People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3

Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
>
> Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?

What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change. It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force. Utilities ARE NOT tasked with changing the climate - they deliver electricity, nat gas, water, and sewage disposal to their customers. If you force them to use more expensive, less reliable sources of power they will do so, but pass the cost along to their customers. Worst case, they will HAVE TO shut off these utilities to their customers, as California is now doing. Period. End of story.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 9:08:39 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:44:19 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> > >
> > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> > >
> > > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> >
> > What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> Natural increases in CO2 level have had that effect in the past. It's scarcely "fanatical" to suggest that our contribution will have the same effect.
> > It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force.
> Not clear to Gnatguy, who is cognitively challenged.

I have ALREADY produced a scientific study that backs that statement up. Bozo has produce NOTHING in response.

>
> > Utilities ARE NOT tasked with changing the climate - they deliver electricity, natural gas, water, and sewage disposal to their customers. If you force them to use more expensive, less reliable sources of power they will do so, but pass the cost along to their customers. Worst case, they will HAVE TO shut off these utilities to their customers, as California is now doing. Period. End of story.
>
> Except that solar cells are the cheapest source of electric power around, and wind turbines are close behind.

Hey Bozo, utilities will use ANY source of cheap power. The problem with solar cells is that they produce electricity ONLY for about 6 hours a day. Windmills don't turn when the WIND ISN'T BLOWING, which is MUCH OF THE TIME. WHAT do you do when it's dark (or cloudy) and the wind isn't blowing (for WEEKS)?

>
> This might not have been true back when Gnatguy had a working brain, but it is true now,

So says the demented lunatic who wants to NUKE his OWN COUNTRY!!!!!

>
> Their reliablity isn't ideal, but coupled with adequate grid storage they will be a perfectly adequate source of electric power when the generating companies get around to building enough of them.

Ideal??? WTF are you saying??? When you flip a switch you WANT the lights to turn on, NOT a promise that MAYBE they will SOME TIME in the future!!!!!!!
>
> The fossil carbon extraction industry doesn't like this - their cash flow is going to go into terminal decline when it happens - so they spend a lot on lying propaganda aimed at gullible half-wits like Gnatguy in the hope of deferring that for a while. It's irresponsible idiocy, but it does make money.

The public WANTS reliable power - by WHATEVER MEANS! You libtards are DICTATING to the public that they MUST settle for LESS!!!!!!

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:20:49 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:28:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 9:08:39 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:44:19 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> > > > >
> > > > > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> > > >
> > > > What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> > >
> > > Natural increases in CO2 level have had that effect in the past. It's scarcely "fanatical" to suggest that our contribution will have the same effect.
> > > > It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force.
> > >
> > > Not clear to Gnatguy, who is cognitively challenged.
> >
> > I have ALREADY produced a scientific study that backs that statement up..
> The usual climate change denial propaganda, tricked up to look like a scientific paper - Gnatguy is gullible.

Bozo responds with NOTHING! I repeat, NOTHING!!! If he had a scientific study that REFUTED the one I posted, he would POST IT, but he DOESN'T!!!1

> > Bozo has produce NOTHING in response.
> Apart from the observation that is was climate change denial propaganda.

Again, Bozo just replies with RETHORIC, not with FACTS. That is because he HAS NO FACTS!

> > > > Utilities ARE NOT tasked with changing the climate - they deliver electricity, natural gas, water, and sewage disposal to their customers. If you force them to use more expensive, less reliable sources of power they will do so, but pass the cost along to their customers. Worst case, they will HAVE TO shut off these utilities to their customers, as California is now doing. Period. End of story.
> > >
> > > Except that solar cells are the cheapest source of electric power around, and wind turbines are close behind.
> >
> > Hey Bozo, utilities will use ANY source of cheap power. The problem with solar cells is that they produce electricity ONLY for about 6 hours a day.. Windmills don't turn when the WIND ISN'T BLOWING, which is MUCH OF THE TIME. WHAT do you do when it's dark (or cloudy) and the wind isn't blowing (for WEEKS)?
> Strange that the Australian power generating companies won't invest in any other kind of new generating capacity. The previous Australian administration was full of ministers who had been got at the by the coal miners, but they couldn't get the industry to invest in new coal-fired plants and it was remarkably reluctant to turn on the gas-fired fast start generators.

