Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events

Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>
>https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>
>Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.

The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
liars, FFS.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >
> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >
> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>
> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.

Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.

Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >
> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >
> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
> liars, FFS.

You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.

Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take

https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>> >
>> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>> >
>> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
>> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
>> liars, FFS.
>
>You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.
>
>Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take
>
>https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/

It's evil Exxon's fault that so many people drive cars. I assume that
you don't.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:37:53 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >> >
> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >> >
> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
> >> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
> >> liars, FFS.
> >
> >You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.
> >
> >Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take
> >
> >https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/
> It's evil Exxon's fault that so many people drive cars. I assume that
> you don't.

They did a LOT more than that. For one thing they conspired and succeeded in putting municipal trolleys out of business to force people into cars and buses. They lobbied for the subsidies that allowed trucks to put railway freight out of business. They've done everything possible to eliminate energy efficient transport of all kinds. They have had a hand in turning America into an sprawling wasteland of suburban development where a 25 mile one-way commute is more the norm than the exception.

>
>
>
> --
>
> John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
>
> The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>> >
>> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>> >
>> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>>
>> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.
>
>Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
>
>Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.
>
>Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.

Nothing whatsoever "unreliable" about - inter alia - the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Bill. And Lavoisier pretty much perfected the art of
accurate atmospheric composition determination *well over 100 years*
before the earliest figures Britannica quotes.
But just keep consulting your wonderful Wikipedia (which any fucking
idiot can edit) if it makes you feel better.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 12:37:53 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >> >
> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >> >
> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
> >> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
> >> liars, FFS.
> >
> >You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.
> >
> >Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take
> >
> >https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/
>
> It's evil Exxon's fault that so many people drive cars. I assume that you don't.

The car companies spent quite a bit to dismantle suburban transit systems - electrically powered trolley cars running on rails. They bought them up and replaced them with gasoline-powered buses, which weren't as fast or as reliable. It sold more cars and more gasoline.

Ralph Nader spelled it out in "Unsafe at any Speed". He was more interested in the evil antics of the car companies than those of the oil companies.

Exxon's approach to climate change was certainly evil - and still seems to be be. They promised to stop funding climate change denial propaganda, but it looks as if they kept on doing it - if a trifle more covertly.

Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:24:18 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >> >
> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >> >
> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> >>
> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.
> >
> >Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> >
> >Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.
> >
> >Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.
>
> Nothing whatsoever "unreliable" about - inter alia - the Encyclopaedia
> Britannica, Bill. And Lavoisier pretty much perfected the art of
> accurate atmospheric composition determination *well over 100 years*
> before the earliest figures Britannica quotes.

Wet way chemistry isn't great way of estimating the 300ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lavoisier wouldn't have had a hope of getting an accurate result.

Worse, the air that was getting sampled had very erratic CO2 levels. There's a reason that the CO2 sampling site is at the top of Mauna Loa - Keeling found that it was the only place where he could get stable and consistent CO2 levels. Australia now has a similar observatory on Cape Grim on the far north west coat of Tasmania, not all that far from where I grew up, because the prevailing wind from across the Indian ocean deliver a similarly consistent atmospheric composition.

> But just keep consulting your wonderful Wikipedia (which any fucking idiot can edit) if it makes you feel better.

You really are a twit. I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry , which is all about making these kinds of measurements, and I've known about them for a lot longer than Wikipedia has been around. I've also seen Lavoisier's lab equipment in the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Paris.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Arts_et_M%C3%A9tiers

They didn't look well-adapted for atmospheric analysis. But do keep on trying to pose as an expert. It shows up how very little you do understand.

You have ignored the point about the ice core data, which show the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels through about half a dozen ice ages and interglacials (from about 270 ppm during interglacials to about 180ppm during ice ages). It's now at 415 ppm and rising steadily. if your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover that, it's out of date.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.

Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 2:03:03 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.
>
> Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
> sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
> producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.

Electric cars are charged from the grid system, which generates its electricity on a large scale and with pretty high efficiency - a good deal higher than the average car, even the average diesel car. In Europe the waste heat from the generating station can be used for district heating, which is even better.

