens, followed by a space, followed by the end of line (i.e., “–
\n”). This latter prescription, which goes by many names, including “sig
dashes”, “signature cut line”, “sig-marker”, “sig separator” and
“signature delimiter”, allows software to automatically mark or remove
the sig block as the receiver desires.
End Quote

Second reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block
--
Daniel

Some stupid one armed fuckwit that
is so fucking stupid that it can't even
manage to work out when some fool
has fed it a line of mindless bullshit
about what happens to a bullet when
its fired from a gun, deperately cowering
behind Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
sniped with its one arm in a way that any
3 year old could leave for dead.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 19:40:41 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 22/12/2022 1:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> The rise is at least 100 times more rapid than at any time in past
> million years. It is unprecedented.

By half a fucking degree. Shit, the sky is falling...

Clearly time to run around like headless chickens.

<reams of your repetitive lying shit flushed where it belongs>

>>> We have NEVER seen a rise in temperature as rapid and as high in human
>>> existence.

>> Wrong with the recovery from the climate catastrophe seen
>> after the Mt Pinatubo explosion.

> Now you're being obtuse.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Yes, there have been higher temperatures in the past, but humans and
>>> the plants and critters we eat did not exist.

>> We have in fact seen plenty of examples of a 0.5C increase
>> in the past with no catastrophe resulting at all..

> Except we are headed for a MINIMUM of 1.5C increase.

Easy to claim. And we have seen that before too, even in
just the last 150 years with the Thames no longer freezing
over in the worst winters, with no downsides from that
what so ever, so no point in running around in endless
circles hyperventilating about the end of the world as
we know it.

> And probably much more.

Not a shred of evidence of that.

Alzheimer Rod, the senile old far anger management disaster of aus.pol
has presented the only merry Xmas message he is capable of.

> stupid one
> fuckwit
> fucking stupid
> some fool
> mindless bullshit
> deperately cowering
> sniped with its one arm
> leave for dead.

I recommend that you, Alzheimer Rod, stop staring constantly into your
bathroom mirror while typing Usenet replies, because that crazed and
wishes visage you see in there staring back at you with its bared teeth
is making you filled with even more uncontrollable rage than otherwise
would be the case.

If only you took your meds as prescribed ... Sigh! :-P :-P :-P

--
Ördög
"A reminder for your mortification"

Rod Speed wrote on 23/12/22 3:53 am:
> Some stupid one armed fuckwit that
> is so fucking stupid

"So fucking stupid" enough to correct an error that YOU have made,
asswipe!! ;-P
--
Daniel

Some stupid one armed fuckwit that
is so fucking stupid that it can't even
manage to work out when some fool
has fed it a line of mindless bullshit
about what happens to a bullet when
its fired from a gun, deperately cowering
behind Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
sniped with its one arm in a way that any
3 year old could leave for dead.

Alzheimer Rod, the senile old far anger management disaster of aus.pol
has presented the only merry Xmas message he is capable of.

> stupid one
> fuckwit
> fucking stupid
> some fool
> mindless bullshit
> deperately cowering
> sniped with its one arm
> leave for dead.

I recommend that you, Alzheimer Rod, stop staring constantly into your
bathroom mirror while typing Usenet replies, because that crazed and
wishes visage you see in there staring back at you with its bared teeth
is making you filled with even more uncontrollable rage than otherwise
would be the case.

If only you took your meds as prescribed ... Sigh!
:-P :-P :-P

--
Ördög
"A reminder for your mortification"