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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Of course CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better, at least up to a
couple thousand PPM.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
>
>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?

Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

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

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?

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.

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?

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...

On 06/09/2022 04:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mining.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
>>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
>>>>>>>>>> middle of
>>>>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
>>>>>>>>>> couple off
>>>>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>>>> picked
>>>>>> up again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That article claims
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
>>>>>> Bcf
>>>>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
>>>>>> and cozy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>>>>
>>>> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
>>>> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger
>>>> problem
>>>> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
>>>> methane and CO2.
>>>
>>> What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?
>>
>> https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217
>>
>>
>> Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.
>
> I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large
> circular hole.
>
> The one you mention is odd, why hasn't it run out of fuel yet?

It's a big coal vein?

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.

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.

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com 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.

> >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?

> Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.

But just minutes ago, you were concerned with $7 per gallon gasoline? Clearly
you do NOT think 'things are great'. You're just covering up some deep foreboding.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com 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.
>
>> >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?
>
>> Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.
>
>But just minutes ago, you were concerned with $7 per gallon gasoline?

It doesn't bother me a bit. But it will sure hurt a lot of people with
long commutes, or worker-guys who need pickup trucks for their
businesses.

Inflation was engineered... badly engineered. What were all those
idiots thinking?

>Clearly
>you do NOT think 'things are great'. You're just covering up some deep foreboding.

It's a beautiful day on a beautiful world.

Humans can expect great things in the future. Civilization has just
begun.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

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.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@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:

> >> >... 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?

It's a long time treaty, and there will be changes in the next century.
Those questions are likely to have interesting answers in future decades,
and time will tell answers beyond your imagination. These are
not absurd questions: congratulations, your thinking has improved.

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

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.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

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.

--

Rick C.

+--+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

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

That is being naive - the strains of the dominant food crops that revolutionized yields were not around in that era. Semi-dwarf wheat for example was only created about 60 years ago.

High-yielding wheat and rice have already been showing declines that have been attributed to environmental changes.

I just read that one of my favorite hot chile sauce brands is not available now because of severe drought in Mexico.

Although extra carbon dioxide and higher temperatures may help in many plants, how it will affect our ability to grow food is not known. How will our crop plants fare in competition against weeds, lack of water etc.

kw

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), "ke...@kjwdesigns.com"
<keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 10:33:40 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>...
>
>That is being naive - the strains of the dominant food crops that revolutionized yields were not around in that era. Semi-dwarf wheat for example was only created about 60 years ago.
>
>High-yielding wheat and rice have already been showing declines that have been attributed to environmental changes.
>
>I just read that one of my favorite hot chile sauce brands is not available now because of severe drought in Mexico.
>
>Although extra carbon dioxide and higher temperatures may help in many plants, how it will affect our ability to grow food is not known. How will our crop plants fare in competition against weeds, lack of water etc.
>
>kw

More CO2 is known to make plants more water efficient.

And we can breed or GM crop plants to grow even better with more CO2.
Greenhouses already run 1500 PPM to make plants grow faster.

https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/equip/co2-generators/johnson-co2-generator?returnurl=%2fequip%2fco2-generators%2f

But atmospheric CO2 is free!

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:32:43 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@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:
>
>> >> >... 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?
>
>It's a long time treaty, and there will be changes in the next century.

The big change is that all the AGW hysteria will be laughed at as
old-timey paranoia.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:32:43 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> >Many signatories to the Paris accords...
> >> >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?

> >It's a long time treaty, and there will be changes in the next century.

> The big change is that all the AGW hysteria will be laughed at as
> old-timey paranoia.

For now, though, remember: the market works. Those signatures mean
that the courts of 192 countries will be able to judge against various defendants,
and that's gonna be important to investors in infrastructure. Sailing ship technology
will boom.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:25:11 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

> 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.

It's amazing these people think electric cars are cheaper to run. They're not. They just don't require payment of huge fuel duty on the petrol, so actually they're more expensive to run. So where does the government get this money from when we all have electric cars....