On 2/02/2024 10:51 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>
> This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
> has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
> so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
> now more than a hundred years ago now.

It's worse than that. He claims to have spent a lot of time and money on
getting of peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1890's, which report
high - if erratic - CO2 measurements taken in laboratories heated by
coal fires in cities heated by coal fires, lit by burning coal gas, and
housing small, but horribly inefficient coal-fired electricity generators

He goes on to rejects the much better and faster and more recent
measurements made by physical methods. Charles Keeling used automated
infra-red absorbtion spectroscopy back in 1958 and could make enough
reliable measurements fast enough to realise that he had to put his CO2
observatory at the top of Manua Loa on Hawaii to get stable and
reproducible results.

According to Cursitor Doom, Charles Keeling was already part of a world
wide conspiracy to foist anthropogenic global warming on the world.

>> Consequently, far from what you read *online*  - there is *NO* warming
>> due to CO2. End of.

If you happen to share Cursitor Doom's addiction to utterly preposterous
conspiracy theories,you might even take him seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2/02/2024 4:47 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:23:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 17:12, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:42:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:03:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 15:55, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because most people are to lazy or too stupid or too greedy to
>>>>>> try and understand the truth.

John Larkin doesn't want to learn the truth about anthropogenic global
because it would put him at odds with his friends.He skipped enough of
his chemistry lectures that he probably couldn't manage it if he tried.

>>>>> I think the sociability influence is powerful even among otherwise
>>>>> intelligent professionals.

John Larkin passes as an electronic engineer on that basis.

>>>>> Entire sciences achieve erroneous concensus because eveyone agrees.

Not that he can give a valid example. He likes to talk about continental
drift, but everybody came over as soon as we could actually measure it.

>>>> ConSensus
>>>> EveRyone
SemEster
>>>
>>> You can be an english teacher in your future career. I'm an engineer.

Or at least you keep telling us that you are.

>> I am already an engineer, but it's no excuse for not using a spell checker
>
> OK, give me a D-. I'd be so ashamed.

John Larkin claims not to feel fear. He probably doesn't feel shame either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:18:14 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >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.
>
>That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
>die and decompose.

Easy. Either plant trees that are long-lived or make use of the timber
in some way before it deteriorates. Personally I'd burn it in my
wood-burning stove banked-up with peat to create as much smoke as
possible. :-)

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 23:31:08 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 2/02/2024 10:51 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>
>> This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
>> has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
>> so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
>> now more than a hundred years ago now.
>
>It's worse than that. He claims to have spent a lot of time and money on
>getting of peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1890's, which report
>high - if erratic - CO2 measurements taken in laboratories heated by
>coal fires in cities heated by coal fires, lit by burning coal gas, and
>housing small, but horribly inefficient coal-fired electricity generators
>
>He goes on to rejects the much better and faster and more recent
>measurements made by physical methods. Charles Keeling used automated
>infra-red absorbtion spectroscopy back in 1958 and could make enough
>reliable measurements fast enough to realise that he had to put his CO2
>observatory at the top of Manua Loa on Hawaii to get stable and
>reproducible results.
>
>According to Cursitor Doom, Charles Keeling was already part of a world
>wide conspiracy to foist anthropogenic global warming on the world.
>
>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online*  - there is *NO* warming
>>> due to CO2. End of.
>
>If you happen to share Cursitor Doom's addiction to utterly preposterous
>conspiracy theories,you might even take him seriously.

Sorry, Bill, I never said any such thing. And I've never even heard of
any Charles Keeling.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:18:14 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >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.
>
>That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
>die and decompose.

Trees have been growing and dying and burning or decomposing for
billions of years. It's worked OK so far.

