[OT] Pointless bus/cycle lanes

[R D S]

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.

It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

[nightjar]

Post by R D S
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

It is a long way from being the shortest cycle lane:

https://road.cc/content/news/161081-uks-shortest-cycle-lane

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/498103/Britain-s-shortest-cycle-lane

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridgeshire-shortest-cycle-path-uk-14437415

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131575/Is-pointless-bike-lane-Britain-City-centre-cycling-path-just-8ft-long.html

[Graham Harrison]

Post by nightjar

Post by R D S
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

https://road.cc/content/news/161081-uks-shortest-cycle-lane
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/498103/Britain-s-shortest-cycle-lane
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridgeshire-shortest-cycle-path-uk-14437415
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131575/Is-pointless-bike-lane-Britain-City-centre-cycling-path-just-8ft-long.html

That's a really stupid design. If a driver opens the drivers door
without looking and there's a cyclist there an accident is inevitable.
This used to be a monthly posting:
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/
It seems to have dried up in February 2019 but if you scroll through
you'll find not just short but plain stupid (ymmv) cycle lanes.

This one shows a different element of stupidity:
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Graham Harrison
That's a really stupid design. If a driver opens the drivers door
without looking and there's a cyclist there an accident is inevitable.

Same for most rodads. It does not help the cyclist, or motorcyclist, byt
the driver is at fault, and an insurance claim should result.

[Graham Harrison]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:53:33 +0100, Chris Bacon

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Graham Harrison
That's a really stupid design. If a driver opens the drivers door
without looking and there's a cyclist there an accident is inevitable.

Same for most rodads. It does not help the cyclist, or motorcyclist, byt
the driver is at fault, and an insurance claim should result.

Indeed, but you might hope road "designers" would know and design out
the risk.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Graham Harrison
That's a really stupid design. If a driver opens the drivers door
without looking and there's a cyclist there an accident is inevitable.

Same for most rodads. It does not help the cyclist, or motorcyclist, byt
the driver is at fault, and an insurance claim should result.

Indeed, but you might hope road "designers" would know and design out
the risk.

Not convinced that it is even possible to do that without wasting lots of
the road space.

[Peeler]

"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

[R D S]

Indeed, there is one around here that's about 3 feet.

[Chris Bacon]

Post by R D S
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

They say it'll be extended. Hm. The best thing to be said for it may be
that "at least it makes people think about people on bikes". Is the road
one-way?

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by R D S
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes *me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

--

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are
common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion,and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experience."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

[Chris Bacon]

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385. That equates to less than 0.04% of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So over the course of the entire
20th century - the most polluting (by humans) in world history - the
level of CO2 has not increased by one iota. Everything we've spewed
out has been absorbed by plants and trees and a perfect balance has
been maintained. It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a
single penny piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures.
All we have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given.

The problem is that that book got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from
one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385.

They were all using the wrong number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration

Post by Cursitor Doom
That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So over the course of the entire 20th century - the most polluting (by
humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota.

Wrong.
Loading Image...

Post by Cursitor Doom
Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants
and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny
piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we
have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:44:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given.

The problem is that that book got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from
one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385.

They were all using the wrong number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration

Post by Cursitor Doom
That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So over the course of the entire 20th century - the most polluting (by
humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants
and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny
piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we
have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today.
You are too lazy to do any *proper* research. You think you can learn
all you need to know on any given subject just by looking it up on
Wikipedia! On a subject like this, that is a *hopeless* approach.
It is often said that there's no such thing as a free service and if a
service appears to be free, then YOU are the product. With Wikipedia,
it's much the same. You get easy and free access to a shit ton of
information. The catch, however, is that you go away believing what
you have read. The 'product' in this case is not YOU, but your
world-view. Your world-view gets influenced in a way Wikipedia's
backers' want and you go away doing exactly what you're doing above:
spreading their memes. That, my friend, is you YOU have been sold!

[Peeler]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:26:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:26:14 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given.

The problem is that that book got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from
one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385.

They were all using the wrong number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration

Post by Cursitor Doom
That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So over the course of the entire 20th century - the most polluting (by
humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants
and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny
piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we
have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today.

Nope.

Post by Cursitor Doom
You are too lazy to do any *proper* research.

Some book that is 120 years old is nothing even remotely like that.
Neither is any of these when researching atmospheric CO2 levels.
Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961).

Post by Cursitor Doom
You think you can learn all you need to know on any
given subject just by looking it up on Wikipedia!

Wrong, it's a handy source that has a good list of original sources
with stuff like the atmospheric CO2 levels actually measured.

Post by Cursitor Doom
On a subject like this, that is a *hopeless* approach.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Post by Cursitor Doom
It is often said that there's no such thing as a free service
and if a service appears to be free, then YOU are the
product. With Wikipedia, it's much the same. You
get easy and free access to a shit ton of information.

And you are free to read the cites provided. Which in this case
leaves authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961) for dead.

Post by Cursitor Doom
The catch, however, is that you go away believing what you have read.

Corse you never do anything like that, eh ?