OZ doesn't give a SHIT about "climate change" - they use FOSSIL FUELS because they are the CHEAPEST.

>
> The power emergency that prompted the South Australian government to invest in Telsa's big battery
>
> https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/
>
> was caused by an example of that reluctance.

As if that will change ANYTHING.

> > > This might not have been true back when Gnatguy had a working brain, but it is true now,
> <snipped the usual lie >
> > > Their reliablity isn't ideal, but coupled with adequate grid storage they will be a perfectly adequate source of electric power when the generating companies get around to building enough of them.
> >
> > Ideal??? WTF are you saying??? When you flip a switch you WANT the lights to turn on, NOT a promise that MAYBE they will SOME TIME in the future!!!!!!!
> That's what pumped storage and grid scale batteries deliver. Even fast start gas turbine generators take a few minutes to deliver power.

Hey Bozo, what PERCENTAGE of the grid is pumped storage? Come on, give us the Facts! And batteries, are you out of your FUCKING MIND???

> > > The fossil carbon extraction industry doesn't like this - their cash flow is going to go into terminal decline when it happens - so they spend a lot on lying propaganda aimed at gullible half-wits like Gnatguy in the hope of deferring that for a while. It's irresponsible idiocy, but it does make money.
> >
> > The public WANTS reliable power - by WHATEVER MEANS!
> And they don't care if it come from pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, recharged by windmills and solar farms.

See above, Bozo - that is just another one of the libtard PROMISES that are as dependable as fusion.

> > You libtards are DICTATING to the public that they MUST settle for LESS!!!!!!
> In fact Gnatguy is echoing the fossil carbon extraction industry, who lies to the public about the effectiveness of non-fossil-carbon-fueled power generation.

No, that is REALITY - it is happening NOW in California, Bozo.
> It's actual defect is that it doesn't pay dividends to their share-holders. Gnatguy is much too gullible a twit to notice what is going on.

No, YOU are the twit that is unaware of what is going on.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:44:19 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> >
> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> >
> > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change. It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force. Utilities ARE NOT tasked with changing the climate - they deliver electricity, nat gas, water, and sewage disposal to their customers. If you force them to use more expensive, less reliable sources of power they will do so, but pass the cost along to their customers. Worst case, they will HAVE TO shut off these utilities to their customers, as California is now doing. Period. End of story.

You're contradicting yourself but fail to realize it. Big industries in business to provide essential infrastructure and earn big profits don't adhere to the same principles of caution and best approximation to absolute truth the purely scientific research institutes do. They work with more practical standards of decision making such as most likely outcomes and preponderance of evidence ( more likely than not). Based on those standards and the input from the top gun scientists they did hire to study the problem, it was VERY clear to them the atmospheric CO2 levels would increase and cause global warning. They KNEW this with enough certainty to take the only action possible for them at the time, which was to stave off for as long as possible the inevitable government mandates for a radical, and very costly, reconfiguration of their industry, something we're seeing happening now. They accomplished this by muting the emergence of public outcry for "government should do something about this" which would spur the political mandates. Your statements of denial effectively undermine the best judgment of the very industry you think you're defending. The electric power industry in this country for the most part is pretty good and want to do the right thing. They just need to be made to move faster.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:51:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 3:36:56 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:20:49 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:28:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 9:08:39 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:44:19 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change.
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> > > > >
> > > > > Natural increases in CO2 level have had that effect in the past. It's scarcely "fanatical" to suggest that our contribution will have the same effect.
> > > > > > It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not clear to Gnatguy, who is cognitively challenged.
> > > >
> > > > I have ALREADY produced a scientific study that backs that statement up.
> > >
> > > The usual climate change denial propaganda, tricked up to look like a scientific paper - Gnatguy is gullible.
> >
> > Bill responds with NOTHING! I repeat, NOTHING!!! If he had a scientific study that REFUTED the one I posted, he would POST IT, but he DOESN'T!!!1
> >
> > > > Bill has produce NOTHING in response.
> > >
> > > Apart from the observation that is was climate change denial propaganda.
> >
> > Again, Bill just replies with RETHORIC, not with FACTS. That is because he HAS NO FACTS!
>
> That it was climate change denial propaganda is a fact. Taking it any more seriously than that would be a waste of time. Debating such questions with Gnatguy is a waste of time - he merely ignores the arguments and reposts his fatuous delusions. That's repetition, not even rhetoric.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Did you notice that the Bozo SNIPPERMAN SNIPPED my embarrassing comments/questions like:

