On 2/04/2024 12:24 am, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 00:25:14 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 31/03/2024 11:36 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:52:59 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/03/2024 12:15 pm, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
>>>>>>> hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
>>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
>>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
>>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>> CO2 and warming are both good,
>>>>
>>>> They aren't, but John Larkin is a gullible sucker for climate change
>>>> denial propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>> and the population will most likely
>>>>> peak and slowly decline.
>>>>
>>>> That's the prediction.
>>>>
>>>>> The catastrophists are always wrong.
>>>>
>>>> They have been so far. A proper catastrophe gets rid of both the
>>>> catastrophists and the people who are sceptical of their predictions, so
>>>> there isn't anybody around to mention that a catastrophist finally got
>>>> it right.
>>>
>>> But if their warnings are taken seriously and acted upon?
>>>
>>> The global cooling climate change proponents of the nineteen sixties and seventies saw
>>> government act to remove from their exhausts those chemicals and particulates that caused
>>> planetary cooling.
>>
>> There were no global cooling climate change proponents.
>
> Yes. There were.
>
> "On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article called, “The Cooling World,” in which
> writer and science editor, Peter Gwynne, described a significant chilling of the world’s
> climate, with evidence “accumulating so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to
> keep up with it.”"
> <https://fox59.com/news/national-world/what-climate-scientists-were-predicting-in-the-1970s/>

You are confusing alarmist twaddle - designed to attract the reader's
attention and get more of them to buy that copy of Newsweek - with some
sort of popular or widely held opinion. I was around then, and read one
or two of those sorts of articles, and didn't take them seriously, and
nobody else did either. I'd got my Ph.D. in chemistry by then, and had
actually met H.S. Johnson - he'd been the overseas examiner on my Ph.D.
thesis - so my opinion was tolerably well-informed.

> This prediction turned out to be baseless. Nevertheless, reducing sulphur in auto and
> coal plant emissions as well as reducing particulates has allowed more solar heating of
> the surface. Are there no effects from the change in oxides of nitrogen emissions?

https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview

lists seven direct greenhouse gases and four more that have indirect
effects. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a direct greenhouse gas and the nitrogen
oxides (No, N2O3 and NO2) have indirect effects.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney