From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it may
be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a number of
ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about 15,000 years
ago and the ice cap was just about in my back yard. It has been
receding for 15,000 years, most of that time with out the
industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels that are being
blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs. https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/
https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years
Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2 concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from today, before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million years experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the EarthrCOs liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to 90% of all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on Earth.
Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today. The
next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling planet
as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets formed 30 million
years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3 million years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo habilus, rCLthe handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo erectus, rCLthe upright manrCY, first appeared
nearly 2 million years before today.
We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs 0.06% of
the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and represents just 2% of
the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. We have a long way
to go.
You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate change" hobgoblin.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it may
be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a number of
ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about 15,000 years
ago and the ice cap was just about in my back yard. It has been
receding for 15,000 years, most of that time with out the
industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels that are being
blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/

https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years

Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2 concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from today, before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million years experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the EarthrCOs liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to 90% of all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on Earth.

Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today. The
next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling planet
as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets formed 30 million
years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3 million years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo habilus, rCLthe handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo erectus, rCLthe upright manrCY, first appeared
nearly 2 million years before today.

We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs 0.06% of
the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and represents just 2% of
the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. We have a long way
to go.

You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate change" hobgoblin.

There's a difference between a cooling/warming cycle and the speed at
which the climate cycle change takes place. Yes, it's totally
reasonable and probable that there would be a warming cycle at the
conclusion of the last ice age. However, it is the speed at which that
cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in speed of
change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our species. The concept
of rate of change of acceleration is best described by the mathematics
of calculus.




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it may
be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a number of
ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about 15,000 years
ago and the ice cap was just about in my back yard. It has been
receding for 15,000 years, most of that time with out the
industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels that are being
blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/

https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years

Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2 concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from today, before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million years experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the EarthrCOs liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to 90% of all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on Earth.

Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today. The
next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling planet
as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets formed 30 million
years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3 million years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo habilus, rCLthe handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo erectus, rCLthe upright manrCY, first appeared
nearly 2 million years before today.

We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs 0.06% of
the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and represents just 2% of
the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. We have a long way
to go.

You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate change" hobgoblin.

There's a difference between a cooling/warming cycle and the speed at
which the climate cycle change takes place. Yes, it's totally
reasonable and probable that there would be a warming cycle at the
conclusion of the last ice age. However, it is the speed at which that
cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in speed of
change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our species. The concept
of rate of change of acceleration is best described by the mathematics
of calculus.




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

Le 20/02/2026 |a 15:45, Retirednoguilt a |-crit-a:

However, it is the speed at which that
cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in speed of
change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our species.

The modern warming started at the beginning of the 17th century. To
compare two speeds of warming, you need two series with the same
sampling rate. Before the invention of thermometers, the best sampling
rate was one point every 60 years.

To illustrate the effect, look at these speeds of warming with different sampling rates. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:720/to:1980/derivative/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1980/derivative
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:47:23 -0500
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it may
be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a number of
ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about 15,000 years
ago and the ice cap was just about in my back yard. It has been
receding for 15,000 years, most of that time with out the
industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels that are being
blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/

https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years

Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2
concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from today,
before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million years experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the EarthrCOs
liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove
increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to 90% of
all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to
extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on Earth.

Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today.
The next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling
planet as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets formed
30 million years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3 million
years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo habilus, rCLthe
handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo erectus, rCLthe upright manrCY, first appeared nearly 2 million years before today.

We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs
0.06% of the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and
represents just 2% of the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the
Earth. We have a long way to go.

You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate
change" hobgoblin.

There's a difference between a cooling/warming cycle and the speed at
which the climate cycle change takes place.

No duh, they don't move in lockstep, nor could they.

Yes, it's totally
reasonable and probable that there would be a warming cycle at the
conclusion of the last ice age.

It is mandatory.

However, it is the speed at which
that cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in
speed of change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than
the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our
species.

BULL FUCKING SHIT! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.
Climate debate has 'life of its own'
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.
It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

The concept of rate of change of acceleration is best
described by the mathematics of calculus.