OZ doesn't give a SHIT about "climate change" - they use FOSSIL FUELS because they are the CHEAPEST.

and

Hey Bozo, what PERCENTAGE of the grid is pumped storage? Come on, give us the Facts! And batteries, are you out of your FUCKING MIND???

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:09:47 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:44:19 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> > >
> > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> > >
> > > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> > What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change. It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force. Utilities ARE NOT tasked with changing the climate - they deliver electricity, nat gas, water, and sewage disposal to their customers. If you force them to use more expensive, less reliable sources of power they will do so, but pass the cost along to their customers. Worst case, they will HAVE TO shut off these utilities to their customers, as California is now doing. Period. End of story.
> You're contradicting yourself but fail to realize it. Big industries in business to provide essential infrastructure and earn big profits don't adhere to the same principles of caution and best approximation to absolute truth the purely scientific research institutes do. They work with more practical standards of decision making such as most likely outcomes and preponderance of evidence ( more likely than not). Based on those standards and the input from the top gun scientists they did hire to study the problem, it was VERY clear to them the atmospheric CO2 levels would increase and cause global warning. They KNEW this with enough certainty to take the only action possible for them at the time, which was to stave off for as long as possible the inevitable government mandates for a radical, and very costly, reconfiguration of their industry, something we're seeing happening now. They accomplished this by muting the emergence of public outcry for "government should do something about this" which would spur the political mandates. Your statements of denial effectively undermine the best judgment of the very industry you think you're defending. The electric power industry in this country for the most part is pretty good and want to do the right thing. They just need to be made to move faster.

That is just more TIN HAT CONSPIRACY THEORY bullshit. Just to prove MY point, WHY don't you produce evidence of this conspiracy? Failure to do so means that you don't HAVE ANY!

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 03:24:15 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
>
> Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
"promoting climate denial,

stays for what ?

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 7:49:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:00:44 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:51:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 3:36:56 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:20:49 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:28:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 9:08:39 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:44:19 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > > People who somehow think they have the wisdom to deflate the ever more obvious predictions of the climate science are just dupes played for suckers by moneyed interests.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wonder what this kind of document analysis is called? Mindnumbalytics maybe?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is in denial are the climate fanatics claim that rising CO2 levels are the driving force in climate change.
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Natural increases in CO2 level have had that effect in the past. It's scarcely "fanatical" to suggest that our contribution will have the same effect.
> > > > > > > > It is not even clear that the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, let alone that this is the driving force.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not clear to Gnatguy, who is cognitively challenged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have ALREADY produced a scientific study that backs that statement up.
> > > > >
> > > > > The usual climate change denial propaganda, tricked up to look like a scientific paper - Gnatguy is gullible.
> > > >
> > > > Bill responds with NOTHING! I repeat, NOTHING!!! If he had a scientific study that REFUTED the one I posted, he would POST IT, but he DOESN'T!!!1
> > > >
> > > > > > Bill has produce NOTHING in response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from the observation that is was climate change denial propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > Again, Bill just replies with RETHORIC, not with FACTS. That is because he HAS NO FACTS!
> > >
> > > That it was climate change denial propaganda is a fact. Taking it any more seriously than that would be a waste of time. Debating such questions with Gnatguy is a waste of time - he merely ignores the arguments and reposts his fatuous delusions. That's repetition, not even rhetoric.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Did you notice that the SNIPPERMAN SNIPPED my embarrassing comments/questions like:
> >
> > OZ doesn't give a SHIT about "climate change" - they use FOSSIL FUELS because they are the CHEAPEST.
> I snipped it because it isn't true. The Australian electricity supply industry uses as little fossil fuel as it can - not from ideological conviction, but because it is cheaper to use solar cells and wind turbines whenever they are supplying power. If we had more grid scale storage we could burn even less fossil carbon, and the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme is being reworked to provide a lot of pumped storage and there are a bunch of grid scale batteries on order.

