ed by the denialist propaganda sites. It's specious nonsense, but John Lark in is too ignorant and too gullible to spot the flaws.
pend money to add CO2 to the atmosphere in their greenhouses? I guess they are being paid by the denialist propagandists.
pparently.
ng information about climate change. Those that aren't being supported by t he fossil-carbon extraction industry (as documented by Sourcewatch) supply rather different information.
k straight.
justify them. Classic stuff really.
You don't bother identifying the mental failings involved - probably becaus e you can't actually say what you think they are - and your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anything more than what you read in the Murdoch press. If you actually had clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wide range of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
If there's anything ego-driven in my output, it's probably the very minor g ratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as you and Joh n Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is taller than a co uple of dwarves.
Based on (pre)historical measurement records, the climate has changed on a yearly, decade, millennium and million year cycles.
Now AGW proponents are claiming that all climate changes are all due to it.
Unfortunately, the problem is how to differentiate between natural climate changes and AGW climate change,i.e. how much is due to which cause.
Some climate "scientists" claim that all observed climate changes are due to AGW, ignoring completely the natural climate changes.
IMHO such climate "scientists" and head shrinks should not be called scientists, not at least they can come up with a hard scientific method to separate natural and AGW climate changes from each other.
by the denialist propaganda sites. It's specious nonsense, but John Larkin is too ignorant and too gullible to spot the flaws.
nd money to add CO2 to the atmosphere in their greenhouses? I guess they ar e being paid by the denialist propagandists.
arently.
I got unemployment benefit in the Netherlands until I turned 65, end of 200
That was roughly four and half years, which wasn't all that long. While I was getting the benefit I had to apply for a new job every week, which wa sn't much of an effort, but more than "nothing", and I had to attend a coup le of courses designed to improve my job-hunting skills and interview techn ique. There were quite a few elderly attendees at those courses, and the in structors were happy to acknowldege that we were practiced and experience j ob hunters looking for jobs that weren't going to go to anybody over 55.
I did get two job interviews during that time, neither of which turned into a job offer.
Perhaps, but you can't tell us what they are. This makes the claim wishful thinking on your part - and calling it "thinking" gives you more credit tha n you deserve.
your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anything more than what you read in the Murdoch press.
So where do you get your misinformation? From the Murdoch press at second h and by reading what John Larkin posts?
that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wide range of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
Flaws that don't actually exist. You believe the second hand denialist nons ense that you read because it's posted by gullible half-wits that share yo ur political opinions, but you can't point to a single "flaw" - and know th at I'd make mince-meat of you if you tried.
or gratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as you and John Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is taller than a couple of dwarves.
he sharpest tool on this group.
Clearly not. Jeorg, Win Hill and Phil Hobbs all beat me hands down. Sadly, there are a whole lot more posters who are a lot dumber than I am - you'd b e one - and few who might be as bright, but can't be bothered to keep well- informed outside their narrow specialities, like Jim-out-of-touch-with-real ity-Thompson.
This isn't an ego-driven point of view, but you probably aren't bright enou gh to realise this.
d by the denialist propaganda sites. It's specious nonsense, but John Larki n is too ignorant and too gullible to spot the flaws.
end money to add CO2 to the atmosphere in their greenhouses? I guess they a re being paid by the denialist propagandists.
parently.
g information about climate change. Those that aren't being supported by th e fossil-carbon extraction industry (as documented by Sourcewatch) supply r ather different information.
ight.
Not actually true. Even the most enthusiastic proponents of anthropogenic g lobal warming admit that the El Nino/ La Nina alternation changes the clima te and has no anthopogenic component (that we know about at the moment).
They are also getting a handle on the Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation (wh ich is slower) but we are going to need the Argo buoy data to really make s ense of that.
We have a bunch of causes - ice cover in the Northern hemisphere and atmosp heric CO2 levels are major players - and we do know roughly how they have d riven the ice-age/interglacial cycling over the past 2.58 million years - s o your claim is somewhere between wrong and ignorant.
I don't know of any who make that particular mistake. Do try and find a cit ation, as opposed to a second-hand text-chopped misquote from a denialist w ebsite.
Like the Suess effect?
formatting link
The carbon isotope ratio in today's atmospheric CO2 is different from what it was earlier. Suess seems to have nailed it down in 1955, and it has been getting more pronounced ever since.
That pair of quotes is unnecessary. And no climate scientist ignores natural climate. Is that intended to be funny? It comes across as just confused and sad.
l thinking on your part - and calling it "thinking" gives you more credit t han you deserve.
d your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anything mo re than what you read in the Murdoch press.
hand by reading what John Larkin posts?
w that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wide ran ge of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
nsense that you read because it's posted by gullible half-wits that share your political opinions, but you can't point to a single "flaw" - and know that I'd make mince-meat of you if you tried.
inor gratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as you a nd John Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is taller tha n a couple of dwarves.
the sharpest tool on this group.
, there are a whole lot more posters who are a lot dumber than I am - you'd be one - and few who might be as bright, but can't be bothered to keep wel l-informed outside their narrow specialities, like Jim-out-of-touch-with-re ality-Thompson.
ough to realise this.
If you can't spot any flaws in the things you quote you're less clueful tha n I realised. Which would explain your persistent childish claims about wha t you iamgine I am, and the inability to distinguish your imagination from fact. Clearly further discussion would be pointless.
ful thinking on your part - and calling it "thinking" gives you more credit than you deserve.
and your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anything more than what you read in the Murdoch press.
nd hand by reading what John Larkin posts?
now that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wide r ange of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
nonsense that you read because it's posted by gullible half-wits that shar e your political opinions, but you can't point to a single "flaw" - and kno w that I'd make mince-meat of you if you tried.
minor gratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as you and John Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is taller t han a couple of dwarves.
ot the sharpest tool on this group.
ly, there are a whole lot more posters who are a lot dumber than I am - you 'd be one - and few who might be as bright, but can't be bothered to keep w ell-informed outside their narrow specialities, like Jim-out-of-touch-with- reality-Thompson.
enough to realise this.
han I realised.
Neither can you - as evidenced by the lack of any specific quote and your a ccompanying analysis.
e I am, and the inability to distinguish your imagination from fact.
I don't have to imagine that you are a clueless idiot who thinks that posti ng groundless claims constitutes an argument.
You've just provided another groundless claim to make the point obvious.
You can't manage discussion. You can't bring yourself to admit the fact, so you vanish into a cloud of puerile bluster.
There's nothing childish about pointing out that you are repeating contentl ess claims. It is something of a waste of time, but every time you decline the challenge to come up with actual examples of the "failings" you imagine , your image as an witless windbag gets more firmly established.
shful thinking on your part - and calling it "thinking" gives you more cred it than you deserve.
- and your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anythin g more than what you read in the Murdoch press.
cond hand by reading what John Larkin posts?
know that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wide range of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
t.
t nonsense that you read because it's posted by gullible half-wits that sh are your political opinions, but you can't point to a single "flaw" - and k now that I'd make mince-meat of you if you tried.
ry minor gratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as y ou and John Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is taller than a couple of dwarves.
not the sharpest tool on this group.
adly, there are a whole lot more posters who are a lot dumber than I am - y ou'd be one - and few who might be as bright, but can't be bothered to keep well-informed outside their narrow specialities, like Jim-out-of-touch-wit h-reality-Thompson.
t enough to realise this.
than I realised.
accompanying analysis.
ine I am, and the inability to distinguish your imagination from fact.
ting groundless claims constitutes an argument.
so you vanish into a cloud of puerile bluster.
tless claims. It is something of a waste of time, but every time you declin e the challenge to come up with actual examples of the "failings" you imagi ne, your image as an witless windbag gets more firmly established.
Thank you for confirming you are unable to distinguish what you imagine fro m actual fact. You are absolutely not worth debating with, that is why I do n't bother. You may have had some achievements elsewhere but on here you're a childish nitwit and a bore. And you will very soon be welcome to the idi ot bin.
wishful thinking on your part - and calling it "thinking" gives you more cr edit than you deserve.
e - and your opinions about climate science don't seem to be based on anyth ing more than what you read in the Murdoch press.
second hand by reading what John Larkin posts?
'd know that I present boringly science-based information, culled from a wi de range of sources that I actually identify from time to time.
it.
ist nonsense that you read because it's posted by gullible half-wits that share your political opinions, but you can't point to a single "flaw" - and know that I'd make mince-meat of you if you tried.
very minor gratification I get from proclaiming that I'm not as gullible as you and John Larkin, but that's rather like pointing out that one is tall er than a couple of dwarves.
re not the sharpest tool on this group.
Sadly, there are a whole lot more posters who are a lot dumber than I am - you'd be one - and few who might be as bright, but can't be bothered to ke ep well-informed outside their narrow specialities, like Jim-out-of-touch-w ith-reality-Thompson.
ght enough to realise this.
ul than I realised.
ur accompanying analysis.
agine I am, and the inability to distinguish your imagination from fact.
osting groundless claims constitutes an argument.
.
, so you vanish into a cloud of puerile bluster.
entless claims. It is something of a waste of time, but every time you decl ine the challenge to come up with actual examples of the "failings" you ima gine, your image as an witless windbag gets more firmly established.
rom actual fact.
Since you seem to be totally incapable of coming up with anything that look s like a generally accepted fact - as opposed to popular, if vacuous genera lisations - your claim falls down because you haven't come up with a single actual fact for me to distinguish from the your usual stream of vacuous dr ivel.
Debate involves putting forward identifiable and potentially falsifiable pr opositions that can be analysed and - perhaps - refuted.
You can't manage that. You may like to think that you don't bother to debat e - but in reality you don't put up any proposations that could be subject to debate.
nitwit and a bore.
I'm sure that you find that point of view very comforting. Cherish it. Nobo dy else is going to find it tenable.
The idiot bin from which you are posting? Probably not.
It can be renewable - hydro-electric power is usually remarkably dispatchab le - as is the kind of thermal solar plant that heats up large, well-insula ted tanks of molten salts which can store a couple of days worth of heat, a nd turn it steam whenever you bother pumping some water into the heat-excha nger.
The power that is only renewed when the sun is shining or the wind is blowi ng tends to be less dispatchable.
Essentially 100% of fossil+nuclear+hydro has to be on ready standby. Germany may well be manufacturing a nasty energy crisis. They already have manufactured a cost crisis, with typical German efficiency.
formatting link
formatting link
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
The real cost of fossil carbon fueled electric power includes the damage th e extra CO2 does to the environment, and no denialist commentator ever both ers to include that.
John Larkin clings to the idea that extra CO2 in the atmosphere isn't reall y a problem, because he's exactly the kind of ill-informed gullible sucker that denialist propaganda is aimed at.
The National Review article includes the fascinating sentence - "But, usin g the rather improbable threat of a Fukushima-like tsunami as a pretext, th e nation?s elites decided to shut them down; 8.3 GW have already be en eliminated."
In reality it wasn't the German elite who exploited Fukashima to shut down Germany's nuclear plants, but Greenpeace and it's allies, who have never he sitated to use emotional nonsense for political effect.
Merkel needed the Green votes, even if she didn't like the mindlessness of their arguments (not that she'd be silly enough to admit it).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.