The misleading nonsense here is all yours. There's no stage in the process that's going to be even one order of magnitude less efficient than burning fossil carbon in a car engine. It's a fatuous claim, and only a complete idiot would be silly enough to make it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:24:18 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>> >> >
>> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>> >>
>> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.
>> >
>> >Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
>> >
>> >Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.
>> >
>> >Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.
>>
>> Nothing whatsoever "unreliable" about - inter alia - the Encyclopaedia
>> Britannica, Bill. And Lavoisier pretty much perfected the art of
>> accurate atmospheric composition determination *well over 100 years*
>> before the earliest figures Britannica quotes.
>
>Wet way chemistry isn't great way of estimating the 300ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lavoisier wouldn't have had a hope of getting an accurate result.
>
>Worse, the air that was getting sampled had very erratic CO2 levels. There's a reason that the CO2 sampling site is at the top of Mauna Loa - Keeling found that it was the only place where he could get stable and consistent CO2 levels. Australia now has a similar observatory on Cape Grim on the far north west coat of Tasmania, not all that far from where I grew up, because the prevailing wind from across the Indian ocean deliver a similarly consistent atmospheric composition.
>
>> But just keep consulting your wonderful Wikipedia (which any fucking idiot can edit) if it makes you feel better.
>
>You really are a twit. I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry , which is all about making these k.inds of measurements, and I've known about them for a lot longer than Wikipedia has been around. I've also seen Lavoisier's lab equipment in the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Paris.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Arts_et_M%C3%A9tiers

A work of art and a superb instrument for the quantative analysis of
gases. If Lavoisier hadn't been an aristocrat and extremely rich, he
could never have afforded to commission the building of it. As an
aside, what did the Communists do to him for all his trouble - despite
the fact he was on board with them ideologically? Cut his fucking head
off. That's the Communist mentality for you. The most brilliant
scientist of his age but it counted for nothing as far as they were
concerned. That's the very same mentality exhibited by the likes of
Antifa and BLM, incidentally

>
>They didn't look well-adapted for atmospheric analysis. But do keep on trying to pose as an expert. It shows up how very little you do understand.
>
>You have ignored the point about the ice core data, which show the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels through about half a dozen ice ages and interglacials (from about 270 ppm during interglacials to about 180ppm during ice ages). It's now at 415 ppm and rising steadily. if your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover that, it's out of date.

It's not just *one* copy of Britannica. I have the 1911, the 1985 and
the 2009 editions. Plus a shit ton of other respected encyclopedias
including - inter alia - the Americana. Plus over 400 chemistry books
from the late 1800s in digitised form on DVD ROMS. It's cost me plenty
in time, money and trouble to accumulate this lot and they all agree
on the salient point here: the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has
remained *constant* over the entire course of the 20th Century. All
the CO2 produced over the most polluting century in recorded history
has been absorbed by plant life in photosynthesis. It's a stable,
self-correcting process requiring no intervention by humans.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 2:03:03 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.
>>
>> Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
>> sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
>> producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.
>
>Electric cars are charged from the grid system, which generates its electricity on a large scale and with pretty high efficiency - a good deal higher than the average car, even the average diesel car. In Europe the waste heat from the generating station can be used for district heating, which is even better.
>
>The misleading nonsense here is all yours. There's no stage in the process that's going to be even one order of magnitude less efficient than burning fossil carbon in a car engine. It's a fatuous claim, and only a complete idiot would be silly enough to make it.

Garbage. Batteries are the weak link in electric vehicle development
and until there's a quantum leap in battery technology, no one with
any sense would buy an electric car as available today.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 07:47:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:37:53 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>> >> >
>> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
>> >> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
>> >> liars, FFS.
>> >
>> >You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.
>> >
>> >Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take
>> >
>> >https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/
>> It's evil Exxon's fault that so many people drive cars. I assume that
>> you don't.
>
>They did a LOT more than that. For one thing they conspired and succeeded in putting municipal trolleys out of business to force people into cars and buses. They lobbied for the subsidies that allowed trucks to put railway freight out of business. They've done everything possible to eliminate energy efficient transport of all kinds. They have had a hand in turning America into an sprawling wasteland of suburban development where a 25 mile one-way commute is more the norm than the exception.
>
>

In terms of fuel used per passenger-mile, cars are still the biggies.

Do you have a car? Do you drive it? Do you live in an urban center
with a walking distance commute? Do you have job to commute to?

My commute, by car, is about 8 minutes. If I took public transit, it
would take almost an hour each way.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:14:14 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 2:03:03 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.
> >>
> >> Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
> >> sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
> >> producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.
> >
> >Electric cars are charged from the grid system, which generates its electricity on a large scale and with pretty high efficiency - a good deal higher than the average car, even the average diesel car. In Europe the waste heat from the generating station can be used for district heating, which is even better.
> >
> >The misleading nonsense here is all yours. There's no stage in the process that's going to be even one order of magnitude less efficient than burning fossil carbon in a car engine. It's a fatuous claim, and only a complete idiot would be silly enough to make it.
>
> Garbage. Batteries are the weak link in electric vehicle development
> and until there's a quantum leap in battery technology, no one with
> any sense would buy an electric car as available today.

