OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

You are so right - and so is Ms. Sandberg.

Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand the risks involved in transacting business there.

Not a widely shared delusion.

You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful ignorance that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.

It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal confusion to anybody with working brain.

You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality, you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an ignorant nitwit.

I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

John Larkin claims not to feel fear, which would be a personal defect, if it were true. He tries to pretend that is a virtue.

John Larkin is only "right" in the sense that he supports Donald Trump. His enthusiasm for being "brave" is based on thorough-going ignorance.

Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of wasted time! The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books. CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases. Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since those levels didn't change over the course of the most polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW agenda is an outrageous scam.

??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole AGW agenda is a SCAM.

And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

And where does that come into this discussion?

Meaning of glibness in English "the quality of being confident, but too simple and lacking in careful thought : The author's writing has a glibness that sometimes passes as wit".

It's difficult to avoid being glib when faced with such a brain-dead assertion. It would certainly have been a waste of time to ofer a more elborate explanation to a dim clown like you.

A rather curious definition of a "working brain". Mastering the science behind the anthropogenic global warming question would take even a scientifically sophisticated reader (and you aren't that) rather more than an hour. Realising that you didn't have a clue about what was being said might be managed in a hour, and you could throw in the ill-informed conclusion that it was a scam in even less time, but you'd be wrong - as you happen to be , which is evidence that you have a non-working brain, fit only for posturing and pontificating.

They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals always are.

Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all that good.

If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all over the place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less homogeneous.

Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires, next to factories powered by burning coal.

They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't going to let mere facts get in your way.

Children! Behave yourselves!

Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful lot of wasted time.

Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in the

Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this. You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) time-starved to actually look into this matter for themselves. The most they can do is click on a link and that's when they get hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to find out more on a subject such as this is the equivalent of ordering a pizza, having it delivered and spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while you vegetate on your couch because you're too bone idle to actually get off your arse and get it for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy approach is about as beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.

So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for the mind.

The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your thermometers so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney figures. Areas with high concentrations of concrete structures and close to airport runways are being utilised for the same purpose.

We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I just hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their own, proper, book-based research and find out the truth for themselves: AGW is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of s*it and I suspect you know that damn well.

I've noticed you love to make this subject appear more complicated than it is and throw in all sorts of diversions and links to this and that to distract the reader away from the simple truth that they can ascertain for themselves very easily should they so choose: compare the CO2 levels of today with those of the Victorian era *USING REFERENCE BOOKS* in any decent library. That's all anyone need do.

Because even if your mate Klaus Schwab gets his way and abolishes cash transactions, it will still be possible to *exchange* gold for whatever you need. Gold ain't going away and if they try to make it illegal it'll just become more valuable - like everything else they've tried that stupid and counterproductive idea on.

Don't panic, John. I'm determined not to get into another long-winded and pointless pissing contest with this notorious and indefatigable troll. Unlike him, I've better things to do.

How do we know what CO2 levels were, 150 years ago?

For that matter, how do we know what worldwide temperatures were? RTD-based data loggers weren't common in Vic's time.

Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds the energy of most.

We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in thread "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

.

Joe Gwinn

Then do them. If it involves electronics, post something interesting here.

Sloman needs suckers to play his hate games. Don't be one.