On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 1:40:21 AM UTC-8, Spike wrote:

> The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes in
> CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.

Yes, greenhouse effect.

> The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on
> the subject, he uses work previously published by Lambert, who found an
> empirical relationship between the two. This empirical relationship has
> never been proved, it was merely a convenience employed by Lambert.

We have complete thermodynamic understanding of radiative heat transfer
in gasses that yields that relationship, and laboratory and field (space
observations) to back it up. There's no hiding the effect by claiming
Lambert was somehow at fault.

> You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a
> footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted ...

because it isn't an important foundation element, just an historic footnote

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:40:14 +1100, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>
>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
>> and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
>> 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give
>> or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and
>> the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get
>> named unto the 1990s).
>
>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>
> The whole of the CO2 hypothesis rests on a relationship between changes
> in
> CO2 concentrations and the resulting changes in temperature.
>
> The relationship is credited to Arrhenius, but when you read his paper on
> the subject, he uses work previously published by Lambert, who found an
> empirical relationship between the two. This empirical relationship has
> never been proved,

In fact it has been proved to be a dud with the change in temperature
nothing like the change in atmospheric CO2 level.

> it was merely a convenience employed by Lambert.

> You can find the relationship in IPCC documents, but it is buried in a
> footnote in a research paper, and is never quoted in documents published
> for either decision makers or the general public.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 03:47:10 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
MrTurnip@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>
>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>
>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>> unto the 1990s).
>
>He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
>increased at all because some antique book he has
>claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
>
>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?

On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>
>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>
>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>> half-baked hypothesis.
>
> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>
> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>

There's a demo available on Venus.

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

"These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"

"Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"

"The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
hotter than Mercury's, which has min −220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
on Earth."

Paul

On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 4:59:33 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> >>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> >>>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

> Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
> Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?

Cursitor Doom imagines that anybody who disagrees with him is ignorant. In fact anybody who can agree with him has to be ignorant.

He imagines that this disagreement is unkind to the point of being rude. In reality he rejects correction and makes snide remarks to the effect that he is a superior person, which evoke justifiably rude responses.

Australians do tend to be quite as direct as the Dutch, while the English are prepared to waste time being diplomatic. If Cursitor Doom ever made a useful contribution here he might get treated more politely, but he's in the same category as Darius the Dumb, Skybuck Flying, Comander Kinsey. and the unlamented Flyguy.

If we treat him unkindly enough, he may go away. It hasn't happened yet, but persistence is a virtue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 04:59:23 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff,
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if
>>>> it's
>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>
>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2
>>> levels
>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
>>> and
>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
>>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>>> unto the 1990s).
>>
>> He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
>> increased at all because some antique book he has
>> claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
>>
>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>
> Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
> Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 05:27:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 18:26:23 -0800, John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2024/02/01 1:13 p.m., john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:51:09 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:37:53?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:48:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:36?AM UTC-8, Custos Custodum wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>> game away.
>>>>>> ITYM "in the open spaces near (FSVO "near") runways". What's
>>>>>> preposterous about that? What do you suppose happens to hot exhaust
>>>>>> gases from aircraft engines? Think physics. Take your time now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hot gasses are low density, they rise. Lateral winds at ground level replace them,
>>>>> pulling surrounding ambient temperature air past temperature monitoring stations near ground level.
>>>
>>>> A jet engine will blow the layer of hot air, right above the paved
>>>> runway, into a nearby weather station. And add its own super-hot air.
>>>
>>> Problem one: jet engines don't have will, don't aim at weather stations.
>>> Problem two: weather stations aren't reporting every millisecond, they're
>>> polled a few times per day; the hot gust would have to be coincident in time (unlikely).
>>> Problem three: there's multiple stations in most metropolitan areas, and if one of 'em
>>> varies significantly from the others, its values are discounted at
>>> data-collection time.
>>>
>>>> The official weather station in Truckee is located at the edge of a
>>>> couple of runways. In the summer it's always hotter than the dozens of
>>>> nearby sensors, including my own carefully calibrated RTDs.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but that means (problem three above) it isn't going unnoticed. The
>>> 'carefully calibrated' RTDs you've described in the past, are sited under shade
>>> trees, which is contraindicated for temperature monitoring.
>>> Trees open their spiracles at optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
>>> and evaporate water in consequence. That makes a leafy canopy a kind
>>> of thermoregulator, it skews the temperature readings.
>>
>>
>>
>> "As of July 2022, the highest temperature ever recorded in the United
>> Kingdom occurred on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. On
>> this day, temperatures reached 40.3 degrees Celsius."
>>
>> Check Google Earth.
>>
>
>As of 1952 the highest temperature recorded in the UK was 37.8C (100F)
>on August 9, 1911 in Greenwich. 40.3C is 104.5F for comparison purposes.
>
>Just an old book I picked up - CLW_1952.pdf
>
>https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/download/file/io_1222f365-1041-4be8-889e-f53850885bdc
>
>There are a few more people in the UK now than in 1911, and a few more
>thermometers...not saying that is significant, but more data points does
>tend to catch outliers.
>
>John ;-#)#

Maybe a thousand times as many recording thermometers, saving data
maybe 100x as often.