Not for anything that actually matters, no! Wikipedia is fine if you
only want to know something banal like how many times ZaZa Gabor was
married or what daft names Beyonce and JayZee came up with for their
'orrible kids, but beyond that? No! Anyone can write for Wikipedia.
ANYONE.
--

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given.

The problem is that that book got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from
one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385.

They were all using the wrong number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration

Post by Cursitor Doom
That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So over the course of the entire 20th century - the most polluting (by
humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants
and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny
piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we
have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today.

Nope.

Post by Cursitor Doom
You are too lazy to do any *proper* research.

Some book that is 120 years old is nothing even remotely like that.
Neither is any of these when researching atmospheric CO2 levels.
Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961).

Post by Cursitor Doom
You think you can learn all you need to know on any
given subject just by looking it up on Wikipedia!

Wrong, it's a handy source that has a good list of original sources
with stuff like the atmospheric CO2 levels actually measured.

Post by Cursitor Doom
On a subject like this, that is a *hopeless* approach.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Post by Cursitor Doom
It is often said that there's no such thing as a free service
and if a service appears to be free, then YOU are the
product. With Wikipedia, it's much the same. You
get easy and free access to a shit ton of information.

And you are free to read the cites provided. Which in this case
leaves authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961) for dead.

Post by Cursitor Doom
The catch, however, is that you go away believing what you have read.

Corse you never do anything like that, eh ?

Not for anything that actually matters, no! Wikipedia is fine if you
only want to know something banal like how many times ZaZa Gabor was
married or what daft names Beyonce and JayZee came up with for their
'orrible kids, but beyond that? No! Anyone can write for Wikipedia.
ANYONE.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:26:14 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

Incidentally, would you be, by any remote chance, the same Rod Speed
described in this magazine article?

https://tinyurl.com/dxay72ca
--

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are
common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion,and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experience."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:44:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given.

The problem is that that book got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from
one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385.

They were all using the wrong number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration

Post by Cursitor Doom
That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So over the course of the entire 20th century - the most polluting (by
humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants
and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny
piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we
have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today.
You are too lazy to do any *proper* research.

If all your research is up to the standard of your research on electron
warming the rest of your quality, in depth research can only be bunk.

Of course, you're too lazy to post any information of "electron warming"
in respect of it's effect on climate.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today.
You are too lazy to do any *proper* research.

If all your research is up to the standard of your research on electron
warming the rest of your quality, in depth research can only be bunk.
Of course, you're too lazy to post any information of "electron warming"
in respect of it's effect on climate.

Doom's idea of research is to look for anything that agrees with his
views. All too common these days.

[Peeler]

"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Cursitor Doom
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient.

But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can
read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly
interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.

[Spike]

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient.

But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can
read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly
interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.

The CO2 levels in 1960 were just under 320ppm, whereas in the
interglacial of 300,000 years ago it was 300ppm [data from NOAA]. This
is interesting, as that interglacial was 3degC warmer than this one
[data from Vostok ice-cores], despite the lack of human activity.

No-one in 'climate science' seems to be looking at this, probably
because the funding for grants and travel lies elsewhere.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Spike

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient.

But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can
read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly
interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.

The CO2 levels in 1960 were just under 320ppm, whereas in the
interglacial of 300,000 years ago it was 300ppm [data from NOAA]. This
is interesting, as that interglacial was 3degC warmer than this one
[data from Vostok ice-cores], despite the lack of human activity.
No-one in 'climate science' seems to be looking at this, probably
because the funding for grants and travel lies elsewhere.

What it boils down to is that 'Climate Change' is a most convenient lie.
It justifies narrow elites getting support for huge transfers of wealth
from consumers to energy companies and the excuse for greater and
greater government control of everything.

[Spike]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient.

But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can
read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly
interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.

The CO2 levels in 1960 were just under 320ppm, whereas in the
interglacial of 300,000 years ago it was 300ppm [data from NOAA]. This
is interesting, as that interglacial was 3degC warmer than this one
[data from Vostok ice-cores], despite the lack of human activity.
No-one in 'climate science' seems to be looking at this, probably
because the funding for grants and travel lies elsewhere.

What it boils down to is that 'Climate Change' is a most convenient lie.
It justifies narrow elites getting support for huge transfers of wealth
from consumers to energy companies and the excuse for greater and
greater government control of everything.

Well, one has to wonder.

The Vostock ice-cores show that over the last 400,000 years the CO2
levels have varied between 190 and 295 ppm, rising from the minima only
some thousands of years after inter-glacial warming has taken place.

By a strange coincidence, we are now some thousands of years after the
end of the last glaciation, and CO2 levels are rising...

But business and governments can't let a good natural phenomenon go to
waste by not exploiting it to the fullest.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 12:46:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient.

But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can
read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly
interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.

The CO2 levels in 1960 were just under 320ppm, whereas in the
interglacial of 300,000 years ago it was 300ppm [data from NOAA]. This
is interesting, as that interglacial was 3degC warmer than this one
[data from Vostok ice-cores], despite the lack of human activity.
No-one in 'climate science' seems to be looking at this, probably
because the funding for grants and travel lies elsewhere.

What it boils down to is that 'Climate Change' is a most convenient lie.
It justifies narrow elites getting support for huge transfers of wealth
from consumers to energy companies and the excuse for greater and
greater government control of everything.

Worse than that. It's about greater *Global* control over everything.
Look at the organizations which set these so-called 'targets' for
countries to meet. They're all Globalist in nature. And the thing is,
no one questions their authority to impose these targets on the RotW
(IOW the West in practice). National governments just slavishly follow
in lock step to carry out the directives of these unaccountable
entities. Same with the WHO saying yesterday that London failed to
meet its targets for particulate and NO2 pollution. Plus of course,
this disturbing pronouncement from the WEF in my sig appended
herewith. Who the hell are these people?
--

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Another inconvenient truth....

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2021/10/september-turning/


"For the interior of the Antarctic continent, specifically the region
near the South Pole, the winter of 2021 was among the coldest on record.
At the National Science Foundation’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station,
temperatures for June, July, and August were 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1
degrees Fahrenheit) lower than the 1981-to-2010 average at -62.9 degrees
Celsius (-81.2 degrees Fahrenheit). This is the second coldest winter
(June-July-August months) on record, behind only 2004 in the 60-year
weather record at the South Pole Station. For the polar darkness period,
from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees
Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a *record for those months*."

Gosh. Is the BBC blasting this sensational climate news of "massive,
unprecedented" cooling, anywhere?

Thought not.

[Paul]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.

Loading Image...

The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.

Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Paul

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Paul

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites. Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful
documentaries and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's
freely available and so convenient for busy people to consume has to
be avoided. If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious
approach to uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject. You only
need to find sources for the years 1900 and 2000 - that's enough. Just
those two levels. That's all anyone really needs to know.

I see Greta Thunberg has singled Britain out as having a 'climate
debt' as she puts it. She claims that Britain owes the 3rd world a
much greater share of compensation than the RotW does because Britain
had a head-start with the Industrial Revolution. I no longer live in
the UK, so couldn't give a shit. I'll have a good laugh when you get
saddled with extra taxes to pay for all this bollocks because of your
laziness, ignorance and complacency. I'm trying to give you a heads-up
so you don't get suckered into this scam, but if you're happy to go
along with it and get fleeced, well, that's your financial funeral and
happily not my problem!
--

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Post by Cursitor Doom
You only need to find sources for the years 1900 and 2000 - that's
enough. Just those two levels. That's all anyone really needs to know.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:21:26 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Rod Speed]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.

Loading Image...
is.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:00:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty. It's only a few steps less
ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job. You believe it if you want,
though; it's not my problem what other people think so long as they're
given a factual counter argument (something that's totally absent in
the mainstream media).
--

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single
sentence: abolition of private property."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:00:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty.

The truth hurts when it doesn't fit your beliefs. Do you believe in
some mythical deity too?

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:13:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:00:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty. It's only a few steps less
ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job. You believe it if you want,
though; it's not my problem what other people think so long as they're
given a factual counter argument (something that's totally absent in
the mainstream media).

No, that graph is about right.

Well the last thing we need is an internecine argument, so let's just
agree to disagree on that particular point. The important thing is we
are both agreed that the measures being brought in will have *zero*
effect on climate and will cost everyone a *fortune* to comply with.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Cursitor Doom
Well the last thing we need is an internecine argument, so let's just
agree to disagree on that particular point. The important thing is we
are both agreed that the measures being brought in will have *zero*
effect on climate and will cost everyone a *fortune* to comply with.

Well, yes, that is the intention. Ruling elites want to enslave the
useless plebs.

Useless plebs delighted to be enslaved.

It will not end well.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:28:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Cursitor Doom
Well the last thing we need is an internecine argument, so let's just
agree to disagree on that particular point. The important thing is we
are both agreed that the measures being brought in will have *zero*
effect on climate and will cost everyone a *fortune* to comply with.

Well, yes, that is the intention. Ruling elites want to enslave the
useless plebs.
Useless plebs delighted to be enslaved.
It will not end well.

Well there does seem to be this incredible willingness on the part of
the victims to go along with it all. And those of us who challenge the
orthodoxy are attacked by those we are trying to help! Some ancient
Jewish sage observed the phenomenon 5000 years ago. I can't now recall
the exact quote, but it did sum up the absurd situation perfectly.
(I'm not Jewish, BTW, just in case Nomen Nesco or whatever his nym is
is reading this).

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 04:41:34 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty.

How odd that your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's only a few steps less ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job.
You believe it if you want, though;

Britannica clearly does.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
it's not my problem what other people think so long
as they're given a factual counter argument (something
that's totally absent in the mainstream media).

But your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
And states that the current CO2 level is well over 400ppm too.

What is it about referring to original *hard-copy* print sources for
meaningful research that you find so hard to comprehend?
Once again: you will get nowhere by clicking that mouse of yours.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty.

