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.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-7, 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:
> >> >
> >> >> 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.

> > 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 .... We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.

So, this is a simple-minded 'more is better' argument?

> >> 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.

That's the CO2 cycle, independent of human modification.
The CO2 source (vulcanism) never stops; our plants will always have CO2. The 'more is better'
theme is weak, because 'more is pollution' is at least equally true.

> >> 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.

Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with
the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:57:41 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

> 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.

Indeed, people just copy everyone else. It used to be just clothes fashion, now it's everything.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:59:04 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-7, 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:
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.
>
>> > 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 .... We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.
>
> So, this is a simple-minded 'more is better' argument?

No, we know all the carbon used to be on the air and plants did very well indeed.

>> >> 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.
>
> That's the CO2 cycle, independent of human modification.
> The CO2 source (vulcanism) never stops; our plants will always have CO2.

They have a tiny fraction compared to the amount of oxygen we have. Try breathing when your O2 level is as low as their CO2 is. It's amazing they survive at all, no wonder they grow so slowly.

>> >> 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.
>
> Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with
> the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.

You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 10:11:32 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:59:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-7, 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:

> >> >> 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.

> > Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with
> > the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.

> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?

Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
"CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing. A silver teapot keeps the tea
warm longer, because its surface is shiny and doesn't radiate heat. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
similarly makes our planet less capable of shedding heat.

It's the numbers that matter, and you haven't examined any of those. Those numbers show a shift in
equilibrium temperature, and have done so for decades. Theory says so, measurements confirm it.
Commander Kinsey and John Larkin haven't got theory or measurement, just... some bumper sticker slogans.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 06:09:18 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:57:41 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Indeed, people just copy everyone else. It used to be just clothes fashion, now it's everything.

That's because most people are driven by social forces and perceive
and believe what they imagine the rest of their tribe thinks.

That makes for wild dynamics.

The only thing that corrects tribal delusion is experiment.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:11:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 10:11:32 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:59:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-7, 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:
>
>> >> >> 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.
>
>> > Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with
>> > the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.
>
>> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
>
>Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
>"CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing. A silver teapot keeps the tea
>warm longer, because its surface is shiny and doesn't radiate heat. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
>similarly makes our planet less capable of shedding heat.
>
>It's the numbers that matter, and you haven't examined any of those. Those numbers show a shift in
>equilibrium temperature, and have done so for decades. Theory says so, measurements confirm it.
>Commander Kinsey and John Larkin haven't got theory or measurement, just... some bumper sticker slogans.

This would make a good bumper sticker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports#/media/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The current temp upswing started roughly 1850. Measurements are real,
theory not so much. Someone said that not only do we not know the
magnitudes of some major climate couplings, sometimes we don't know
the sign.

But plants grow really fast in hothouses with CO2 generators, 2x to 3x
normal. Crop yields are many times what they were in 1850.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 6:54:12 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> But plants grow really fast in hothouses with CO2 generators, 2x to 3x
> normal. Crop yields are many times what they were in 1850.

Hothouses don't have temperature out of control. They don't have weeds, they
don't have pests, and they don't usually produce crops, just plant-able starts.
'Normal' for a hothouse isn't normal for crops in a field in a lot of ways, not
CO2 alone. The '2 to 3x' doesn't apply because of the single factor of CO2.

In fact, in addition to shedding leaves in winter, there's no efficient photosynthesis
(use of CO2) outside a narrow temperature range; leaves close their stomata and
stop photosynthesis when the temperature is too high (or water for evaporation is
too scarce) both of which are global-warming major effects.

<https://biology-igcse.weebly.com/effect-of-temperature-on-the-rate-of-photosynthesis.html>

Crop yields in 1850 aren't a good baseline, unless you have some kind of heritage seedline
that is being discussed? Certainly there's effects that are unrelated to CO2 going on there!

So, those are short-snip claims, suitable for a bumper sticker, but not for prediction of crop yield.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 05:53:47 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

And you think it's a bad thing for some ice to melt? What proof do you have of this?

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

Experts my arse.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!

It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you're not old enough to remember that.

> I'm not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I'd advise you to do likewise.

I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 10:11:32 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:59:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-7, 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:
>
>> >> >> 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.
>
>> > Yeah, we're altering the CO2 cycle in alarming ways. We need to REGULATE our effect, or live with
>> > the unnatural consequences. Greta Thunberg has a preference. It's her future, let her have a good one.
>
>> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
>
> Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
> "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.

Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> >> ... 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!
> It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you're not old enough to remember that.

Yeah, it was Barney Oldfield who broke the minute mile in 1903.

> > I'm not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I'd advise you to do likewise.

> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.

Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
> >
> > Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
> > "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.

> Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?

What time 'before oil/...' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:44:36 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
>> >
>> > Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
>> > "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.
>
>> Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?
>
> What time 'before oil/...' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.

The question was quite clear. When oil/coal/gas was created, from dead plants and animals. Those plants and animals were just fine obviously.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> >> ... 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!
>> It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you're not old enough to remember that.
>
> Yeah, it was Barney Oldfield who broke the minute mile in 1903.

And before then they thought you couldn't go that fast without dying. So clearly although we always think we know everything, there's always more to learn.

>> > I'm not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I'd advise you to do likewise.
>
>> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
>
> Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
> the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
> such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.

They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:47:53 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:44:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
> >> >
> >> > Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
> >> > "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.
> >
> >> Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?
> >
> > What time 'before oil/...' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.

> The question was quite clear. When oil/coal/gas was created, from dead plants and animals. Those plants and animals were just fine obviously.

Oh, you mean in a time when plants and animals had been around for eons? There was CO2 in the atmosphere
(from vulcanism) long before that. Gas eventually bleeds off into space, though, and is replaced slowly.
Air up high is cold. CO2 is opaque to important infrared (invisible) colors that act to shed heat into
space, and when there's not much of it, it radiates from warm lower elevations in the atmosphere. When
there's more of it, it radiates from cold upper parts of the atmosphere (because it's opaque, lower-atmosphere
heat doesn't escape into cold space).

Human history had 200- 250 ppm of CO2, and comparable total atmospheric pressure as today.
until a century or two ago (coal and the age of steam). Why do you ask?

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
> >
> > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
> > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
> > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.

> They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?

Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn't informed by political pressure from UN, it's independence
IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them 'same sort of group...' as
though that's an insight? It's a baseless slur, but worse: it's thoughtless.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:09:19 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:47:53 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:44:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
>> >> >
>> >> > Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
>> >> > "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.
>> >
>> >> Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?
>> >
>> > What time 'before oil/...' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.
>
>> The question was quite clear. When oil/coal/gas was created, from dead plants and animals. Those plants and animals were just fine obviously.
>
> Oh, you mean in a time when plants and animals had been around for eons? There was CO2 in the atmosphere
> (from vulcanism) long before that. Gas eventually bleeds off into space, though, and is replaced slowly.
> Air up high is cold. CO2 is opaque to important infrared (invisible) colors that act to shed heat into
> space, and when there's not much of it, it radiates from warm lower elevations in the atmosphere. When
> there's more of it, it radiates from cold upper parts of the atmosphere (because it's opaque, lower-atmosphere
> heat doesn't escape into cold space).
>
> Human history had 200- 250 ppm of CO2, and comparable total atmospheric pressure as today.
> until a century or two ago (coal and the age of steam). Why do you ask?

There was far more CO2 back then than there is now, it did not cause a problem, it's as simple as that. Stop adding more unnecessary information.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:31:57 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
>> >
>> > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
>> > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
>> > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
>
>> They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
>
> Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn't informed by political pressure from UN, it's independence
> IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
> IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them 'same sort of group...' as
> though that's an insight? It's a baseless slur, but worse: it's thoughtless.

It's a collection of stupid governments, which multiplies the stupidity. The more people in a committee, the stupider the outcome. None of them are thinking based on common sense or science, they're all thinking what will make them look good. Any government rejecting climate change will be booed at.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:38:33 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:31:57 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >
> >> >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.

> >> > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
> >> > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
> >> > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
> >
> >> They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?

> > Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn't informed by political pressure from UN, it's independence
> > IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
> > IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them 'same sort of group....' as
> > though that's an insight? It's a baseless slur, but worse: it's thoughtless.

> It's a collection of stupid governments, which multiplies the stupidity. The more people in a committee, the stupider the outcome. None of them are thinking based on common sense or science, they're all thinking what will make them look good. Any government rejecting climate change will be booed at.

No, IPCC is not 'a collection of stupid governments'. Every conclusion that you
derive from that premise is worthless.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:17:39 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:38:33 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:31:57 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
>
>> >> > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
>> >> > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
>> >> > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
>> >
>> >> They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
>
>> > Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn't informed by political pressure from UN, it's independence
>> > IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
>> > IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them 'same sort of group...' as
>> > though that's an insight? It's a baseless slur, but worse: it's thoughtless.
>
>> It's a collection of stupid governments, which multiplies the stupidity. The more people in a committee, the stupider the outcome. None of them are thinking based on common sense or science, they're all thinking what will make them look good. Any government rejecting climate change will be booed at.
>
> No, IPCC is not 'a collection of stupid governments'. Every conclusion that you
> derive from that premise is worthless.