The real problem with trees is that they sequester CO2 and have been
straining it out of our air too much and starving themselves. We are
fixing that now.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:50:24 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> > On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>> > >On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > >What's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a rising
>> > >sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
>> > >
>> > >https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
>> > >
>> > >The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
>> > >
>> > Quite. So by selective highlighting of particular ranges on the x axis of
>> > the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a
>> > compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending
>> > vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic
>> > anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
>> Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea that anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.
>>
>> There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
>>
>> The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
>
>These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
>

People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
and war.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 08:30:55 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:18:14 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:21:04 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>> >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.
>>
>>That will create a huge methane problem in 100 years time, as the trees
>>die and decompose.
>
>Trees have been growing and dying and burning or decomposing for
>billions of years. It's worked OK so far.
>
>The real problem with trees is that they sequester CO2 and have been
>straining it out of our air too much and starving themselves. We are
>fixing that now.

The obvious fix to the CO2 cobblers is to plant more trees. There's no
reason why that shouldn't placate the mentally ill like Fred Bloggs
who are convinced we're all gonna die imminently. But TPTB won't do
that as there's no money in it. They want to squeeze everyone for
higher taxes on the pretext that will lower CO2 levels (it won't). God
help us all if Trump gets robbed again in November. He's the only one
with any sense.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:32:32 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:50:24 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 11:57:08?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:01:09?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 06:52:20 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>> > >On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:20 -0500, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>> > >>On 2/2/2024 7:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> > >What's interesting is that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph is a rising
>>> > >sawtooth. It drops pretty hard once a year.
>>> > >
>>> > >https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
>>> > >
>>> > >The drops would extrapolate to zero in roughly 40 years.
>>> > >
>>> > Quite. So by selective highlighting of particular ranges on the x axis of
>>> > the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a
>>> > compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending
>>> > vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic
>>> > anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.
>>> Cursitor Doom doesn't understand statistics, and he clearly doesn't understand that graph. Not that he feels that he needs to, since his claim seems to be that it is entirely faked by his imagined conspiracy to sell the world the idea that anthropogenic climate change is actually going on.
>>>
>>> There's an actually overwhelming mass of evidence that it is, so he's had to invent a particularly absurd (and thus - for him - deeply satisfying ) conspiracy theory.
>>>
>>> The sawtooth covers about 8ppm every year. The graph has gone up about 100ppm from 1958 to today. There's no "selective highlighting" involved in that
>>
>>These people are being manipulated like herd animals by the likes of this bestseller which a lot of them are quoting as proof the government is misleading them:
>>
>>https://www.amazon.com/Influence-New-Expanded-Psychology-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B08HZ57WYN/ref=sr_1_1
>>
>
>People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
>leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
>and war.

I think "sheep" covers it more concisely.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>
>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>>> was
>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>
>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>
>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>>
>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>
>>That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>>cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>>
>>Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>>and our children's children.
>
>It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>due to CO2. End of.

There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.

Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 23:31:08 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

> On 2/02/2024 10:51 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:47:18 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>> This fool doesnt believe that the atmospheric CO2 level
>> has ever increased since the industrial revolution because
>> so antique book ignorantly claimed that it was what it is
>> now more than a hundred years ago now.

> It's worse than that. He claims to have spent a lot of time and money on
> getting of peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1890's,

No, he got the idea that the atmospheric CO2 level
was as high as it is now entirely from just one book
and an antique edition of britannica which got it
wrong and has since been updated in later editions.

He even stupidly ran the line that the amended
britannica entry was forced on britannica by
the climate change brigade and that only
antique books have any value, not the internet.

> which report high - if erratic - CO2 measurements taken inlaboratories
> heated by coal fires in cities heated by coal fires,lit by burning coal
> gas, and housing small, but horriblyinefficient coal-fired electricity
> generators

> He goes on to rejects the much better and faster and more recent
> measurements made by physical methods. Charles Keeling usedautomated
> infra-red absorbtion spectroscopy back in 1958 andcould make enough
> reliable measurements fast enough to realisethat he had to put his CO2
> observatory at the top of Manua Loaon Hawaii to get stable and
> reproducible results.

> According to Cursitor Doom, Charles Keeling was already part of a world
> wide conspiracy to foist anthropogenic global warming on the world.