How odd that your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's only a few steps less ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job.
You believe it if you want, though;

Britannica clearly does.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
it's not my problem what other people think so long
as they're given a factual counter argument (something
that's totally absent in the mainstream media).

But your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
And states that the current CO2 level is well over 400ppm too.

What is it about referring to original *hard-copy* print sources
for meaningful research that you find so hard to comprehend?

Nothing. Waiting for you to take a photo of one that shows that
the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 level is less than 300ppm.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Once again: you will get nowhere by clicking that mouse of yours.

We are waiting for you to take a photo of one that shows that
the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 level is less than 300ppm.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:31:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 05:08:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps
more
than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

That is nothing even remotely like an authoritative
source for the atmospheric CO2 level.
https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyGalleryImages/1/864/co2_data_mlo.png
is.

That graph is a complete travesty.

How odd that your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
It's only a few steps less ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job.
You believe it if you want, though;

Britannica clearly does.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Post by Cursitor Doom
it's not my problem what other people think so long
as they're given a factual counter argument (something
that's totally absent in the mainstream media).

But your beloved Britannica cites it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
And states that the current CO2 level is well over 400ppm too.

What is it about referring to original *hard-copy* print sources
for meaningful research that you find so hard to comprehend?

Nothing. Waiting for you to take a photo of one that shows that
the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 level is less than 300ppm.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Once again: you will get nowhere by clicking that mouse of yours.

We are waiting for you to take a photo of one that shows that
the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 level is less than 300ppm.

You're attributing things to me that I never wrote, m8.

Nope. You are restating your lies repeatedly in this post alone.

All I've said is that my research proves that CO2 levels have been
at or around 380ppm over the course of the entire 20th century.
That's all I'm claiming.

You have in fact repeated your claim that CO2 levels
have not changed ONE IOTA in the 20th century, and
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
proves that that is a bare faced lie.
And that data is available in hard copy form with
the 20th century reports of that data as well.

I have no figures for anything since 2009 and I've never
claimed levels of anything less than 380ppm for any period.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim that all the hard copy
sources say that CO2 levels have not changed ONE IOTA
in the 20th century. That is a bare faced lie.

HTH.

Nope, as always.

Well, I see that once again you have entirely ignored my earlier 2
posts requesting further info on the question of your legitimate locus
standi here and clarificiation as to whether or not you are the troll
a reputable computer science magazine tried to warn everyone about.
Until such time as you answer that point, I think it's probably just
for the best if I merely append my sig file, so I don't waste further
time with the likes of you, pending receipt of the aforementioned
info.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:00:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Rod Speed]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.

Game. set and match, I believe.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:08:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online sources are
compromised and of next to no value. Clearly since the Britannica's
line has changed so abrupted to conform to the 'climate science'
narrative, it's publishers have caved in to Globalist pressure (which
seems inexorable, sadly).
You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere. Get down to the
library and consult the historical sources - THE *HARD COPY*
HISTORICAL SOURCES!
--

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:08:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online sources are
compromised and of next to no value. Clearly since the Britannica's
line has changed so abrupted to conform to the 'climate science'
narrative, it's publishers have caved in to Globalist pressure (which
seems inexorable, sadly).
You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere. Get down to the
library and consult the historical sources - THE *HARD COPY*
HISTORICAL SOURCES!

The historical sources don't exist, or you would have posted your
evidence on your own website. It is also well known that measurements at
ground level are variable and at best misleading.

Scanning hard copies is an easy process. But we know you won't because
you can't.

[Fredxx]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:08:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online sources are
compromised and of next to no value. Clearly since the Britannica's
line has changed so abrupted to conform to the 'climate science'
narrative, it's publishers have caved in to Globalist pressure (which
seems inexorable, sadly).
You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere. Get down to the
library and consult the historical sources - THE *HARD COPY*
HISTORICAL SOURCES!

The historical sources don't exist, or you would have posted your
evidence on your own website. It is also well known that measurements at
ground level are variable and at best misleading.
Scanning hard copies is an easy process. But we know you won't because
you can't.

Ah, there you go. I knew that was coming. Yet you wonder why I won't
bother furnishing you with evidence!

No, I do not wonder. I know you can't provide the evidence.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:08:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online sources are
compromised and of next to no value. Clearly since the Britannica's
line has changed so abrupted to conform to the 'climate science'
narrative, it's publishers have caved in to Globalist pressure (which
seems inexorable, sadly).
You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere. Get down to the
library and consult the historical sources - THE *HARD COPY*
HISTORICAL SOURCES!

The historical sources don't exist, or you would have posted your
evidence on your own website. It is also well known that measurements at
ground level are variable and at best misleading.
Scanning hard copies is an easy process. But we know you won't because
you can't.

Ah, there you go. I knew that was coming. Yet you wonder why I won't
bother furnishing you with evidence!

No, I do not wonder. I know you can't provide the evidence.

Congrats on making that breakthrough. You can now stop asking for
something you know for sure in your own mind I can't provide. Glad we
finally got that settled.
--

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online
sources are compromised and of next to no value.

But that is YOUR source of the lie
that CO2 levels have not changed.