Lot's of people are buying electric cars today, and using them. Your idea of what might be "sensible" is bizarre and fatuous.

Batteries are getting better, mainly by surviving more charge-discharge cycles. Quite what a "quantum leap" in the technology might look like escapes me. Room temperature superconductors might offer a a different way of storing energy, but nobody seems to be hanging around waiting for that to happen..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:10:37 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 07:47:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:37:53 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 4:34:44 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> >> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW
> >> >> BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy
> >> >> liars, FFS.
> >> >
> >> >You have that completely backwards, it's the big multi-nationals who've made you into a dupe. As this situation worsens and people start really suffering, as well as realize their old world is gone forever and the new one is uninhabitable, there may be a very real danger of you getting lynched in the street.
> >> >
> >> >Big Oil’s lies about climate change—a climate scientist’s take
> >> >
> >> >https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/big-oils-lies-about-climate-change-a-climate-scientists-take/
> >> It's evil Exxon's fault that so many people drive cars. I assume that
> >> you don't.
> >
> >They did a LOT more than that. For one thing they conspired and succeeded in putting municipal trolleys out of business to force people into cars and buses. They lobbied for the subsidies that allowed trucks to put railway freight out of business. They've done everything possible to eliminate energy efficient transport of all kinds. They have had a hand in turning America into an sprawling wasteland of suburban development where a 25 mile one-way commute is more the norm than the exception.
> >
> >
> In terms of fuel used per passenger-mile, cars are still the biggies.
>
> Do you have a car? Do you drive it? Do you live in an urban center with a walking distance commute? Do you have job to commute to?
>
> My commute, by car, is about 8 minutes. If I took public transit, it would take almost an hour each way.

San Francisco had cable cars, once up on a time. It has hung onto one route for the tourists. Melbourne in Australia (where I went to university) once had one of the biggest cable car network in the world (which got going in 1885) but progressively replaced them with electric trams from about 1906. The process was completed in 1940, and the electric trams are still running between the CBD and the inner suburbs. There's also a metropolitan railway system.

If San Francisco hadn't been screwed over by the car companies you'd probably have much better public transport. BART is a metropolitan railway system, which is always a bit coarse-grained.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 11/07/2021 18:10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:24:18 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>>>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.
>>>>
>>>> Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.
>>>
>>> Nothing whatsoever "unreliable" about - inter alia - the Encyclopaedia
>>> Britannica, Bill. And Lavoisier pretty much perfected the art of
>>> accurate atmospheric composition determination *well over 100 years*
>>> before the earliest figures Britannica quotes.
>>
>> Wet way chemistry isn't great way of estimating the 300ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lavoisier wouldn't have had a hope of getting an accurate result.
>>
>> Worse, the air that was getting sampled had very erratic CO2 levels. There's a reason that the CO2 sampling site is at the top of Mauna Loa - Keeling found that it was the only place where he could get stable and consistent CO2 levels. Australia now has a similar observatory on Cape Grim on the far north west coat of Tasmania, not all that far from where I grew up, because the prevailing wind from across the Indian ocean deliver a similarly consistent atmospheric composition.
>>
>>> But just keep consulting your wonderful Wikipedia (which any fucking idiot can edit) if it makes you feel better.
>>
>> You really are a twit. I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry , which is all about making these k.inds of measurements, and I've known about them for a lot longer than Wikipedia has been around. I've also seen Lavoisier's lab equipment in the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Paris.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Arts_et_M%C3%A9tiers
>
> A work of art and a superb instrument for the quantative analysis of
> gases. If Lavoisier hadn't been an aristocrat and extremely rich, he
> could never have afforded to commission the building of it. As an
> aside, what did the Communists do to him for all his trouble - despite
> the fact he was on board with them ideologically? Cut his fucking head
> off. That's the Communist mentality for you. The most brilliant
> scientist of his age but it counted for nothing as far as they were
> concerned. That's the very same mentality exhibited by the likes of
> Antifa and BLM, incidentally
>
>>
>> They didn't look well-adapted for atmospheric analysis. But do keep on trying to pose as an expert. It shows up how very little you do understand.
>>
>> You have ignored the point about the ice core data, which show the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels through about half a dozen ice ages and interglacials (from about 270 ppm during interglacials to about 180ppm during ice ages). It's now at 415 ppm and rising steadily. if your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover that, it's out of date.
>
> It's not just *one* copy of Britannica. I have the 1911, the 1985 and
> the 2009 editions. Plus a shit ton of other respected encyclopedias
> including - inter alia - the Americana. Plus over 400 chemistry books
> from the late 1800s in digitised form on DVD ROMS. It's cost me plenty
> in time, money and trouble to accumulate this lot and they all agree
> on the salient point here: the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has
> remained *constant* over the entire course of the 20th Century. All
> the CO2 produced over the most polluting century in recorded history
> has been absorbed by plant life in photosynthesis. It's a stable,
> self-correcting process requiring no intervention by humans.

Have you considered publishing this data?

Most data on Global Warming is well published, like the ice core
samples. Many deniers seem to make lots of noise but provide no evidence.

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:10:47 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:24:18 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Article written a year ago explaining what is known about these jet stream blocks, which have been around quite a while but until recently were very rare.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Another recent article out of JPL describes their research on atmospheric aerosols as having an "outsized" effect on the formation of these blocks. Burning stuff does the most to release the atmospheric aerosols. This would mean the rampant wildfires in the west are exacerbating these anomalies.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Globalists have got you right where they want you with their AGW BS. Wake up to the fact you're being manipulated by a bunch of filthy liars, FFS.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, climate change denial is a propaganda exercise bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry (which actually exists unlike Cursitor Doom's mythical Globalists).
> >> >
> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
> >> >
> >> >Apparently the people who originally went into business to tell you that smoking wasn't dangerous to your health are now telling us that steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are making the surface of the earth warmer.
> >> >
> >> >Of course Cursitor Doom has found shockingly unreliable estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels from before 1900 which prove - to him - that CO2 levels aren't going up at all. The data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores doesn't support him, but since he's pig-ignorant he's happy to ignore it.
> >>
> >> Nothing whatsoever "unreliable" about - inter alia - the Encyclopaedia
> >> Britannica, Bill. And Lavoisier pretty much perfected the art of
> >> accurate atmospheric composition determination *well over 100 years*
> >> before the earliest figures Britannica quotes.
> >
> >Wet way chemistry isn't great way of estimating the 300ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lavoisier wouldn't have had a hope of getting an accurate result.
> >
> >Worse, the air that was getting sampled had very erratic CO2 levels. There's a reason that the CO2 sampling site is at the top of Mauna Loa - Keeling found that it was the only place where he could get stable and consistent CO2 levels. Australia now has a similar observatory on Cape Grim on the far north west coat of Tasmania, not all that far from where I grew up, because the prevailing wind from across the Indian ocean deliver a similarly consistent atmospheric composition.
> >
> >> But just keep consulting your wonderful Wikipedia (which any fucking idiot can edit) if it makes you feel better.
> >
> >You really are a twit. I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry , which is all about making these k.inds of measurements, and I've known about them for a lot longer than Wikipedia has been around. I've also seen Lavoisier's lab equipment in the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Paris.
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Arts_et_M%C3%A9tiers
>
> A work of art and a superb instrument for the quantitative analysis of
> gases.

The Museum as a whole isn't any kind of instrument. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

>If Lavoisier hadn't been an aristocrat and extremely rich, he
> could never have afforded to commission the building of it.

He was an aristocrat, but he was extremely rich because he was a tax collector. "Lavoisier was a powerful member of a number of aristocratic councils, and an administrator of the Ferme générale. The Ferme générale was one of the most hated components of the Ancien Régime because of the profits it took at the expense of the state, the secrecy of the terms of its contracts, and the violence of its armed agents."

> As an aside, what did the Communists do to him for all his trouble - despite
> the fact he was on board with them ideologically? Cut his fucking head
> off. That's the Communist mentality for you. The most brilliant
> scientist of his age but it counted for nothing as far as they were
> concerned. That's the very same mentality exhibited by the likes of
> Antifa and BLM, incidentally.

"On 24 November 1793, the arrest of all the former tax farmers was ordered. Lavoisier and the other Farmers General faced nine accusations of defrauding the state of money owed to it, and of adding water to tobacco before selling it."

The people who convicted and executed him weren't Communists. The term was used at the time, but it didn't mean what it does now. Today's Communists share Karl Marx's foolish ideas about "the leading role of the party" which got him slung out of the international socialist movement in 1871 on the preseient groudns that it would lead to tyranny.