On 02/02/2024 17:59, Paul wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>
>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>
>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>
>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>>
>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>
>
> There's a demo available on Venus.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>
> "These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
>
> "Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
>
> "The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
> creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
> hotter than Mercury's, which has min −220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
> is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
> solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
> scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
> on Earth."
>
> Paul

Total red herring. The surface pressure is hundreds of atmospheres. The
water all boiled away aeons ago, and it's far closer to the sun than we are.

It's all just ArtStudent CrapTalk.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:13:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
>
>We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic,
>Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
>
>
>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>> unto the 1990s).
>>
>- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated.
>And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the
>multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all
>warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas
>show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts
>the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of
>surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any
>positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
>predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one
>has to ask just how alarming that really is.
>
>- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
>complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
>in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically
>definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
>
>the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which
>no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a
>catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.
>
>
>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>
>I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar
>Logic.
>As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are
>usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the
>historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the
>infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case.
>
>We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
>of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name
>of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all
>without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
>the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
>
>You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
>so lay off of the
>pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.

Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity,
clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the
stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If
we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet
instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.

CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:13:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 02/02/2024 03:58, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels
>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and
>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
>>
>>We have also seen a matching rise in area of urbanisation. air traffic,
>>Vegans, and overall decrease in industrial pollution.
>>
>>
>>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>>> unto the 1990s).
>>>
>>- Have we? It's such a simple story. The truth is far more complicated.
>>And the climate change alarmist story directly *contradicts* the
>>multidecadal oscillations...as it claims that the vast majority of all
>>warming is CO2 related, which the multidecadal oscillations and la Ninas
>>show is actually not the case. The climate change story ALSO contradicts
>>the cooling experience aver the Mt Pinatubo eruption, where the loss of
>>surface irradiance exactly matched the drop in temperatures *without any
>>positive feedback at all*. And since without that feedback, the
>>predicted effect of CO2 is less than a degree for a doubling in CO2, one
>>has to ask just how alarming that really is.
>>
>>- And how much *has* temperature increased? It's another very
>>complicated story when examined in detail. The Arctic was lower in ice
>>in the 1920s than it is today. Parts of Europe archaeologically
>>definitely shown to be warmer a thousand years ago then they are now.
>>
>>the alarmists seek to show *a* linkage between CO2 and temperature which
>>no one denies and then use a switch and bait technique to sell a
>>catastrophic alarmist narrative that is simply not borne out by the facts.
>>
>>
>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>
>>I would be careful with that. It's again typical 'useful idiot' Bandar
>>Logic.
>>As with Brexit, those on the unorthodox side of the discussion are
>>usually far better informed about climate, the mathematics of chaos, the
>>historical warm periods and the flaws - and indeed in the case of the
>>infamous hockey stick - *outright scientific fraud*, in the alarmists case.
>>
>>We have damaged the UK economy massively, reduced the overall standard
>>of living of the population, trebled electricity prices all in the name
>>of a *precaution* against something that may not actually happen - all
>>without any proper costings or parliamentary scrutiny, simply so that
>>the likes of Siemens GMBH can show a profit?
>>
>>You are clearly pig-ignorant about the politics and commercial issues,
>>so lay off of the
>>pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>
>Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity,
>clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the
>stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If
>we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet
>instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.
>
>CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.
>
>

It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should
press their government to plant more trees.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>
>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>
>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>
>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>>
>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>
>
>There's a demo available on Venus.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>
> "These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
>
> "Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
>
> "The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
> creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
> hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
> is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
> solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
> scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
> on Earth."
>
> Paul

Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.

I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.

John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer
> <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>> fellow at The Heartland Institute.
>>
>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>> public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the
>> scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health
>> impacts of smoking."
>>
>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>> throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of
>> secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."

So somebody can't decide if the Heartland Institute disputes a claim
about smoking, or a claim about secondhand smoke. "Extremism" is the
inability to make distinctions, and it's a word the left loves to use
but doesn't understand.

> Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
> than rational.
>
> I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
> moved four times, always in the warmer direction.

Before 1990 we had a few hundred 'climate scientists.' Then federal
funding increased 15x from 1990 to 1995 and more since. Now 'thousands
of climate scientists all agree.'