You haven't been able to provide even a single viable cite
that shows that the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels are
still at the 300ppm level that they were before 1950.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Clearly since the Britannica's line has changed so abrupted
to conform to the 'climate science' narrative,

In fact they realised that the 2009 edition of the Britannica
was wrong about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Post by Cursitor Doom
it's publishers have caved in to Globalist
pressure (which seems inexorable, sadly).
You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere.
Get down to the library and consult the historical
sources - THE *HARD COPY* HISTORICAL SOURCES!

That clearly didn't work for you with Britannica.

Britannica hasn't had a HARD COPY edition for 10 years now
so is well out of date. That nasa chart is there in plenty of
hard copy in the best librarys. And you wont find even a
single viable hard copy that claims that the current CO2
level is below 300ppm.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:02:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online
sources are compromised and of next to no value.

But that is YOUR source of the lie
that CO2 levels have not changed.

The CO2 levels over the course of the 20th Century have not changed
one iota; Britannica's editorial policy clearly has since it moved
online, however.

Post by Rod Speed
You haven't been able to provide even a single viable cite
that shows that the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels are
still at the 300ppm level that they were before 1950.

The CURRENT levels are of no consquence! All my studies concern the
levels of CO2 over the course of the 20th Century for the simple
reason that it has been the most polluting (by mankind) in world
history. And I've never claimed levels were anywhere near 300ppm. Do
try to get your facts right.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom
Clearly since the Britannica's line has changed so abrupted
to conform to the 'climate science' narrative,

In fact they realised that the 2009 edition of the Britannica
was wrong about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

LOL! Seriously I did have to laugh out loud at that comment. That is
*your* interpretation of events and certainly not mine.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online
sources are compromised and of next to no value.

But that is YOUR source of the lie
that CO2 levels have not changed.

The CO2 levels over the course of the 20th
Century have not changed one iota;

Then you wont have any difficulty taking a
photo of the hard copy page that shows that.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Britannica's editorial policy clearly
has since it moved online, however.

They in fact noticed that their 2009 edition got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed
You haven't been able to provide even a single viable cite
that shows that the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels are
still at the 300ppm level that they were before 1950.

The CURRENT levels are of no consquence!

Of course they are when you pig ignorantly claim that atmospheric CO2
levels have not changed one iota since the start of the 20th century.

Post by Cursitor Doom
All my studies concern the levels of CO2 over the course
of the 20th Century for the simple reason that it has
been the most polluting (by mankind) in world history.

Pity that you lie when you claim that

Post by Cursitor Doom
The CO2 levels over the course of the 20th
Century have not changed one iota;
And I've never claimed levels were anywhere near 300ppm.

That's what they were in 1900.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Do try to get your facts right.

I'm doing that fine thanks.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom
Clearly since the Britannica's line has changed so abrupted
to conform to the 'climate science' narrative,

In fact they realised that the 2009 edition of the Britannica
was wrong about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

LOL! Seriously I did have to laugh out loud at that comment.
That is *your* interpretation of events

Nope, that's a fact.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Post by Cursitor Doom
and certainly not mine.

No news.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:09:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:09:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Paul

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject

Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the
right hand end of the graph go away.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The warming is obviously caused by gnat farts. A gnat told me that.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers
from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global
temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their
Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers,
they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth
and include those in the arithmetic too.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous
Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can
as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any
really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some
websites.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries
and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available
and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided.
If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to
uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you
will get nowhere.

So where are you getting the data on the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere
?

Post by Cursitor Doom
No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're
within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and
fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject.

None of those give you the CURRENT CO2 level in the atmosphere.

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source
is the 2009 edition of the Britannica.

Pity about
https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had
reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least
800,000 years according to ice core measurements and may be the
highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of
evidence.
Game. set and match, I believe.

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online
sources are compromised and of next to no value.

But that is YOUR source of the lie
that CO2 levels have not changed.

The CO2 levels over the course of the 20th
Century have not changed one iota;

Then you wont have any difficulty taking a
photo of the hard copy page that shows that.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Britannica's editorial policy clearly
has since it moved online, however.

They in fact noticed that their 2009 edition got it wrong.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed
You haven't been able to provide even a single viable cite
that shows that the CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels are
still at the 300ppm level that they were before 1950.

The CURRENT levels are of no consquence!

Of course they are when you pig ignorantly claim that atmospheric CO2
levels have not changed one iota since the start of the 20th century.

Post by Cursitor Doom
All my studies concern the levels of CO2 over the course
of the 20th Century for the simple reason that it has
been the most polluting (by mankind) in world history.

Pity that you lie when you claim that

Post by Cursitor Doom
The CO2 levels over the course of the 20th
Century have not changed one iota;
And I've never claimed levels were anywhere near 300ppm.

That's what they were in 1900.

Post by Cursitor Doom
Do try to get your facts right.

I'm doing that fine thanks.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Cursitor Doom
Clearly since the Britannica's line has changed so abrupted
to conform to the 'climate science' narrative,

In fact they realised that the 2009 edition of the Britannica
was wrong about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

LOL! Seriously I did have to laugh out loud at that comment.
That is *your* interpretation of events

Nope, that's a fact.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Post by Cursitor Doom
and certainly not mine.