And that was what forced britannica to fix their erroneous entry

>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>>> due to CO2. End of.

> If you happen to share Cursitor Doom's addiction to utterly preposterous
> conspiracy theories,you might even take him seriously.

I haven't noticed anyone that stupid.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>>>> was
>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>>>
>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>
>>>That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>>>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>>>cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>>>
>>>Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>>>and our children's children.
>>
>>It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>>due to CO2. End of.
>
>There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
>be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>
>Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.

I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
from reproducing. If your prospective child has no future, how can you
responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
have determined they will never have children on account of it.
Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
were any mileage in it.

https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:16:13 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:01:18?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>> >>>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer 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. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>> >>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 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."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>> >>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>> >>>>>> possible.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>> >>>>>> is not a major issue.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>> >>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>> >>>> was
>> >>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>> >>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>> >>>>
>> >>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>> >>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>> >>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>> >>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>> >>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>> >>> their media allies across the globe.
>> >>
>> >>That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>> >>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>> >>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>> >>cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>> >>
>> >>Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>> >>and our children's children.
>> >
>> >It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>> >that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>> >bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>> >decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>> >decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>> >climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>> >it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>> >Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>> >of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>> >thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>> >Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>> >due to CO2. End of.
>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>
>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>
>You and this ridiculous engineer:
>
>https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240201-a-us-engineer-had-a-shocking-plan-to-improve-the-climate-burn-all-coal-on-earth

Coal is usually nasty stuff, especially when burned without a lot of
filters and scrubbers. But people in India and China and Africa seem
to think that dirty outdoor air is a reasonable price for having
electricity and running water and such.

Coal and oil and gas allow people to cook and heat without burning
wood and dung indoors, so those fossil fuels are a net benefit.

Even in the US and Europe, people used to burn coal and wood, indoors
and in factories. Smog was terrible and walls were covered with soot.

Natural gas is nice clean stuff and makes half the CO2 as coal. It
makes no sense for the greenie lunatics to war on NG. The gas-free
all-electric heat-pumped houses in Berkeley will get a lot of their
electricity from coal.

On 1 Feb 2024 16:31:13 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>
>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>
>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>
>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President, was
>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>
>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>
>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>
>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>> their media allies across the globe.
>>
>> The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
>> Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled
>> only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree
>> in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.
>>
>> The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be
>> the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for
>> people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said
>> “significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant
>> improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two
>> percent were not sure.
>>
>> Among respondents with the most experience – those at least 50-years-old
>> – less than half expect significant harm for people alive today.
>> Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which
>> more than 60 percent expect significant harm.
>>
>> Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority
>> of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents
>> attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More
>> importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future
>> warming will be much of a problem.
>>
>> The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has
>> been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events.
>> The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.
>>
>> In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
>> drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
>> recent decades."
>>
>> So much for 'consensus'
>
>This shows one of the ways ‘consensus’ was arrived at in the output of one
>organisation:
>
><https://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/01/13/bbcs-shameful-climate-propaganda-seminar-exposed/comment-page-1/>
>
>[safe, except for alarmists and the dim]

I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
something's done: the BBC needs to go. It's a poisonous and
disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
of the masses. Defund it!

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:09:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
R Souls addressing the senile Australian cretin's "personalized" idiotic
spelling:
"Learn to spell, imbecile. And while you're about it learn to mind your
own business as well."
MID: <eohtkhl27bo4osjluadg7q8u9196njn1r9@4ax.com>

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives the
>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions are
>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate change
>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel free
>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US President,
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm”
>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>
>>>>That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>>understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>>>>change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change will
>>>>cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today".
>>>>
>>>>Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our children
>>>>and our children's children.
>>>
>>>It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>>that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>>climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>>it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>>of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>>thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>>>due to CO2. End of.
>>
>>There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
>>be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>
>>Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>
>I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
>all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
>from reproducing.

It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
humans are a blight on our ecosystem.

If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
>have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
>claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>were any mileage in it.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841

I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
getting wider and maybe bimodal.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:42:19 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

>
> I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
> something's done: the BBC needs to go. It's a poisonous and
> disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
> purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
> of the masses. Defund it!

Anyone seen this? She was OK on whites, but when she moved on to Jews...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/bbc-employee-called-jewish-people-nazis-and-uk-bigoted/

--
Joe

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:42:19 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2024 16:31:13 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways gives
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist predictions
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to be
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate
>>>>>> change
>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot. Feel
>>>>> free
>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>
>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>> President, was
>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>
>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level rise,
>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>
>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>
>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent
>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>> harm”
>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of
>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>
>>> The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
>>> Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute,
>>> polled
>>> only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree
>>> in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and
>>> hydrology.
>>>
>>> The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be
>>> the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for
>>> people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said
>>> “significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant
>>> improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two
>>> percent were not sure.
>>>
>>> Among respondents with the most experience – those at least
>>> 50-years-old
>>> – less than half expect significant harm for people alive today.
>>> Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which
>>> more than 60 percent expect significant harm.
>>>
>>> Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority
>>> of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents
>>> attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More
>>> importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future
>>> warming will be much of a problem.
>>>
>>> The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has
>>> been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events.
>>> The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.
>>>
>>> In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
>>> drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
>>> recent decades."
>>>
>>> So much for 'consensus'
>>
>> This shows one of the ways ‘consensus’ was arrived at in the output of
>> one
>> organisation:
>>
>> <https://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/01/13/bbcs-shameful-climate-propaganda-seminar-exposed/comment-page-1/>
>>
>> [safe, except for alarmists and the dim]

> I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
> something's done: the BBC needs to go.

Nothing you say will EVER have any effect on getting anything done.

In spades given that you are just another tax dodger out of that country..

> It's a poisonous and
> disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
> purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
> of the masses. Defund it!

Get stuffed.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways
>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
>>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
>>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot.
>>>>>>>> Feel free
>>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>>>>> President,
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level
>>>>>>> rise,
>>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
>>>>>> percent
>>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>>>>> harm”
>>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far
>>>>>> short of
>>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>>
>>>>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change
>>>>> will
>>>>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive
>>>>> today".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
>>>>> children
>>>>> and our children's children.
>>>>
>>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>>>> due to CO2. End of.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>>
>>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>>
>> I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
>> from reproducing.
>
> It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
> humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
>
>
>
> If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>> responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>> kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>> Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>> merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>> intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>> convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>> were any mileage in it.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
>
> I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
> getting wider and maybe bimodal.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Pomegranate Bastard addressing the trolling senile cretin from Oz:
"Surely you can find an Australian group to pollute rather than posting
your unwanted guff here."
MID: <c1pqvgte5ldlo1rn3fpl7igtg4h8i9mk7p@4ax.com>

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:34:12 +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 Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways
>>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
>>>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact are
>>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not to
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made climate
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot.
>>>>>>>>> Feel free
>>>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>>>>>> President,
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level
>>>>>>>> rise,
>>>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>>>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists
>>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>>>>>> harm”
>>>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far
>>>>>>> short of
>>>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and
>>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on climate
>>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive
>>>>>> today".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
>>>>>> children
>>>>>> and our children's children.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable through
>>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the dawn
>>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO* warming
>>>>> due to CO2. End of.
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to both
>>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>>>
>>>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>>>
>>> I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
>>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
>>> from reproducing.
>>
>> It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
>> humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
>>
>>
>>
>> If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>>> responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>>> kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
>>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>>> Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>>> merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>>> intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
>>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>>> convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>>> were any mileage in it.
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
>>
>> I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
>> getting wider and maybe bimodal.
>
>No evidence of that except maybe with serious genetic
>deficiencys, but even with those, unlikely given that
>cousins marrying is much less common now.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:03:01 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made
>>>>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>> Feel free
>>>>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>>>>>>> President,
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level
>>>>>>>>> rise,
>>>>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>>>>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of
>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>>>>>>> harm”
>>>>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far
>>>>>>>> short of
>>>>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on
>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive
>>>>>>> today".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>> and our children's children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the
>>>>>> dawn
>>>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO*
>>>>>> warming
>>>>>> due to CO2. End of.
>>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to
>>>>> both
>>>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>>>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>>>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
>>>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
>>>> from reproducing.
>>>
>>> It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
>>> humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>>>> responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>>>> kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
>>>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>>>> Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>>>> merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>>>> intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>>>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
>>>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>>>> convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>>>> were any mileage in it.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
>>>
>>> I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
>>> getting wider and maybe bimodal.