No doubt those thousands include not only those who changed fields
because there's more money in it, and those such as biologists of
dubious reputation who couldn't get a grant to study diabetes unless
they promised to sudy the 'connection between diabetes and climate
change', but also the technicians who install weather stations and
operate ice core drills. Meanwhile the actual scientists who actually
did study the climate before seem to be split, but mass media only
interviews those who are recommended in press releases.

Lefties also like to quote Eisenhower's warning about the military
industrial complex, but like to forget his warning about "public funding
of the academy." They seem to think there is something special about
making weapons that drives corruption, as if billions in public money to
make dishwashers would not result in manufacturers lobbying for more
funding.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>
>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>>>
>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>>
>>
>>There's a demo available on Venus.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>>
>> "These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
>>
>> "Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
>>
>> "The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
>> creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
>> hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
>> is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
>> solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
>> scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
>> on Earth."
>>
>> Paul
>
>Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
>
>I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.

Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the
monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
time-frame.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 11:37:58 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better
>>>>>>> stuff, so
>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if
>>>>> it's
>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2
>>>> levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them
>>>> accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they
>>>> are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface
>>>> temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La
>>>> Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation
>>>> (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>>>>
>>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>>>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a demo available on Venus.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>>>
>>> "These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55]
>>> about
>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
>>>
>>> "Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5%
>>> nitrogen"
>>>
>>> "The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect
>>> in the Solar System,
>>> creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This
>>> makes the Venusian surface
>>> hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 °C and max 427 °C
>>> [27][28] even though Venus
>>> is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives
>>> only 25% of Mercury's
>>> solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus
>>> has been identified by
>>> scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object
>>> linked to climate change
>>> on Earth."
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
>>
>> I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
>
> Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
> atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.

How odd that it hasnt since the industrial revolution.

> It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years,

Bare faced lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

> despite all the monumental quantities of polutionwe've generated in
> that same time-frame.

Irrelevant.

On 02/02/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 04:59:23 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better
>>>>>>> stuff, so
>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>>>  Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if
>>>>> it's
>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2
>>>> levels
>>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
>>>> and
>>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm,
>>>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take
>>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>>>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>>>> unto the 1990s).
>>>
>>> He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
>>> increased at all because some antique book he has
>>> claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
>>>
>>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>>>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>
>> Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
>> Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Oh no, not another lost argument!

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 11:52:58 +1100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 02/02/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 04:59:23 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:31:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:58:32 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better
>>>>>>>> stuff, so
>>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2
>>>>> levels
>>>>> have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately
>>>>> and
>>>>> reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at
>>>>> 421ppm,
>>>>> and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or
>>>>> take
>>>>> the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the
>>>>> slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named
>>>>> unto the 1990s).
>>>>
>>>> He doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level has
>>>> increased at all because some antique book he has
>>>> claimed that the level was what it is now, back then.
>>>>
>>>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the
>>>>> pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>>
>>> Rod Speed and Bill Sloman: two of the most prolific trolls on Usenet.
>>> Both rude and ignorant - and both Australian. Coincidence?

>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Oh no, not another lost argument!

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet
paper bag with why Putin invaded the Ukraine.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:37:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:23:32 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> CO2 is fertilizing plants, and we are always breeding better stuff, so
>>>>>>> crop yields aren't a good indicator of temperature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crops tend not to grow in winter. Crops growing earlier is a fairly
>>>>>> reliable indicator of rising temperatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still doesn't assist in determining the cause, though. I think if it's
>>>>> happening at all, 'carbon' from mankind's activities is a seriously
>>>>> half-baked hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> It's one of the better-tested hypotheses around. We know that CO2 levels have been rising steadily since we started measuring them accurately and reproducibly in 1958, when they were 315ppm and they are now at 421ppm, and we've seen a matching rise global surface temperature, give or take the usual perturbations like the El Nino La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (which didn't even get named unto the 1990s).
>>>>
>>>> You are clearly pig-ignorant about the science, so lay off of the pseudo-scientific jargon - it makes you look like a pretentious twit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There's a demo available on Venus.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
>>>
>>> "These clouds reflect, similar to thick cloud cover on Earth,[55] about
>>> 70% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space"
>>>
>>> "Venus has a dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen"
>>>
>>> "The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System,
>>> creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C.[25][26] This makes the Venusian surface
>>> hotter than Mercury's, which has min ?220 °C and max 427 °C [27][28] even though Venus
>>> is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's
>>> solar irradiance. Because of its runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has been identified by
>>> scientists such as Carl Sagan as a warning and research object linked to climate change
>>> on Earth."
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>>Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.
>>
>>I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.
>
>Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the
>atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord.
>It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the
>monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same
>time-frame.

I wish people wouldn't call CO2 "pollution."

On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 10:23:50 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:59:39 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 2/1/2024 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> On 2/02/2024 10:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:41:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 01/02/2024 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:45:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 31/01/2024 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

> Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.

The sun was a bit smaller then, if with much the same surface temperature, so there was less incoming solar radiation to keep the planet warm.

> I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.

You don't think about the subject at all - you just recycle climate change denial propaganda. If you did think about the subject you'd realise that this leads you to post Cursitor Doom level absurdities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 10:55:07 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer
> > <prufer...@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
> >> fellow at The Heartland Institute.
> >>
> >> Wikipedia:
> >>
> >> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
> >> public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the
> >> scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health
> >> impacts of smoking."
> >>
> >> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
> >> throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of
> >> secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."
>
> So somebody can't decide if the Heartland Institute disputes a claim
> about smoking, or a claim about secondhand smoke. "Extremism" is the
> inability to make distinctions, and it's a word the left loves to use
> but doesn't understand.
>
>
> > Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
> > reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
> > than rational.
> >
> > I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
> > moved four times, always in the warmer direction.
>
> Before 1990 we had a few hundred 'climate scientists.' Then federal
> funding increased 15x from 1990 to 1995 and more since. Now 'thousands
> of climate scientists all agree.'
>
> No doubt those thousands include not only those who changed fields
> because there's more money in it, and those such as biologists of
> dubious reputation who couldn't get a grant to study diabetes unless
> they promised to sudy the 'connection between diabetes and climate
> change', but also the technicians who install weather stations and
> operate ice core drills. Meanwhile the actual scientists who actually
> did study the climate before seem to be split, but mass media only
> interviews those who are recommended in press releases.

The guys who published an academic study of what the top 1300 climate scientists thought in the Proceeding of the (US) National Academy of Scient]ce back in 2010 found that about 95% accepted the concensus. Of the top 300 97% - 290 - accepted the concensus.
At the time I thought that I could name five or six of the hold-outs, and they were hold-outs because of idiosyncratic personal attitudes rather than scientific reservations.
Richard Lindzen doesn't like agreeing with other people.
> Lefties also like to quote Eisenhower's warning about the military
> industrial complex, but like to forget his warning about "public funding
> of the academy." They seem to think there is something special about
> making weapons that drives corruption, as if billions in public money to
> make dishwashers would not result in manufacturers lobbying for more
> funding.

There's nothing corrupt about having more people look at a real problem. The fact that the fossil carbon extraction industry spends a lot of money with "the merchants doubt" to reduce the public impact of the scientific evidence is obviously corrupt, but you don't seem to be able to recognise that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2/2/2024 6:55 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 09:18:01 +0100, Thomas Prufer
>> <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The person stating that the locations are preposterous is a senior
>>> fellow at The Heartland Institute.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
>>> public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the
>>> scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health
>>> impacts of smoking."
>>>
>>> "Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris
>>> throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of
>>> secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans."
>
> So somebody can't decide if the Heartland Institute disputes a claim
> about smoking, or a claim about secondhand smoke. "Extremism" is the
> inability to make distinctions, and it's a word the left loves to use
> but doesn't understand.
>
>
>> Most people judge the truth of an assertion not on available facts and
>> reason, but by who said it. That's because most people are more social
>> than rational.
>>
>> I know that the official weather station in San Francisco has been
>> moved four times, always in the warmer direction.
>
> Before 1990 we had a few hundred 'climate scientists.' Then federal
> funding increased 15x from 1990 to 1995 and more since. Now 'thousands
> of climate scientists all agree.'
>
> No doubt those thousands include not only those who changed fields
> because there's more money in it, and those such as biologists of
> dubious reputation who couldn't get a grant to study diabetes unless
> they promised to sudy the 'connection between diabetes and climate
> change', but also the technicians who install weather stations and
> operate ice core drills. Meanwhile the actual scientists who actually
> did study the climate before seem to be split, but mass media only
> interviews those who are recommended in press releases.
>
> Lefties also like to quote Eisenhower's warning about the military
> industrial complex, but like to forget his warning about "public funding
> of the academy." They seem to think there is something special about
> making weapons that drives corruption, as if billions in public money to
> make dishwashers would not result in manufacturers lobbying for more
> funding.
>

The conspiracy is working.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Look at that curve, bend to our will.

We're in control, yes siree.

I'm feeling much warmer about this plan, already.

If there was an actual plan, wouldn't it be working better ???
Fucking thing is on autopilot by the looks of it.

"Whatever you're doing, keep doing it" OK. That's the plan then. OK.

Paul

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:23:50 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:

> Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.

Not human life, and not any of our important crops.

> I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.

Thinking is such a strong word; you want a weaker one for that sentence.
Changing the pH of the oceans is... a scary bad plan. Probably, however, it wouldn't
change the atmosphere to zero-oxygen, as was also the case 'in ages where life... '.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 11:49:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jtFrknaU1@mid.individual.net>

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 13:13:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
MrTurnip@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1@gioia.aioe.org>