No news.

You still haven't addressed the question I posed earlier. I'll
re-quote it here for you to answer:

"Incidentally, would you be, by any remote chance, the same Rod Speed
described in this magazine article?"

https://tinyurl.com/dxay72ca

Please address the question.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:08:59 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[newshound]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bacon

whatever is causing the warming it ISNT CO2.

Oh dear. All these scientists, meteorologists, climatologists,
geologists etc. must be completely wrong, than. Thanks for that
reasssurance.

Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than
most.

Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject
than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you
may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually
the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in
passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone
pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one
old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to
look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story
short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy,
plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200
years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete
sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica,
(1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the
British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and
studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something
I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These
many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a
dozen parts per million: ~385. That equates to less than 0.04% of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So over the course of the entire
20th century - the most polluting (by humans) in world history - the
level of CO2 has not increased by one iota. Everything we've spewed
out has been absorbed by plants and trees and a perfect balance has
been maintained. It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a
single penny piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures.
All we have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees.
That's all.

Remind me, exactly what is wrong with the Hawaii data set?

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:05:31 +0100, newshound

Post by newshound
Remind me, exactly what is wrong with the Hawaii data set?
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Basically it conflicts with the historical print sources. It shows an
increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 over the period covered. Now, my
figures only go up to 2009 so I've never claimed I have up to date
stats for the levels (but that's of no concern to me anyway). My
print sources - ALL of them - clearly show NO increase in CO2 between
1960 and 2009. None whatsoever. In fact levels have remained at
~385ppm since at least 1898. Given this covers the most polluting
perioid on world history, any reasoning person might conclude that any
warming the planet may be going through has nothing whatever to do
with CO2 levels.
HTH.
--

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[Rod Speed]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:05:31 +0100, newshound

Post by newshound
Remind me, exactly what is wrong with the Hawaii data set?
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Basically it conflicts with the historical print sources. It shows an
increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 over the period covered. Now,
my figures only go up to 2009 so I've never claimed I have up to
date stats for the levels (but that's of no concern to me anyway).
My print sources - ALL of them - clearly show NO increase in
CO2 between 1960 and 2009. None whatsoever.

Odd that you can't actually cite any that say anything like
that. And we can check your claim using google.books
because it has scanned ALL of them.

Post by Cursitor Doom
In fact levels have remained at ~385ppm since at least 1898.

Another bare faced lie.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:14:59 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Cursitor Doom
Basically it conflicts with the historical print sources. It shows an
increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 over the period covered. Now, my
figures only go up to 2009 so I've never claimed I have up to date
stats for the levels (but that's of no concern to me anyway). My
print sources - ALL of them - clearly show NO increase in CO2 between
1960 and 2009. None whatsoever. In fact levels have remained at
~385ppm since at least 1898. Given this covers the most polluting
perioid on world history, any reasoning person might conclude that any
warming the planet may be going through has nothing whatever to do
with CO2 levels.

But you said the greenhouse effect does not even exist, so why are you
blathering 'bout CO2 levels? They can mean nothing!!!

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:08:14 +0100, Chris Bacon

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom
Basically it conflicts with the historical print sources. It shows an
increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 over the period covered. Now, my
figures only go up to 2009 so I've never claimed I have up to date
stats for the levels (but that's of no concern to me anyway). My
print sources - ALL of them - clearly show NO increase in CO2 between
1960 and 2009. None whatsoever. In fact levels have remained at
~385ppm since at least 1898. Given this covers the most polluting
perioid on world history, any reasoning person might conclude that any
warming the planet may be going through has nothing whatever to do
with CO2 levels.

But you said the greenhouse effect does not even exist, so why are you
blathering 'bout CO2 levels? They can mean nothing!!!

Well duh. Others aren't so well informed I'm afraid.

[The Natural Philosopher]

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.

Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century." If
true, then the situation has only become much worse since that paper
was published. I don't know if the BBC world service is still going
today, but when it operated out of Ashdown Forest in Sussex back in
the day, it's main transmitter put out 600kW (that's 600kW out from
1MW DC input). Sounds a lot? It's actually pretty small beer compared
to the competition and the situation is far worse nowadays given the
explosion in the number of channels and other uses of RF energy.
If the author was correct, it's easy to see how an unholy alliance of
broadcasters and politicians would be desperate to blame warming on
something esle to deflect criticism away from themselves. I must look
into it when time permits....

--

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.

It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.

By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

[Fredxx]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

I was aware that if you burned all the fossil fuels we use in a year,
the energy would be equivalent to 1 second of sunlight falling on the
Earth. Transmitters would be many orders below this.

Having said that I am aware that powerful transmitters can create plasma
in the ionosphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater

Post by Roger Hayter
If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

I was being generous to CD. In the case of the earth's rotation the main
slow down is due to the moon.

[Pancho]

Post by Fredxx
I was aware that if you burned all the fossil fuels we use in a year,
the energy would be equivalent to 1 second of sunlight falling on the
Earth. Transmitters would be many orders below this.

I very much doubt that. If it were true we would be able to power the
world with less than 1km of photovoltaic cells.

[Fredxx]

Post by Pancho

Post by Fredxx
I was aware that if you burned all the fossil fuels we use in a year,
the energy would be equivalent to 1 second of sunlight falling on the
Earth. Transmitters would be many orders below this.

I very much doubt that. If it were true we would be able to power the
world with less than 1km of photovoltaic cells.

Apologies, you're right, it's one hour.

173,000 terawatts of solar energy strikes the Earth, 10,000 times our
average energy use.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule. In any case, it *cannot* be
CO2. Unfortunately, people like you who are too stupid to realise it
cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence. You exhibit the
characteristic of willful ignorance outstandingly well.
--

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule. In any case, it *cannot* be
CO2. Unfortunately, people like you who are too stupid to realise it
cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence. You exhibit the
characteristic of willful ignorance outstandingly well.

Oh dear, that silly old chap Fourier, nearly two hundred years ago, and
that ridiculous old duffer Tyndall, 160 years ago, plus all the silly,
silly scientists and experimenters AND all the previously mentioned
meteorologists, climatologists, geologists etc. must be completely wrong
*again*, then! Tut tut! Thanks for that further reasssurance.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:22:05 +0100, Chris Bacon

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule. In any case, it *cannot* be
CO2. Unfortunately, people like you who are too stupid to realise it
cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence. You exhibit the
characteristic of willful ignorance outstandingly well.

Oh dear, that silly old chap Fourier, nearly two hundred years ago, and
that ridiculous old duffer Tyndall, 160 years ago, plus all the silly,
silly scientists and experimenters AND all the previously mentioned
meteorologists, climatologists, geologists etc. must be completely wrong
*again*, then! Tut tut! Thanks for that further reasssurance.

The fact that you're clearly ignorant of Lavoisier's *outstanding*
work of 230 years ago flags up one incontrovertible truth: YOU are a
MORON.
--

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single
sentence: abolition of private property."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:22:05 +0100, Chris Bacon

Post by Chris Bacon

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule. In any case, it *cannot* be
CO2. Unfortunately, people like you who are too stupid to realise it
cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence. You exhibit the
characteristic of willful ignorance outstandingly well.

Oh dear, that silly old chap Fourier, nearly two hundred years ago, and
that ridiculous old duffer Tyndall, 160 years ago, plus all the silly,
silly scientists and experimenters AND all the previously mentioned
meteorologists, climatologists, geologists etc. must be completely wrong
*again*, then! Tut tut! Thanks for that further reasssurance.

The fact that you're clearly ignorant of Lavoisier's *outstanding*
work of 230 years ago flags up one incontrovertible truth: YOU are a
MORON.

Oh, I'm so glad what that presumably also silly, if indeed not moronic,
as you say, scientist is helpful! Excellent! More, please! This is fun!

[Tim+]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule.

Yeah, “Electron warming”.

Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new “theory”.

Tim

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule.

Yeah, “Electron warming”.
Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new “theory”.

The timeline debunks your suggestion, I'm afraid.

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Tim+

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule.

Yeah, “Electron warming”.
Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new “theory”.

The timeline debunks your suggestion, I'm afraid.

Once again I'll post this:

I've not seen any reference to "Electron warming" associated with
climate. I have seen "electron warming models" but they've been in
respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.

It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.

By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule.

Yeah, “Electron warming”.
Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new “theory”.

The timeline debunks your suggestion, I'm afraid.

I've not seen any reference to "Electron warming" associated with
climate. I have seen "electron warming models" but they've been in
respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

I'll say this once more: just do what you did last time and pretend
you've seen the evidence, it's rubbish and save me the bother.
--

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Tim+

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

A moment's consideration leads me to believe that the back-of-envelope
calculation to show that all the transmitters in the world have many orders of
magnitude too little power to have any such effect is just not worth the
pencil and envelope involved.

If I said I saw an academic paper in the Reader's Digest showing that the
habit of honey bees to aways fly clockwise in the Northern hemisphere is
tending to slow down the Earth's rotation, would anyone care to rebut it?

Electron warming seems a far more plausible explanation than the
mechanism attributed to the CO2 molecule.

Yeah, “Electron warming”.
Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new “theory”.

The timeline debunks your suggestion, I'm afraid.

I've not seen any reference to "Electron warming" associated with
climate. I have seen "electron warming models" but they've been in
respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

I'll say this once more: just do what you did last time and pretend
you've seen the evidence, it's rubbish and save me the bother.

I'll say this once more, I've not seen any reference to "Electron
warming" associated with climate. I have seen "electron warming models"
but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.

It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.

By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me,
once more I would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

Just claim you've already seen it, it's rubbish and save me the
bother.
--

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me* puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

Just claim you've already seen it, it's rubbish and save me the
bother.

Any claim it exists can only be exists. Is this your way of confirming
it doesn't?

[Fredxx]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me*  puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL  FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

Just claim you've already seen it, it's rubbish and save me the
bother.