Which part do you not agree with? Governments or stupid?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:06:59 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

What makes you think what I said was an excuse, I stated a fact. In fact, fuck you, I can't be bothered with the likes of you, you're a moronic individual no better than religious nuts. I tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, but like all the alarmists, you claim everything said against you is wrong without giving reasoning. Forget it.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:36:26 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:09:19 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:47:53 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:44:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> You're waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we're putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren't nonexistent, it's the
> >> >> > "CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control" and increasing.
> >> >
> >> >> Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?
> >> >
> >> > What time 'before oil/...' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.
> >
> >> The question was quite clear. When oil/coal/gas was created, from dead plants and animals. Those plants and animals were just fine obviously.
> >
> > Oh, you mean in a time when plants and animals had been around for eons? There was CO2 in the atmosphere
> > (from vulcanism) long before that. Gas eventually bleeds off into space, though, and is replaced slowly.
> > Air up high is cold. CO2 is opaque to important infrared (invisible) colors that act to shed heat into
> > space, and when there's not much of it, it radiates from warm lower elevations in the atmosphere. When
> > there's more of it, it radiates from cold upper parts of the atmosphere (because it's opaque, lower-atmosphere
> > heat doesn't escape into cold space).
> >
> > Human history had 200- 250 ppm of CO2, and comparable total atmospheric pressure as today.
> > until a century or two ago (coal and the age of steam). Why do you ask?

> There was far more CO2 back then than there is now, it did not cause a problem, it's as simple as that. Stop adding more unnecessary information.

False, if as you suggest 'back then' is a couple of centuries.
The time of 'far more CO2' was before humanity evolved, by over 100 million years, and did not support
any of the plants of today. Whether it would be a problem for people, or modern plants,
is definitely NOT known.

Where did you get the idea that 'there was far more CO2 back then'? IPCC wouldn't have told
you wrong, but someone did.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:30:44 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:17:39 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:38:33 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:31:57 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
> >
> >> >> > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
> >> >> > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
> >> >> > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
> >> >
> >> >> They're the last people I'd trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
> >
> >> > Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn't informed by political pressure from UN, it's independence
> >> > IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
> >> > IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them 'same sort of group...' as
> >> > though that's an insight? It's a baseless slur, but worse: it's thoughtless.
> >
> >> It's a collection of stupid governments, which multiplies the stupidity. The more people in a committee, the stupider the outcome. None of them are thinking based on common sense or science, they're all thinking what will make them look good. Any government rejecting climate change will be booed at.
> >
> > No, IPCC is not 'a collection of stupid governments'. Every conclusion that you
> > derive from that premise is worthless.
> Which part do you not agree with? Governments or stupid?

Both. IPCC is a respectable scientific institution, in Switzerland, and is
not the UN which is a collective of governments, meeting in New York city.

El viernes, 17 de junio de 2022 a las 13:19:32 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org escribió:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 8:49:49 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> ... 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!
> > >> It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you're not old enough to remember that.
> > >
> > > Yeah, it was Barney Oldfield who broke the minute mile in 1903.
> >
> > And before then they thought you couldn't go that fast without dying. So clearly although we always think we know everything, there's always more to learn.
> Except that they didn't. It was claimed by a few when the first railroads were set up around 1830. The trains rapidly got fast enough to prove that it was total nonsense, as had been obvious to better informed anyway.
> > >> > I'm not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I'd advise you to do likewise.
> > >
> > >> I don't rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
> But you are one of the most ill-informed people posting stuff here. You'd be wise to find a more reliable source of information, but you are clearly ill-equipped to do that.
> > > Not the IPCC; there's hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
> > > the UN created that group. Your 'political reasoning' doesn't apply to their work on global warming,
> > > such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
> The IPCC is a bunch of climate experts, selected for their expertise on climate. That means that thye have published useful scientific papers on the subject, designed to create a coherent - which is to say - self-consistent body of knowledge on that subject. They are not asked for their opinion on the correct reaction to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and would be relucant to give one because they haven't specialised in that particular area.
> > They're the last people I'd trust.
> Who cares who you would trust? You clearly can't be bothered to think for yourself, and latch onto the first idea that lodges in your head.
> >Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it's ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
> Clearly not. The IPCC is a group of experts on climate science. They exist to advise the politicians (and publish their advice so that everybody can read it).
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
BullionStar is Singapore's Premier Bullion Dealer
- Over 1,000 Different Products
- Cash & Bullion Account
- Attractive Prices
- Quick & Easy
-Tax Free Bullion
- Financial Strength
- Global Reach
- Multi-Jurisdiction
https://www.bullionstar.com/?r=27869