> >They didn't look well-adapted for atmospheric analysis. But do keep on trying to pose as an expert. It shows up how very little you do understand.
> >
> >You have ignored the point about the ice core data, which show the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels through about half a dozen ice ages and interglacials (from about 270 ppm during interglacials to about 180ppm during ice ages). It's now at 415 ppm and rising steadily. if your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover that, it's out of date.
>
> It's not just *one* copy of Britannica. I have the 1911, the 1985 and
> the 2009 editions. Plus a shit ton of other respected encyclopedias
> including - inter alia - the Americana. Plus over 400 chemistry books
> from the late 1800s in digitised form on DVD ROMS. It's cost me plenty
> in time, money and trouble to accumulate this lot and they all agree
> on the salient point here: the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has
> remained *constant* over the entire course of the 20th Century.

They don't. There was atmospheric analysis data published before Keeling got going, but it wasn't taken seriously because the results were erratic and inconsistent, largely because the CO2 content of the air varies quite a bit from time to time and from place to place, Keeling had to stick his observatory way up Mauna Loa to get consistent results.

You may have all the data but you obviously don't know what it means.

> All the CO2 produced over the most polluting century in recorded history
> has been absorbed by plant life in photosynthesis. It's a stable,
> self-correcting process requiring no intervention by humans.

So why has the level going up smoothly and steadily since Keeling started taking reliable and stable measurements? In reality, about half the CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere has been dissolved in sea water - CO2 becomes less soluble in seawater as it's temperature rises, but we are pushing up the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere fast enough to beat this handily.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific Research Organisation has been making the same kind of measurement at Cape Grim on the extreme north west corner of Tasmania

https://blog.csiro.au/how-is-atmospheric-co2-measured-in-the-southern-hemisphere/

"There is a clear difference between levels of carbon dioxide measured in the Southern and Northern hemispheres, because industrial and other population-based sources of carbon dioxide emissions are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere."

It's about 411 ppm there and 415 ppm at Mauna Loa.

You really are a gibbering idiot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:43:25 +0100, Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com>
wrote:
>
>Have you considered publishing this data?

I don't think it would do any good, to be perfectly honest. No one
really gives a damn about evidence any more from what I've seen.
They've all made their minds up one way or the other already and many
of them flatly refuse to even consider anything which might challenge
their beliefs. It really is quite extraordinary. I was always taught
to keep an open mind on everything and I have always done so. I just
find the attitude on the part of those with closed minds utterly
unfathomable.

>Most data on Global Warming is well published, like the ice core
>samples. Many deniers seem to make lots of noise but provide no evidence.

I can't comment on what the "deniers" have claimed because I've not
read or listened to any of their statements. All I've seen and heard
is the 'official side' of things, which didn't quite add up, and a
load of unfocused noise from the opposition, which I didn't pay any
attention to for years until finally I had the time to look into the
matter thoroughly for myself. I've no idea what the 'deniers' claim
and I'm not claiming that the planet isn't warming. It might well be
for all I know. All I *am* asserting is that if there is any such
warming, it can't be attributed to rising CO2 levels because they
haven't risen one iota over the course of the most polluting century
in modern history.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:14:14 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 2:03:03 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.
>> >>
>> >> Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
>> >> sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
>> >> producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.
>> >
>> >Electric cars are charged from the grid system, which generates its electricity on a large scale and with pretty high efficiency - a good deal higher than the average car, even the average diesel car. In Europe the waste heat from the generating station can be used for district heating, which is even better.
>> >
>> >The misleading nonsense here is all yours. There's no stage in the process that's going to be even one order of magnitude less efficient than burning fossil carbon in a car engine. It's a fatuous claim, and only a complete idiot would be silly enough to make it.
>>
>> Garbage. Batteries are the weak link in electric vehicle development
>> and until there's a quantum leap in battery technology, no one with
>> any sense would buy an electric car as available today.
>
>Lot's of people are buying electric cars today, and using them. Your idea of what might be "sensible" is bizarre and fatuous.

I'm not one of those people ideologicaly wedded to internal combustion
engines. I would welcome electric vehicles with open arms if only the
energy storage issue could be overcome somehow. I don't see that
happening any time soon, though.

>
>Batteries are getting better, mainly by surviving more charge-discharge cycles. Quite what a "quantum leap" in the technology might look like escapes me. Room temperature superconductors might offer a a different way of storing energy, but nobody seems to be hanging around waiting for that to happen.

A battery that weighs no more that existing 12V car batteries AND
occupies no more volume AND can be manufactured and disposed of
without causing terrible environmental damage yet IS capable of
providing a range of 1000 miles AT LEAST. It'll come in time, I've no
doubt.

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 4:11:00 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:43:25 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Have you considered publishing this data?
> I don't think it would do any good, to be perfectly honest. No one
> really gives a damn about evidence any more from what I've seen.

