----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<MPG.3f817126d01337f36b7@news.eternal-september.org> eb5727d4
@REPLY: 3@dont-email.me> 378ae1af
@REPLYADDR AlleyCat <al@aohell.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 AlleyCat
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<MPG.3f817126d01337f36b7@news.eternal-september.org>
@RFC-References:
<MPG.3f801d7bca5e9bf6a1@news.eternal-september.org> <MPG.3f81669252d3558a5d@news.eternal-september.org>
<MPG.3f8145aa134c7be46ac@news.eternal-september.org> 8@dont-email.me>
<MPG.3f81617927cd53596b2@news.eternal-september.org> 3@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: -0500
@PID: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 21:48:42 -0700, Alan says...
> > Innumerate?
> Yes. Completely.
No. YOU tell us how "BIG" 0.01% is.
> And I can see why you`ve just snipped everything that came before.
Oh... sorry.
=====
Subject: You`re Shittin` Us, Right?
From: AlleyCat <
al@aohell.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:47:54 -0500
Panelists. What percent of our atmosphere is CO2? All down the line.
Repeat that question?
What percent of our atmosphere is CO2... two carbon dioxide.
I`ll bite... five percent.
Five? I`m just following you.
We`ll GUESS 7%.
I`ll see their five and suggest that we know that transportation causes 49
percent of CO2?
So, what number do you think it is?
Five?
I didn`t hear you. Mr. Ayer?
7%.
Do you have one Mr. Boyd?
So we got a 5, 7... uh... EIGHT! I`ll hit the high end.
The answer is zero 0.04 percent. Not one percent, not a half of a
percent. It`s
0.04 percent. It`s gone up from 0.03 over the last couple decades. This is what
we`re being all contorted into doing, for this tiny change in CO2.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R1wuhLc3FfU?feature=share
=====
> It`s
> 0.04 percent. It`s gone up from 0.03 over the last couple decades.
>
That`s a 33% increase, right?
=====
Subject: Re: You`re Shittin` Us, Right? Nerds Making STUPID Analogies and
Comparisons, Showing Us Their Psychoses
From: AlleyCat <
al@aohell.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
Organization: AlleyCat Computing, Inc.
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 21:36:33 -0500
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:56:56 +0100, Alan LeHun says...
>
> In article <
MPG.3f801d7bca5e9bf6a1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
al@aohell.com says...
>
> > It`s
> > 0.04 percent. It`s gone up from 0.03 over the last couple decades.
> >
>
> That`s a 33% increase, right?
When you`re talking infinitesimal numbers, ANY increase may seem GINORMOUS.
It`s like the idiot bogan from Arsetralia who seems to think we can feel a
millionth of a degree, so when it goes up 2 millionths, he has a fucking
orgasm. SEE? WARMING!
1-1/100th of a percent. I don`t care if it was a 99% increase... infinitesimal
is infinitesimal.
And don`t give us any of that bullshit about comparing 0.04% CO? with ANY other
element at 0.04%. We don`t breathe ANY of those bullshit elements the children
here bring up.
CO? is CO?, not some dumb bullshit non-sequitur reductio ad absurdum. We don`t
BREATHE the bullshit elements the fucking children bring up, like selenium,
polonium, plutonium, tellurium or ANY "ium" you fuckers use to make that absurd
argument.
"Trace amounts of polonium & CO2 don`t matter?" - Brettainey
No, faggot, polonium does NOT matter, because our atmosphere doesn`t HAVE
polonium in it, unless, of course, the Democrats conspire with the Chinese
again.
=====
Catoni <
catoni52@sympatico.ca>
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:17:35 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > Deniers gonna file a friend of the court brief in the oily
case arguing since wild fires was natcheral in the early Eocene then no
arsonist can be prosecuted for starting fires today.
>
> Then you cite numerous cases were prosecutions against arsonists
were summarily dismissed because forest fires existed in the early
Limbocene.
>
> > > Sounds slam dunk logical don`t it?
>
> > What a stupid "analogy"
>
> Deniers got any other talking points to put into their amiga brief?