Put some calculus on why the north pole is almost in Siberia with very
recent and accelerated movement.
Then define why the south pole has broken an anaomaly off and moved
north as well.
Knock yerself out.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:35:40 +0100
Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 20/02/2026 |a 15:45, Retirednoguilt a |-crit-a:

However, it is the speed at which that
cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in speed
of change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than the
effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our
species.

The modern warming started at the beginning of the 17th century. To
compare two speeds of warming, you need two series with the same
sampling rate. Before the invention of thermometers, the best
sampling rate was one point every 60 years.

To illustrate the effect, look at these speeds of warming with
different sampling rates. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:720/to:1980/derivative/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1980/derivative

Learn: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University
As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.
In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.
Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.
Climate debate has 'life of its own'
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.
It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.
This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what
I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I
have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced
greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant
amounts of global warming.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On 2/20/26 08:30, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:47:23 -0500
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it may
be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a number of
ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about 15,000 years
ago and the ice cap was just about in my back yard. It has been
receding for 15,000 years, most of that time with out the
industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels that are being
blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/

https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years

Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2
concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from today,
before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million years
experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the EarthrCOs
liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove
increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into the
atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to 90% of
all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to
extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on Earth.

Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today.
The next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling
planet as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets formed
30 million years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3 million
years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo habilus, rCLthe
handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo erectus, rCLthe upright
manrCY, first appeared nearly 2 million years before today.

We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs
0.06% of the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and
represents just 2% of the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the
Earth. We have a long way to go.




You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate
change" hobgoblin.

There's a difference between a cooling/warming cycle and the speed at
which the climate cycle change takes place.

No duh, they don't move in lockstep, nor could they.

Yes, it's totally
reasonable and probable that there would be a warming cycle at the
conclusion of the last ice age.

It is mandatory.

However, it is the speed at which
that cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in
speed of change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than
the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our
species.

BULL FUCKING SHIT!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

The concept of rate of change of acceleration is best
described by the mathematics of calculus.

Put some calculus on why the north pole is almost in Siberia with very
recent and accelerated movement.

Then define why the south pole has broken an anaomaly off and moved
north as well.

Knock yerself out.

You are debating science against religious axioms. It
does not matter how well you make you case that this is
fraud. It falls on deaf ears.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 13:27:02 -0800
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 2/20/26 08:30, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:47:23 -0500
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 4:29 PM, Mars Sellus wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:00:56 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/19/2026 12:50 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

I am not disputing that there is something going on or that it
may be cause by us. I will just point out there have been a
number of ice ages that we know about. The last one ended about
15,000 years ago and the ice cap was just about in my back
yard. It has been receding for 15,000 years, most of that time
with out the industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels
that are being blamed now.

We burn 150 million tons of fossil fuel a day.

How big is the planet?

I would think that
has some effect.

It's called "air pollution" - tends to effect cities in basin
topography like Salt Lake o LA.

Recently saw a bar chart of the long time warming and a big spike
started with the industrial revolution.

Try and look at the big spikes in prior geologic epochs.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/current-co2-levels-are-near-record-lows-we-are-co2-impoverished/

https://net-zero.blog/book-blog/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-over-500-million-years

Roughly 300 million years ago, global temperatures and CO2
concentrations stabilised, at levels not too dissimilar from
today, before once again beginning to climb. The next 250 million
years experienced a volatile warming trend as currents in the
EarthrCOs liquid mantle broke apart the supercontinent Pangea, drove
increasing volcanic activity, and released CO2 and methane into
the atmosphere. Through the early temperature increases, up to
90% of all sea creatures and 65% of land creatures were driven to
extinction. The dinosaurs emerged as the dominant species on
Earth.