Any claim it exists can only be ******.  Is this your way of confirming

^^^^^^
rubbish

it doesn't?

[Chris Bacon]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Fredxx

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

All this crap about carbon dioxide makes*me*  puke. All this BS about
phasing out gas boilers, upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps,
higher taxes etc etc and ALL  FOR NOTHING - whatever is causing the
warming it ISNT CO2.

Now we have to convince another 30 million people...all of whom think
they have been fearfully smart in 'understanding' climate change by
reading about it in the guardian and on the BBC.
Ain't gonna happen, at best we can maybe convince them that it's a lot
less bad than they have been told, and windymills and sun worshipping
panels are not really a cost effective way of addressing it.

I came across an academic paper dating from over 40 years ago, before
this all became so intensely political. Therein it was stated that
increases in global temperatures were attributable to "electron
warming in the ionosphere caused by the significant increase in high
power broadcast transmissions over the previous half-century."

I've not seen any reference to this. I have seen "electron warming
models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.
It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.
By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I
would happily eat humble pie.

Just claim you've already seen it, it's rubbish and save me the
bother.

Any claim it exists can only be exists.  Is this your way of confirming
it doesn't?

Oh, no, please don't. Th OP above is clearly a person with a mighty good
edjumacation, probably good enough to nearly become a scientist!!!!
Well, to talk about them, anyway. I can't wait forthe next thrilling
installment, can you? He (or she) is a great turn! Fantastic!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You simply wouldn't believe the nonsense round here.

High Steet. Standard Victorian about 4 vehicles wide. Now has fenced off
cycle lanes in both directions reducing the road to one vehicle width in
each direction. Buses now stop in that one lane - and passengers have to
cross that cycle lane to get on or off. Gawd knows how deliveries are made
to the shops all along it.

The largest South London hospital is just off this street. Meaning lots of
ambulances use it. And nowhere for traffic to pull in to let them past.

Post by R D S
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes, there's
not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

[JNugent]

<https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182>

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by R D S
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes,
there's not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and
there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

You simply wouldn't believe the nonsense round here.
High Steet. Standard Victorian about 4 vehicles wide. Now has fenced off
cycle lanes in both directions reducing the road to one vehicle width in
each direction. Buses now stop in that one lane - and passengers have to
cross that cycle lane to get on or off. Gawd knows how deliveries are made
to the shops all along it.
The largest South London hospital is just off this street. Meaning lots of
ambulances use it. And nowhere for traffic to pull in to let them past.

London, innit?

I'm afraid it's only too believable.

You need to vote for someone else next time.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by JNugent
<https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182>

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by R D S
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes,
there's not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and
there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

You simply wouldn't believe the nonsense round here.
High Steet. Standard Victorian about 4 vehicles wide. Now has fenced off
cycle lanes in both directions reducing the road to one vehicle width in
each direction. Buses now stop in that one lane - and passengers have to
cross that cycle lane to get on or off. Gawd knows how deliveries are made
to the shops all along it.
The largest South London hospital is just off this street. Meaning lots of
ambulances use it. And nowhere for traffic to pull in to let them past.

London, innit?
I'm afraid it's only too believable.
You need to vote for someone else next time.

Wandsworth council were one of the first to introduce LTNs. Been blue for
longer than most remember.

BoJo, the previous mayor, is all in favour of even more cycle lanes.

[JNugent]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by JNugent
<https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/darwen-cycle-lane-could-most-21892182>

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by R D S
The road was closed for a while and afterwards I was baffled by this
short strip of cycle lane. And i'm not alone it seems.
There is much of this locally, it's the same with the bus lanes,
there's not really room so we just have sketchy bits dotted here and
there.
It might work in a city and if so i'm all for it but it doesn't in a
town like ours, and I presume it's part of a box ticking exercise
necessary for getting road repairs done.
The way there's "no money for this/that...." it makes my piss boil.

You simply wouldn't believe the nonsense round here.
High Steet. Standard Victorian about 4 vehicles wide. Now has fenced off
cycle lanes in both directions reducing the road to one vehicle width in
each direction. Buses now stop in that one lane - and passengers have to
cross that cycle lane to get on or off. Gawd knows how deliveries are made
to the shops all along it.
The largest South London hospital is just off this street. Meaning lots of
ambulances use it. And nowhere for traffic to pull in to let them past.

London, innit?
I'm afraid it's only too believable.
You need to vote for someone else next time.

Wandsworth council were one of the first to introduce LTNs. Been blue for
longer than most remember.
BoJo, the previous mayor, is all in favour of even more cycle lanes.

Both of them need to have the difficulties brought to their attention.

[JNugent]

Post by JNugent

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by JNugent
London, innit?
I'm afraid it's only too believable.
You need to vote for someone else next time.

Wandsworth council were one of the first to introduce LTNs. Been blue for
longer than most remember.
BoJo, the previous mayor, is all in favour of even more cycle lanes.

Both of them need to have the difficulties brought to their attention.

The candidate the Tories put up against Khan at the last election was
extremely poor.

But not dedicated to impoverishing the people and making their lives as
inconvenient as possible.