You snipped it because you DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER, BOZO! REALLY, they use "as little fossil fuel as it can"? Do you think that senile pervert Lyin' Biden would accept that? HELL NO! He has declared that the US will BE carbon neutral in just SEVEN YEARS! OZ will be doing EXACTLY what they are doing TODAY seven years from now.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

Pumped storage IS NOT how it is generated, Bozo - it is STORAGE!

>
> was the first, supplied by Tesla, and it has been expanded. More are in the pipeline. And there's a lot more renewable generation in the pipeline, including a couple of off-shore wind farms. The Australian mining industry doesn't like it at all, but they bribed the Liberal-National Party who lost the last election, in part because of their devotion to coal mining.
> > Hey Bozo, what PERCENTAGE of the grid is pumped storage?
> None of it. The grid transmits power. Pumped storage and batteries store it. It's a different job. if you had a brain in your head you might have asked what percentage of the grid's peak output could come from pumped storage and batteries, or how long they could deliver that maximum output, which are questions that could be answered (but I'm not going to bother to try to answer either, since the answer is not all that much - at the moment).

You don't know WHAT THE FUCK you are talking about - storage IS a part of the grid, Bozo!

> > Come on, give us the Facts! And batteries, are you out of your FUCKING MIND???
> Unlike you, I do have a mind. And I am tolerably sane. You can't even ask a coherent question, and you certainly can't understand the answers.

No you don't Bozo, you ARE the laughing stock of SED!!!!

who cares Australia today ?

26,068,792

Australia is very low population country
low in science
low in technology
low in business
low in innovations
low living standards
low income
low currency

Australia is dead horse
no future
no progress
leave Australia ASAP

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:98a073ce-2723-4840-8676-
b0322ad1d945n@googlegroups.com:

> who cares Australia today ?
>
> 26,068,792

25.7 Million (2020), but you are close, stat retard.

> Australia is very low population country

You are an idiot.

> low in science

Your whore mother was low in science. That is why she failed to
understand the operation of a toilet and failed to flush you, the
moment the severely assfucked street slut shat you.

> low in technology

Wrong again, dumbfuck.

> low in business

You are an idiot. Their per capita GDP is hogher than Canada's.

> low in innovations

Black box flight recorder --Australia
The black box flight recorder has helped make commercial air travel
the world's safest form of travel. ...

Electronic pacemaker
Ask any heart pacemaker patient if they think Australia is low on
innovation.

Google Maps
Yep, they started this too.

Medical application of penicillin
You would linkely be dead by now if you were ever born to start with
with that infected slut mother you have.

Cochlear implant (bionic ear)
You really do not know much about Australia, chump.

Electric drill
Oh boy! I'll bet that Jake Doe loves having electric drills!

low living standards
You are an absolute idiot

> low income

Less than the US, but higher than Canada.

You ain't real bright, boy.

> low currency

Now you show the group that you have zero grasp about economy, much
less currency
> Australia is dead horse

Your whore mother should have been made a dead horse before the
shitfcuk cunt shat you.

> no future

Brain dead Trump Cult dumbfuck is what you are. You also sucking Ted
Cruz's dick? You sure sound like you belive his utter stupidity.

> no progress

More than a retarded putz like you will ever get done. You are a
pathetic piece of shit, and nothing more.

> leave Australia ASAP

I would love to go there and hunt Gold or Opals or check out some
interesting places. Go look at tar drip from a viscosity cup.

You know... stuff miles over your head, little minded twerp.
>
You are a very high in bigotry jackass.

We all know well, 26,068,792 Australia
is no future country due to very low population

No future for Australia

Leave Australia ASAP

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:44042e85-9c04-4909-a51b-
2278787afb43n@googlegroups.com:

> We all know well, 26,068,792 Australia
> is no future country due to very low population
>
> No future for Australia
>
> Leave Australia ASAP
>

You are truly an abject idiot.

The cities ARE populated, you retarded, know nothing piece of shit.

Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
so elderly people don't get support from the younger

Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
> so elderly people don't get support from the younger
>
> Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years

OZ gets 51% of its electricity by BURNING COAL!!! No wonder their IQ is SO LOW (just look at Bozo for the evidence)!!!!

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:07:12 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> > > Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
> > > so elderly people don't get support from the younger
> > >
> > > Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years
> >
> > OZ gets 51% of its electricity by BURNING COAL!!! No wonder their IQ is SO LOW (just look at Bill for the evidence)!!!!
>
> https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation
>
> Gnatguy has quoted a correct number, but he's missed the fact that Australia is generating a lot pf power from renewable sources, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
>
> I've been pointing this out to Gnatguy for some time now, but he seems to be incapable of processing the information, which doesn't say anything good about his own intelligence.
>
> That fact that he keeps on posting demonstrably wrong and misleading claims. even after they have been shown to be wrong, does suggest that he is remarkably stupid.
>
> Quite why burning a lot of coal might lower the national IQ escapes me. In a small and densely populated country like the UK it might generate enough air-pollution, like the London smogs, to damage the health of the population but we now know enough to minimise that effect, and Australia was never all that densely populated, even in the big cities. We do go in for urban sprawl.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

LOL! Hey Bozo, do you KNOW what burning coal does for air pollution? Obviously not. Well, let me enlighten you; coal burning releases:
1. Mercury
2. Lead
3. Sulfur dioxide
4. Nitrogen oxides
5. Particulates
6. Various other heavy metals
Now, tell me which of these are GOOD for mental health?

US banned leaded gasoline in 1996
____________________________________

"Leaded gasoline is the fuel that is created when tetraethyl lead is added to gasoline. Because lead has serious impacts on public health, leaded gasoline was permanently banned in the US in 1996, in the European Community since 2000, and in most of the developing world in subsequent years.
Leaded gasoline - Global Energy Monitor
www.gem.wiki/Leaded_gasoline

On Monday, 19 September 2022 at 11:44:04 UTC+1, a a wrote:
> US banned leaded gasoline in 1996
> ____________________________________
>
> "Leaded gasoline is the fuel that is created when tetraethyl lead is added to gasoline. Because lead has serious impacts on public health, leaded gasoline was permanently banned in the US in 1996, in the European Community since 2000, and in most of the developing world in subsequent years.
> Leaded gasoline - Global Energy Monitor
> www.gem.wiki/Leaded_gasoline

Tetra-ethyl lead has continued to be used in the US for general aviation.
However, there are plans to eliminate it by 2030:
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-industry-chart-path-eliminate-lead-emissions-general-aviation-end-2030

John

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 12:19:55 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 1:52:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:07:12 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> > > > > Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
> > > > > so elderly people don't get support from the younger
> > > > >
> > > > > Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years
> > > >
> > > > OZ gets 51% of its electricity by BURNING COAL!!! No wonder their IQ is SO LOW (just look at Bill for the evidence)!!!!
> > >
> > > https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation
> > >
> > > Gnatguy has quoted a correct number, but he's missed the fact that Australia is generating a lot pf power from renewable sources, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
> > >
> > > I've been pointing this out to Gnatguy for some time now, but he seems to be incapable of processing the information, which doesn't say anything good about his own intelligence.
> > >
> > > That fact that he keeps on posting demonstrably wrong and misleading claims. even after they have been shown to be wrong, does suggest that he is remarkably stupid.
> > >
> > > Quite why burning a lot of coal might lower the national IQ escapes me. In a small and densely populated country like the UK it might generate enough air-pollution, like the London smogs, to damage the health of the population but we now know enough to minimise that effect, and Australia was never all that densely populated, even in the big cities. We do go in for urban sprawl.
> >
> > LOL! Hey Bozo, do you KNOW what burning coal does for air pollution? Obviously not. Well, let me enlighten you; coal burning releases:
> > 1. Mercury
> > 2. Lead
> > 3. Sulfur dioxide
> > 4. Nitrogen oxides
> > 5. Particulates
> > 6. Various other heavy metals
> > Now, tell me which of these are GOOD for mental health?
> Sulphur dioxide gets washed out of the exhaust gasses from coal fired power stations, and has been since the 1970's
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
>
> This also reduces the amounts of other pollution that gets released. It's less of problem in a country like Australia with a low population density.
>
> American had more of a problem with lead pollution around highways from the lead tetra-ethyl added to gasoline as an antiknock agent. That too has gone away.
>
> Do try harder to get up to date.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

No, Bozo, YOU are the one who didn't know what emissions coal burning results in. Your "solution" is sending the pollution somewhere else, killing them instead of you. Low density doesn't mean ZERO DENSITY, fool:
https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20worldwide%2C%20more,deaths%20were%20attributable%20to%20coal.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 10:12:40 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 2:27:46 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 12:19:55 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 1:52:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:07:12 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> > > > > > > Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
> > > > > > > so elderly people don't get support from the younger
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OZ gets 51% of its electricity by BURNING COAL!!! No wonder their IQ is SO LOW (just look at Bill for the evidence)!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation
> > > > >
> > > > > Gnatguy has quoted a correct number, but he's missed the fact that Australia is generating a lot pf power from renewable sources, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been pointing this out to Gnatguy for some time now, but he seems to be incapable of processing the information, which doesn't say anything good about his own intelligence.
> > > > >
> > > > > That fact that he keeps on posting demonstrably wrong and misleading claims. even after they have been shown to be wrong, does suggest that he is remarkably stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite why burning a lot of coal might lower the national IQ escapes me. In a small and densely populated country like the UK it might generate enough air-pollution, like the London smogs, to damage the health of the population but we now know enough to minimise that effect, and Australia was never all that densely populated, even in the big cities. We do go in for urban sprawl.
> <snip>
> > > Sulphur dioxide gets washed out of the exhaust gasses from coal fired power stations, and has been since the 1970's
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
> > >
> > > This also reduces the amounts of other pollution that gets released. It's less of problem in a country like Australia with a low population density.
> > >
> > > American had more of a problem with lead pollution around highways from the lead tetra-ethyl added to gasoline as an antiknock agent. That too has gone away.
> > >
> > > Do try harder to get up to date.
> >
> > No, Bozo, YOU are the one who didn't know what emissions coal burning results in. Your "solution" is sending the pollution somewhere else, killing them instead of you. Low density doesn't mean ZERO DENSITY, fool:
> > https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20worldwide%2C%20more,deaths%20were%20attributable%20to%20coal.
> Washing particulates out of chimney smoke doesn't send them anywhere else, and rain washes particulates out of the atmosphere in the same way.

Washing particulates does NOTHING for mercury and lead gases emitted by the burning of coal.

>
> When I was growing up in Tasmania the silver-lead-zinc mine in Queenstown, about a hundred miles south of where I lived, used to roast the ores close to the mine and the fumes used to poison the vegetation for a few miles around the mines They put scrubbers on the stacks while I was still in secondary school and when I went through the area with my wife around 2015 on a nostalgia trip the vegetation had entirely recovered. They ignoramus here is you.

Now we know where your dementia originated from.

>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 10/2/22 21:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> Tetraethyl lead was much more of problem if you lives close to a
> motorway.

Gnatguy works at the diner, on the local flyin' field property,
remember, and avgas still does contain lead.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/leaded-aviation-fuel-and-environment

On Sunday, October 2, 2022 at 9:11:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 1:34:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 10:12:40 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 2:27:46 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 12:19:55 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 1:52:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:07:12 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Australia is no future land and population fails to grow,
> > > > > > > > > so elderly people don't get support from the younger
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Australia's economy and business may collapse within next 5 years
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OZ gets 51% of its electricity by BURNING COAL!!! No wonder their IQ is SO LOW (just look at Bill for the evidence)!!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gnatguy has quoted a correct number, but he's missed the fact that Australia is generating a lot pf power from renewable sources, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been pointing this out to Gnatguy for some time now, but he seems to be incapable of processing the information, which doesn't say anything good about his own intelligence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That fact that he keeps on posting demonstrably wrong and misleading claims. even after they have been shown to be wrong, does suggest that he is remarkably stupid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Quite why burning a lot of coal might lower the national IQ escapes me. In a small and densely populated country like the UK it might generate enough air-pollution, like the London smogs, to damage the health of the population but we now know enough to minimise that effect, and Australia was never all that densely populated, even in the big cities. We do go in for urban sprawl.
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Sulphur dioxide gets washed out of the exhaust gasses from coal fired power stations, and has been since the 1970's
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
> > > > >
> > > > > This also reduces the amounts of other pollution that gets released. It's less of problem in a country like Australia with a low population density.
> > > > >
> > > > > American had more of a problem with lead pollution around highways from the lead tetra-ethyl added to gasoline as an antiknock agent. That too has gone away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do try harder to get up to date.
> > > >
> > > > No, YOU are the one who didn't know what emissions coal burning results in. Your "solution" is sending the pollution somewhere else, killing them instead of you. Low density doesn't mean ZERO DENSITY, fool:
> > >?
> > > > https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20worldwide%2C%20more,deaths%20were%20attributable%20to%20coal.
> > >
> > > Washing particulates out of chimney smoke doesn't send them anywhere else, and rain washes particulates out of the atmosphere in the same way.
> >
> > Washing particulates does NOTHING for mercury and lead gases emitted by the burning of coal.
> Mercury has small but finite vapour pressure at room temperature, and there are situations around chemistry laboratories where this can create a problem
>
> "Stock, Alfred (1933). The Hydrides of Boron and Silicon. New York: Cornell University Press."
>
> is a full bottle on the subject, and is listed in the references in my Ph..D. thesis. In real life there are enough sulphides around that any mercury vapor turns in to mercury sulphide, and isn't a threat.
>
> The mercury sulphide particles do get washed out of the atmosphere, and so do lead oxides and sulphides. Tetraethyl lead was much more of problem if you lives close to a motorway.
>
> > > When I was growing up in Tasmania the silver-lead-zinc mine in Queenstown, about a hundred miles south of where I lived, used to roast the ores close to the mine and the fumes used to poison the vegetation for a few miles around the mines They put scrubbers on the stacks while I was still in secondary school and when I went through the area with my wife around 2015 on a nostalgia trip the vegetation had entirely recovered. The ignoramus here is you.
> > Now we know where your dementia originated from.
> You've formed an ill-founded hypothesis about what might have caused a non-existent dementia epidemic.
>
> For you this constitutes evidence that lets you be totally confident about what is really going on. You'd have to be remarkably stupid to be that confident, but you are remarkably stupid. If you were right, Hannah Gadsby would have to be equally demented - she grew up in Smithton in Tasmania, which is about as far away from Queenstown as the town where I grew up some thirty years earlier.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Try again, Bozo, PM removal doesn't do the whole job (https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf):

"Plants that employ only PM controls experienced average HgT emission reductions ranging from 0 to 90 percent."