>
>
>
> "Trace amounts of polonium & CO2 don`t matter?"
Drug addled Bret Cahill thinks CO2 and Polonium are the same
thing ....
LOL ha, ha, ha :)
He always has been a total failure when it comes to analogies
When Bret shakes his head... there is a hollow sound with something
rattling around in there... :)
=====
> So when do trace amounts matter?
When they matter. CO? does not. SCIENTISTS have told you this for decades, but
YOU wanna believe morons like Greta Thunberg, Joe Biden, Barack Insane Obama,
John Kerry and Al Gore who ALL DO THIS FOR MONEY.
> When deniers _want_ trace amounts to matter?
When? Tell us, mind reader... WHEN do we "WANT trace amounts to matter"?
CO? is irrelevant.
https://i.imgur.com/jphnDF4.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/fOiacOG.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/h8pSilh.mp4
It`s filter free Friday, so give it your best shot.
=====
It`s a shame these nerds have to make these stupid analogies and comparisons,
when they have NO refutations or arguments against CO? being a trace gas that
can`t POSSIBLY "warm", OR "trap" warmth.
I`m sure the THEORY beh9ind green houses gases is correct, proving CO? does, in
fact, reflect IR, but at WHAT amount?
THAT CO? reflects IR does NOT mean that 0.04% or 400ppm does ANYTHING. Yes,
there IS a greenhouse effect, but there`s MUCH more water vapour than CO?.
Clouds and cloud albedo have more of an effect on IR than CO?.
Tell us, bogans... what percent of "warming" is CO? responsible for, compared
to water vapour and the dozens of other forcings?
Go ahead, Miss Kymberly... break out the engineer`s calculator, so we can know
down to the millionth of a degree or percent.
LOL... what tick turds. This has NOTHING to do with CO? or saving the planet...
and EVERYTHING to do with your stupid agendas. (seen below)
Find the CO?. [.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| . |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL... yeah... that ONE CO? molecule can perform MIRACLES!
Your agendas may not be the exact same as the UN`s, but they ARE equally
ridiculous, having to lie and make shit up to fulfill them and see them come to
fruition.
Thank GOD for the Internet. People can see for themselves what kind of liars
you pansy-asses have become, JUST to see your agendas taken seriously... by
THESE kinds of people.
The cult of Climate Religion:
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-
public/thumbnails/image/2019/10/18/14/Extinction-Rebellion181019.jpg?width=1200
&width=1200&auto=webp&quality=75
https://home.bt.com/images/in-pictures-extinction-rebellion-protesters-take-to-
streets-136440086123502601-191007173041.jpg
Yeah... like we`re going to follow THEM down ANY path to save the planet.
=====
On 2023-09-29 19:36, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:56:56 +0100, Alan LeHun says...
>
>>
>> In article <MPG.3f801d7bca5e9bf6a1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> al@aohell.com says...
>>
>>> It`s
>>> 0.04 percent. It`s gone up from 0.03 over the last couple decades.
>>>
>>
>> That`s a 33% increase, right?
>
> When you`re talking infinitesimal numbers, ANY increase may seem GINORMOUS.
>
> It`s like the idiot bogan from Arsetralia who seems to think we can feel a
> millionth of a degree, so when it goes up 2 millionths, he has a fucking
> orgasm. SEE? WARMING!
>
> 1-1/100th of a percent. I don`t care if it was a 99% increase... infinitesimal
> is infinitesimal.
=====
Subject: Re: You`re Shittin` Us, Right? Nerds Making STUPID Analogies and
Comparisons, Showing Us Their Psychoses
From: AlleyCat <al@aohell.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:35:09 -0500
Innumerate?
No.
Able to research a topic, without fucking up?
Yes.
=====
LOL... Moron Ski Bunny Smacked Down... Again - Not The Same Article, And You
Should Have Kept Onnnn Researching, You Stupid Fuck, vis-a-vis "RANGE LIMIT
REBOOT"
- DOWN to 100 mile range
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:17:19 -0500
Moron Ski Bunny Strikes Again - Not The Same Article, And You Should Have Kept
Onnnn Researching, You Stupid Fuck, vis-a-vis "RANGE LIMIT REBOOT"
From: AlleyCat <al@aohell.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:02:37 -0500
Aw... poor ski bunny... smacked so hard his gay boyfriend in San Francisco was
knocked out.
Wassa matta, ski bunny... use all that brain power mind-melding with those
Russian sports officials and unable to muster a rationalization for your fuck
up? [giggle]
=====
Busy day... hardly time to write, so there WILL be redundancy and mistakes.
But, the main focus is YOUR inability to research what YOU write.
You stop when you`ve found what you THINK is the only article EVER written,
that makes what UNUM said, a lie. I was quoting Unum, quoting the NY Times,
which DOES have the updated figures and data on the mileage of the EVa.
Conclusion: you failed once again to refute me, as usual.
=====
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:57:22 -0700, Alan says...
>
> On 2023-09-26 21:06, AlleyCat wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 21:57:57 -0500, Unum says...
Sept. 25, 2023:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/air-force-joby-electric-air-
taxi.html
See the date? Your source has none, but articles listed at the bottom OF your
sourced site, does, and shows the mileage update. Read on, idiot.
> > Sooooo... EVERY destination has to be less than about 90 miles, since NO ONE
> > wants to see how close to that 100 mile barrier they can get... riiiight?
>
> Where does the article say that 100 miles is the absolute maximum?
(right there, mother fucker... LOL... you`ll see)
In Unum`s source, or in yours?
LOL... you couldn`t read the NYTimes article because of the paywall, so you
decided to use your own source!! What a fucking putz.
BUT!... I`m so glad you did, because it gave ME the opportunity to show how
lazy and unwilling you are to find out the truth, the WHOLE truth, and noting
BUT the truth.
I`m sure you scoured the Internet JUST to try to make me look like a liar, when
I was simply replying to what UNUM wrote/quoted.
LOOK at the date of the article.
Sept. 25, 2023:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/air-force-joby-electric-air-
taxi.html
Sept. 25, 2023:
"Joby, which is based in Santa Cruz, Calif., said that its electric aircraft is
substantially quieter than helicopters or planes. Each can carry one pilot and
four passengers and travel as fast as 200 miles per hour AND AS FAR AS 100
MILES, ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY."
What`s the date on yours? "Unknown"
https://www.futureflight.aero/aircraft-program/joby-evtol#
https://i.imgur.com/TTWI4kP.png
Annnnd, they didn`t list the mileage until the very last paragraph. No date
means that have probably updated the mileage for the EVa.
Outdated:
> `Capable of reaching a speed of 200 mph, it will have a range of 150
> miles on a single charge.`
That`s from YOUR source, which has no date, so we can NOT be sure if those
numbers are current. We CAN from Unum`s source.
> <https://www.futureflight.aero/aircraft-program/joby-evtol#>
NOT the source that was used by Unum, you numbskull. Did you not SEE this...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/air-force-joby-electric-air-
taxi.html
... you fucking idiot, or are you soooooo fucking obsessed with trying to make
yourself look sooooo smart, you FAIL to read what *I`M* replying to?
If you would have bothered to research a little further on YOUR source, you`d
have seen subsequent articles listed at the bottom of the page which DO have
dates, AND a mileage "update", meaning the mileage estimate figures were
probably updated in the model.
You fucking MORON:
I found this: why couldn`t YOU have? Oh yeah... so obsessed with being a nerdy
little tattletale prick, you stopped researching after you found OUTDATED
data, which makes you a liar.
RANGE LIMIT REBOOT, BUT NO MISSION CHANGE
"Joby`s all-electric air taxi, which has room for four passengers plus one
pilot, is DESIGNED TO FLY ON TRIPS OF UP TO 100 MILES while producing zero
emissions, and at speeds of up to 200 mph. The company will not only mass-
produce the aircraft, but it also intends to operate them for commercial air
taxi services in cities."
You lazy fuck.
https://www.futureflight.aero/news-article/2023-09-15/jobys-first-evtol-air-
taxi-factory-coming-dayton-ohio
https://i.imgur.com/bCbFVGz.png
https://i.imgur.com/ln0yZjF.png
From UNUM`S source:
"Joby, which is based in Santa Cruz, Calif., said that its electric aircraft is
substantially quieter than helicopters or planes. Each can carry one pilot and
four passengers and travel as fast as 200 miles per hour and as far as 100
miles, according to the company."
(turns out I was right... read on)
I have a sneaking suspicion, since YOUR article is not dated and couldn`t
POSSIBLY be any newer than Unum`s article, that they`ve put the numbers BACK
through their models and "adjusted" the max miles, so... you lose again.
I wrote that BEFORE finding updated sources from the website YOU sourced.
> Wait... ...I know! You`re going to complain about two words: "will
> have". Let me help you out:
Yes, WILL have. That`s the rub... (see next paragraph)
> `Joby Completes Flight of More Than 150 Miles with Electric Vertical
> Take-Off Air Taxi`
(giggle... turns out, that is COMPLETELY wrong using OUTDATED data)
If they haven`t flown it yet, moron, then it`s THEORETICAL mileage. They use
MODELS to calculate distance, so when they actually DO fly the EVa, they will
get REAL world data(which is ALWAYS different... your mileage may vary???),
seeing how the wind will probably be blowing, the barometric pressure might be
higher or lower than what they used in their models. Also rain, humidity...
etc.
>
(I know I`m being redundant, but I wrote much of this before I researched
further, and found out your numbers were hogwash)
Not the same article as what I derived MY statement from, you stupid fuck.
Unum`s article is current... yours is not, but if you would have opened that
fucking closed and obsessed mind of yours, you would have seen the articles at
the bottom of your sourced website, and seen UPDATED versions.
I find it VERY flattering, that you take time out of your busy schedule, you
know... sending telepathic messages to your Russian Sports Officials and all,
but, if you`re going to refute what I write, do it with the same source, else
you`re simply being disingenuous, therefore, lying.
Look here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/air-force-joby-electric-air-
taxi.html
Look there...
https://www.futureflight.aero/news-article/2023-09-15/jobys-first-evtol-air-
taxi-factory-coming-dayton-ohio
(10th paragraph down)
> 154.6 miles to be exact.
LOL... he said "exact". THAT`S from a model, you tick-turd. WHY can`t you
moronic liberals stop believing MODELS, when they`re programmed by men and
women with agendas and figures to lie about when trying to sell their
products??
Also, that mileage has been updated in subsequent articles from the website YOU
sourced.
Found at the bottom of your OUTDATED website:
https://www.futureflight.aero/news-article/2023-09-15/jobys-first-evtol-air-
taxi-factory-coming-dayton-ohio
https://i.imgur.com/bCbFVGz.png
https://i.imgur.com/ln0yZjF.png
=====
THIS is the source Unum used, which DOES have the updated data.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/air-force-joby-electric-air-
taxi.html
"Joby, which is based in Santa Cruz, Calif., said that its electric aircraft is
substantially quieter than helicopters or planes. Each can carry one pilot and
four passengers and travel as fast as 200 miles per hour and as far as 100
miles, according to the company."
> > Go back to talking about the weather, uNumbnuts. It`s a little
harder to make
> > you look stupid talking about the weather, than it is talking
about future EVA
> > crashes, which WILL happen, and set EVaircraft back a decade.
>
> So IC engine aircraft never crash, do they?
Whataboutism and non-Sequitur Noted: Thank You.
> > If YOU want to trust your life to a battery-operated flying vehicle... go
> > ahead... just send us video of your experiences.
>
> IC engine aircraft never run out of fuel in flight, do they?
Non-Sequitur Noted: Thank You.
> > Why not hydrogen-power? I think anyone who can make a turbine
run on hydrogen,
> > has got it made.
>
> 1. Turbines are very high maintenance whereas electric motors are not.
Thanks for the info already known by millions, if not billions. Non-Sequitur
Noted: Thank You.
> 2. What is the energy density of hydrogen... ...including the storage
> vessel?
Non-Sequitur Noted: Thank You.
--- MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
* Origin: AlleyCat Computing, Inc. (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441