None so blind as those that do not wish to see.
> They've all made their minds up one way or the other already and many
> of them flatly refuse to even consider anything which might challenge
> their beliefs.

Cursitor Doom thinks that we should al pay attention to the all-over-the-shop atmospheric CO2 levels measured before 1900 with the measurement technologuy then available and ignore the more recent measurements - those take after 1958 - which present a coherent story (if not the one he wants to believe).

> It really is quite extraordinary. I was always taught to keep an open mind on everything and I have always done so.

Rather more open to denialist propaganda than respectable scientific data. "Keeping an open mind" shouldn't involve ignoring all the data you don't like.

> I just find the attitude on the part of those with closed minds utterly unfathomable.

You mind isn't so much "open" as "gullible" and what you see as "closed" minds are merely less susceptible to the kind of nonsense you happen to find attractive.

> >Most data on Global Warming is well published, like the ice core samples.. Many deniers seem to make lots of noise but provide no evidence.
>
> I can't comment on what the "deniers" have claimed because I've not read or listened to any of their statements.

But you reproduce them very reliably. It looks as if you can't recognise denialist propaganda for what it is. It does claim to objective scientific opinion, and you have to be aware of what it ignores to realise that it is misleading propaganda.

>All I've seen and heard is the 'official side' of things, which didn't quite add up,

It does a assume a certain amount of scientific education, which you clearly haven't had.

> and a load of unfocused noise from the opposition, which I didn't pay any attention to for years until finally I had the time to look into the
matter thoroughly for myself.

If you haven't had any science education, scientific discussions about scientific observations may not be all that comprehensible and may not look "focussed" to you.

> I've no idea what the 'deniers' claim

Because you can't recognise them as deniers.

> and I'm not claiming that the planet isn't warming. It might well be for all I know.

It is. It hasn't warmed up much yet - perhaps one degree Celcius - and stuff like the El Nino/ La Nina alternation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation stick enough noise on the year by year averages that it wasn't obvious until the 1990's.

> All I *am* asserting is that if there is any such warming, it can't be attributed to rising CO2 levels because they haven't risen one iota over the course of the most polluting century in modern history.

By ignoring all the evidence that makes it blindingly obvious that they have.

This is essentially a particularly heroic conspiracy theory which claims that the Mauna Loa CO2 level observation that go back to 1958, and the Cape Grim observations (which go back to 1978) are all concocted to fit some Globalist conspiracy to cripple the fossil carbon extraction industry.

It's potty, but Cursitor Doom is nuts.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 4:16:25 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:14:14 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 2:03:03 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, but proper urban transport systems are a whole lot better than cars - for one thing you don't need to turn the central business district into a huge parking lot.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your usual misleading nonsense. Electric cars require battery power
> >> >> sources, which at present are orders of magnitude less efficient at
> >> >> producing energy than refined petroleum - or better yet: diesel.
> >> >
> >> >Electric cars are charged from the grid system, which generates its electricity on a large scale and with pretty high efficiency - a good deal higher than the average car, even the average diesel car. In Europe the waste heat from the generating station can be used for district heating, which is even better.
> >> >
> >> >The misleading nonsense here is all yours. There's no stage in the process that's going to be even one order of magnitude less efficient than burning fossil carbon in a car engine. It's a fatuous claim, and only a complete idiot would be silly enough to make it.
> >>
> >> Garbage. Batteries are the weak link in electric vehicle development
> >> and until there's a quantum leap in battery technology, no one with
> >> any sense would buy an electric car as available today.
> >
> >Lot's of people are buying electric cars today, and using them. Your idea of what might be "sensible" is bizarre and fatuous.
>
> I'm not one of those people ideologicaly wedded to internal combustion
> engines. I would welcome electric vehicles with open arms if only the
> energy storage issue could be overcome somehow. I don't see that
> happening any time soon, though.

Rick C doesn't seem to think that there any energy storage issue that stops his electric car doing what he wants it to do.
> >Batteries are getting better, mainly by surviving more charge-discharge cycles. Quite what a "quantum leap" in the technology might look like escapes me. Room temperature superconductors might offer a a different way of storing energy, but nobody seems to be hanging around waiting for that to happen.

> A battery that weighs no more that existing 12V car batteries AND occupies no more volume AND can be manufactured and disposed of without causing terrible environmental damage yet IS capable of providing a range of 1000 miles AT LEAST. It'll come in time, I've no doubt.

Lead acid cells are a problem to dispose of - they are recyclable, in that it is easy enough to concentrate and recover the dangerous lead.