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 5:42:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 16:31:13 GMT, Spike <aero....@mail.com> wrote:
> >The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
> >>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail..com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh
> >> Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled
> >> only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree
> >> in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.

The Heartland Institute did know the result it wanted to get, and it does know how to get it.

It's one of the "merchants of doubt"

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

<snip>

> >> In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
> >> drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in
> >> recent decades."

The fossil carbon extraction industry is convinced of it, and knows how to phrase it's questions to get the answers it wants.

> I know I've said this many times, but I'll say it many more until
> something's done: the BBC needs to go. It's a poisonous and
> disingenuous influence on the minds of its viewers and its primary
> purpose seems to be simply to spew Globalist propaganda into the minds
> of the masses. Defund it!

Cursitor Doom imagines that "Globalist propaganda" is a problem. He doesn't like people who point out that he is a demented lunatic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:17:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:03:01 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature recording
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made out
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made
>>>>>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free
>>>>>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>>>>>>>> President,
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level
>>>>>>>>>> rise,
>>>>>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>>>>>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of
>>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
>>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant
>>>>>>>>> harm”
>>>>>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far
>>>>>>>>> short of
>>>>>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient to
>>>>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on
>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate change
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive
>>>>>>>> today".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>> and our children's children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn them
>>>>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>>>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>>>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and if
>>>>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the
>>>>>>> dawn
>>>>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life (which
>>>>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>>>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO*
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> due to CO2. End of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>>>>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>>>>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory' that
>>>>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent people
>>>>> from reproducing.
>>>>
>>>> It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
>>>> humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>>>>> responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>>>>> kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense and
>>>>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>>>>> Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>>>>> merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>>>>> intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>>>>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor Dutton
>>>>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>>>>> convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>>>>> were any mileage in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence are
>>>> getting wider and maybe bimodal.
>
>>> No evidence of that except maybe with serious genetic
>>> deficiencys, but even with those, unlikely given that
>>> cousins marrying is much less common now.
>
>> Young things are leaving farms and small towns andgoing to college and
>> meeting other young things.
>
>And there is a lot more mobility of
>adults now than there used to be.
>
>But even with movements over vast distances
>by migration of some like the kurds and turks,
>the buggers still mostly marry cousins from the
>same small village, and then the new bride migrates
>as well. Same with the leganese and indians. Those
>groups are still into arranged marraige.
>
>> In past centuries, most people married people thatlived within walking
>> distance of their birthplace.
>
>And were thoroughly inbred.
>
>> International migration, brain drain, addsto the geek concentration
>> effect.
>
>Not clear what you mean by that.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:56:46 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:17:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:03:01 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:36:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 05:49:37 +1100, John Larkin <jl@997pothill.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 18:28:33 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:59:48 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:47:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:19:24 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 12:56, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2024 08:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:45:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can be no accident. The siting of temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recording
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in preposterous locations like airport runways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game away. The data they're using for their alarmist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage and you know what that means: garbage in, garbage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks are not scientific refutation and in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally encountered when scientific refutation is known not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And conspiracy theories by the Left are rather laughable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is a lot less 'scientific consensus' than is made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than 60% of scientists actually think that man made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a major issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 60%? They do say that 82% of statistics are made on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free
>>>>>>>>>>>> to cite the source of your claim. I know you won't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of the outrageous climate-change claims, echoed by a US
>>>>>>>>>>> President,
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> that 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This was the President that warned of climate-driven sea-level
>>>>>>>>>>> rise,
>>>>>>>>>>> mopping his brow on a cool day to emphasise the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He later bought an $18million beachfront property at Martha’s
>>>>>>>>>>> Vineyard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of
>>>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>>>> conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59
>>>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>>>> of respondents think global climate change will cause
>>>>>>>>>> “significant
>>>>>>>>>> harm”
>>>>>>>>>> to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far
>>>>>>>>>> short of
>>>>>>>>>> the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> their media allies across the globe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That statement suggests your command of English is insufficient
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> understand the difference between "97% of scientists agree on
>>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>> change" and "59 percent of respondents think global climate
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people
>>>>>>>>> alive
>>>>>>>>> today".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course your statement proves you don't give a shit about our
>>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>> and our children's children.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's for the parents and grandparents of those children to warn
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> that the biggest threat to their future by far comes from being
>>>>>>>> bullshitted by Globalist propaganda into making the wrong life
>>>>>>>> decisions for themselves and *their* children going forward in the
>>>>>>>> decades to come. The world isn't going to become uninhabitable
>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> climate change because "Climate Change" [tm] is 100% bullshit and
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> it's happening at all, it's happening as part of a natural cycle.
>>>>>>>> Every single molecule of CO2 which mankind has produced since the
>>>>>>>> dawn
>>>>>>>> of the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by plant life
>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>> thrives on it) and the oceans which naturally take it in.
>>>>>>>> Consequently, far from what you read *online* - there is *NO*
>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>> due to CO2. End of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be a little. More CO2 and a little warming seem to
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> be good. Lifespans are up, crop production is up about 3:1 in our
>>>>>>> lifetimes, the planet is greening. In the USA, deaths from severe
>>>>>>> weather are a few per cent of what they were a century ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things keep getting better and some people don't like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't personally buy into it, but there's a 'conspiracy theory'
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> all this climate alarmism is intended to discourage intelligent
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> from reproducing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's to encourage all people from reproducing, on the principle that
>>>>> humans are a blight on our ecosystem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If your prospective child has no future, how can you
>>>>>> responsibly bring him/her into the world? And I have seen college
>>>>>> kids, with my own two eyes, that have been duped by this nonsense
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have determined they will never have children on account of it.
>>>>>> Naturally the 'don't give a damn' types with low IQs will breed
>>>>>> merrily away regardless and in this way, the general population's
>>>>>> intelligence level will decline accordingly (which is precisely what
>>>>>> TPTB want). And it does tally in perfectly with what Professor
>>>>>> Dutton
>>>>>> claims in his book, Breeding the Human Herd. As I say, I'm not 100%
>>>>>> convinced on this one, but it would come as little surprise if there
>>>>>> were any mileage in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Human-Herd-Eugenics-Dysgenics/dp/1922602841
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the normal distributions of health and intelligence
>>>>> are
>>>>> getting wider and maybe bimodal.
>>
>>>> No evidence of that except maybe with serious genetic
>>>> deficiencys, but even with those, unlikely given that
>>>> cousins marrying is much less common now.
>>
>>> Young things are leaving farms and small towns andgoing to college and
>>> meeting other young things.
>>
>> And there is a lot more mobility of
>> adults now than there used to be.
>>
>> But even with movements over vast distances
>> by migration of some like the kurds and turks,
>> the buggers still mostly marry cousins from the
>> same small village, and then the new bride migrates
>> as well. Same with the leganese and indians. Those
>> groups are still into arranged marraige.
>>
>>> In past centuries, most people married people thatlived within
>>> walking
>>> distance of their birthplace.
>>
>> And were thoroughly inbred.
>>
>>> International migration, brain drain, adds
>>> to the geek concentration effect.