Carbon Dioxide concentrations peaked at over 1,000 ppm around 50
million years ago, with temperatures over 10rU#C warmer than today.
The next 50 million years are characterised by a gradually cooling
planet as volcanic activity slowed. The Antarctic ice sheets
formed 30 million years ago and Greenland glaciation took place 3
million years ago. The evolution of our early ancestor Homo
habilus, rCLthe handy manrCY, followed soon after, before Homo
erectus, rCLthe upright manrCY, first appeared nearly 2 million years
before today.

We have existed as a species less than 3 million years: thatrCOs
0.06% of the planetrCOs life, 0.6% of the time of trees, and
represents just 2% of the length of time the dinosaurs roamed the
Earth. We have a long way to go.




You're another easily gulled simp when it comes to the "climate
change" hobgoblin.

There's a difference between a cooling/warming cycle and the speed
at which the climate cycle change takes place.

No duh, they don't move in lockstep, nor could they.

Yes, it's totally
reasonable and probable that there would be a warming cycle at the
conclusion of the last ice age.

It is mandatory.

However, it is the speed at which
that cycle is happening and the fact that the rate of increase in
speed of change is most unlikely to be due to any factor other than
the effect of actions taken and continuing to take place by our
species.

BULL FUCKING SHIT!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant
amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give
this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate
change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged
upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be
expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a
negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with
such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and
forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or
how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this
topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this
subject.

The concept of rate of change of acceleration is best
described by the mathematics of calculus.

Put some calculus on why the north pole is almost in Siberia with
very recent and accelerated movement.

Then define why the south pole has broken an anaomaly off and moved
north as well.

Knock yerself out.

You are debating science against religious axioms.

True that.

It does not matter how well you make you case that this is
fraud. It falls on deaf ears.

Beliefs are always stronger than facts, a sad but obvious truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On 2/20/26 14:00, Mars Sellus wrote:

You are debating science against religious axioms.

True that.

It does not matter how well you make you case that this is
fraud. It falls on deaf ears.

Beliefs are always stronger than facts, a sad but obvious truth.

What the fraudsters will no accept is that CO2 is part of the
cycle of life on this planet. As levels rise, plant life rises
and takes it up and give off oxygen. It does not keep building
up and up and up and up. It is a cycle.

The fraudster state that 500 ppm and all life will stop on the
planet. What they refuse to see is that the most life we know
of was the percamberioun explosion at 2000 ppm. We had
a lot more oxygen then too (why insects were so big).

The fraudsters also do not discuss what drop in CO2 would kill
off the plant life we all depend on. I believe the number is
350 ppm, but I am not sure.

And oh please stop with the Venus bull s***. CO2 is 98% of
Venus' atmosphere. Not 400 ppm.

On our planet, water vapor is the main green house gas, but
the fraudsters can not come up with a way to control our
lives over it and make themselves rich in the process.

They really do think they are the "anointed".
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:19:53 -0800
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 2/20/26 14:00, Mars Sellus wrote:

You are debating science against religious axioms.

True that.

It does not matter how well you make you case that this is
fraud. It falls on deaf ears.

Beliefs are always stronger than facts, a sad but obvious truth.

What the fraudsters will no accept is that CO2 is part of the
cycle of life on this planet. As levels rise, plant life rises
and takes it up and give off oxygen. It does not keep building
up and up and up and up. It is a cycle.

Such cyclic progressions are of course and from time immemorial are the
norm.

The fraudster state that 500 ppm and all life will stop on the
planet. What they refuse to see is that the most life we know
of was the percamberioun explosion at 2000 ppm. We had
a lot more oxygen then too (why insects were so big).

TY.

The fraudsters also do not discuss what drop in CO2 would kill
off the plant life we all depend on. I believe the number is
350 ppm, but I am not sure.

And oh please stop with the Venus bull s***. CO2 is 98% of
Venus' atmosphere. Not 400 ppm.

On our planet, water vapor is the main green house gas, but
the fraudsters can not come up with a way to control our
lives over it and make themselves rich in the process.

They really do think they are the "anointed".

And they really hate to admit that increased crop yields now occurring
in farther north latitudes are *good* for society.

These are irrational deniers with tight blinders on.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2