Lithium-ion cells are less of a problem. Lithium is much less of an environmental risk that lead, and it too is well worth recovering to recycle.

The existing electric car batteries are bulkier than the lead acid cells you are used to, but they store a lot more energy. You don;t get quite as much range as you get from a gasoline tank of comparable volume, but a couple of hundred miles is good enough for all practical purposes.

Why you would think that a 1000 mile range is some sort irreducible minimum escapes me. Lot's people buy cars (including electric cars) that can't get that far between refueling stops. Back when my wife and I would drive down into France on holiday we'd stop to swap the driving every 200 miles or so, and fill up the car if it needed it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 4:11:00 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:43:25 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Have you considered publishing this data?
>> I don't think it would do any good, to be perfectly honest. No one
>> really gives a damn about evidence any more from what I've seen.
>
>None so blind as those that do not wish to see.
>
>> They've all made their minds up one way or the other already and many
>> of them flatly refuse to even consider anything which might challenge
>> their beliefs.
>
>Cursitor Doom thinks that we should al pay attention to the all-over-the-shop atmospheric CO2 levels measured before 1900 with the measurement technologuy then available and ignore the more recent measurements - those take after 1958 - which present a coherent story (if not the one he wants to believe).
>
>> It really is quite extraordinary. I was always taught to keep an open mind on everything and I have always done so.
>
>Rather more open to denialist propaganda than respectable scientific data. "Keeping an open mind" shouldn't involve ignoring all the data you don't like.
>
>> I just find the attitude on the part of those with closed minds utterly unfathomable.
>
>You mind isn't so much "open" as "gullible" and what you see as "closed" minds are merely less susceptible to the kind of nonsense you happen to find attractive.
>
>> >Most data on Global Warming is well published, like the ice core samples. Many deniers seem to make lots of noise but provide no evidence.
>>
>> I can't comment on what the "deniers" have claimed because I've not read or listened to any of their statements.
>
>But you reproduce them very reliably. It looks as if you can't recognise denialist propaganda for what it is. It does claim to objective scientific opinion, and you have to be aware of what it ignores to realise that it is misleading propaganda.
>
>>All I've seen and heard is the 'official side' of things, which didn't quite add up,
>
>It does a assume a certain amount of scientific education, which you clearly haven't had.
>
>> and a load of unfocused noise from the opposition, which I didn't pay any attention to for years until finally I had the time to look into the
>matter thoroughly for myself.
>
>If you haven't had any science education, scientific discussions about scientific observations may not be all that comprehensible and may not look "focussed" to you.
>
>> I've no idea what the 'deniers' claim
>
>Because you can't recognise them as deniers.
>
>> and I'm not claiming that the planet isn't warming. It might well be for all I know.
>
>It is. It hasn't warmed up much yet - perhaps one degree Celcius - and stuff like the El Nino/ La Nina alternation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation stick enough noise on the year by year averages that it wasn't obvious until the 1990's.
>
>> All I *am* asserting is that if there is any such warming, it can't be attributed to rising CO2 levels because they haven't risen one iota over the course of the most polluting century in modern history.
>
>By ignoring all the evidence that makes it blindingly obvious that they have.
>
>This is essentially a particularly heroic conspiracy theory which claims that the Mauna Loa CO2 level observation that go back to 1958, and the Cape Grim observations (which go back to 1978) are all concocted to fit some Globalist conspiracy to cripple the fossil carbon extraction industry.
>
>It's potty, but Cursitor Doom is nuts.

And so from the foregoing, ladies and gentlemen, we can see the utter
futility of posting evidence in the hope of convincing those on the
other side to change their views. We are living in a post-truth age
where assertions are treated as of equal value to documentary
evidence. Ergo, one might just as well make bald assertions instead of
citing evidence, and thereby save heaps of time.
--

Britain: do the right thing and hand Australia back to China.

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 8:46:35 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> And so from the foregoing, ladies and gentlemen, we can see the utter
> futility of posting evidence in the hope of convincing those on the
> other side to change their views.

But, I didn't see any posting of evidence, just a mention of Britannica.
No convincing occurred, but that doesn't show that posting
evidence is not convincing.

> We are living in a post-truth age
> where assertions are treated as of equal value to documentary
> evidence.

No, we aren't. I can recall quite a few assertions without evidence
that got challenged. "Stop the steal" being a case in point.
"Lab leak" is another.

> Ergo, one might just as well make bald assertions instead of
> citing evidence, and thereby save heaps of time.

s /save/waste/ and it makes more sense.

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 1:46:35 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 4:11:00 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:43:25 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Have you considered publishing this data?
> >> I don't think it would do any good, to be perfectly honest. No one
> >> really gives a damn about evidence any more from what I've seen.
> >
> >None so blind as those that do not wish to see.
> >
> >> They've all made their minds up one way or the other already and many
> >> of them flatly refuse to even consider anything which might challenge
> >> their beliefs.
> >
> >Cursitor Doom thinks that we should al pay attention to the all-over-the-shop atmospheric CO2 levels measured before 1900 with the measurement technologuy then available and ignore the more recent measurements - those take after 1958 - which present a coherent story (if not the one he wants to believe).
> >
> >> It really is quite extraordinary. I was always taught to keep an open mind on everything and I have always done so.
> >
> >Rather more open to denialist propaganda than respectable scientific data. "Keeping an open mind" shouldn't involve ignoring all the data you don't like.
> >
> >> I just find the attitude on the part of those with closed minds utterly unfathomable.
> >
> >You mind isn't so much "open" as "gullible" and what you see as "closed" minds are merely less susceptible to the kind of nonsense you happen to find attractive.
> >
> >> >Most data on Global Warming is well published, like the ice core samples. Many deniers seem to make lots of noise but provide no evidence.
> >>
> >> I can't comment on what the "deniers" have claimed because I've not read or listened to any of their statements.
> >
> >But you reproduce them very reliably. It looks as if you can't recognise denialist propaganda for what it is. It does claim to objective scientific opinion, and you have to be aware of what it ignores to realise that it is misleading propaganda.
> >
> >>All I've seen and heard is the 'official side' of things, which didn't quite add up,
> >
> >It does a assume a certain amount of scientific education, which you clearly haven't had.
> >
> >> and a load of unfocused noise from the opposition, which I didn't pay any attention to for years until finally I had the time to look into the
> >matter thoroughly for myself.
> >
> >If you haven't had any science education, scientific discussions about scientific observations may not be all that comprehensible and may not look "focussed" to you.
> >
> >> I've no idea what the 'deniers' claim
> >
> >Because you can't recognise them as deniers.
> >
> >> and I'm not claiming that the planet isn't warming. It might well be for all I know.
> >
> >It is. It hasn't warmed up much yet - perhaps one degree Celcius - and stuff like the El Nino/ La Nina alternation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation stick enough noise on the year by year averages that it wasn't obvious until the 1990's.
> >
> >> All I *am* asserting is that if there is any such warming, it can't be attributed to rising CO2 levels because they haven't risen one iota over the course of the most polluting century in modern history.
> >
> >By ignoring all the evidence that makes it blindingly obvious that they have.
> >
> >This is essentially a particularly heroic conspiracy theory which claims that the Mauna Loa CO2 level observation that go back to 1958, and the Cape Grim observations (which go back to 1978) are all concocted to fit some Globalist conspiracy to cripple the fossil carbon extraction industry.
> >
> >It's potty, but Cursitor Doom is nuts.
> And so from the foregoing, ladies and gentlemen, we can see the utter
> futility of posting evidence in the hope of convincing those on the
> other side to change their views.

Cursitor Doom hasn't posted any evidence at all. He has posted a claim that he has " not just *one* copy of Britannica. I have the 1911, the 1985 and
the 2009 editions. Plus a shit ton of other respected encyclopedias including - inter alia - the Americana. Plus over 400 chemistry books from the late 1800s in digitised form on DVD ROMS."

He has made it blindly obvious that he is incapable of understanding what they would have told him if he knew enough to read them with any insight, and he is happy to ignore the ice core data, which is a whole lot more informative.

> We are living in a post-truth age where assertions are treated as of equal value to documentary evidence.

Cursitor Doom is asserting that his bizarre collection of antique documents and his equally bizarre ideas about what they mean constitute the only sort of evidence that anybody should take seriously.

> Ergo, one might just as well make bald assertions instead of citing evidence, and thereby save heaps of time.

There's little point in citing evidence to "post-truth" crackpots.

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

is an introduction to whole lot of different detailed discussions. Cursitor Doom probably wouldn't understand any of them, and won't bother to look at any of them.

I found it educational, but the training I got as physical chemist did give me a flying start.

https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm#L_M085

does spell out what people were thinking when they wrote the documents that Cursitor Doom seems to be failing to understand, and why it didn't make all that much sense at the time, which is why nobody took it all that seriously back then. It took years of Keeling's reliable observations to get anybody to pay an serious attention to the subject, and about 0.65 degrees Celcius of global warming to get it to stick out of the random noise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney