We get our Internet from Centurylink, one of the few Baby Bells left in form. Consequently, it comes to our house on a wire. There is a switch box a couple of miles down the road that serves our neighborhood, and we are at the end of the line. For that reason, whenever I check speed at 192.168.0.1, it reads that our line status is either “poor” or “moderate.”
Last February we traded out an older model modem (Centurylink does used modems, and not routers), and the service agent who came by the house said to be careful, we might be “overprovided.” Not too long after that our service started blinking out now and then, and modem reboots had to be done frequently. I called tech support about that, and ask them if we were indeed overprovided. They had no clue what I was talking about. I suggested we drop our service back to perhaps 10 mps but the agent said not to do that, and I allowed him to keep me at 17mps. The intermittent service continued. It finally got so bad that I was convinced that the new modem we got in February was defective. An agent agreed with me, and sent me a new modem.
That modem worked better than the old one, in that it did not completely fritz out. But it would slow down shortly after booting. We were basically without service, unable to run our iPads or watch TV. I finally arranged for a technician to come to the house.
His name was Russ, and he showed up on our doorstep at 5PM last evening. He had just been to the switch box, and said that we were overprovided, just as were warned by a different technician in February. Because of that the modems, which both worked fine, would get overloaded, and start dropping “packets.” That creates a need for constant rebooting. I asked him what we could do about it, and he said “It’s already fixed.” He said we pay for 15MPS, and that the computer had bumped us up to 18mps, so that our routers were constantly shutting down.
I have talked to tech support people at Centurylink, and by and large they are script readers, that is, they are working with a flow chart that says “If customer says this, then check this” and so on. According to the last one I talked to, we are getting our full signal, and if it is slow, it is because we are overusing our bandwidth. That is simply not true. We have two desktop computers, two iPads, one seldom used, and two iPhones, which use cellular fur the most part. Our TV relies on Internet service too. But it is only on for an hour or two at night. We do not watch games, do social media, or watch sporting events (except the Avs when they recently won the Stanley Cup). I suggested to the agent that she should remove that red flag from our account, that it is a mistake caused by all the slowdowns and reboots caused by the overproviding these past months. I said “It’s your fault, not ours.” She refused.
Russ said that our problems were not our doing, not our fault, and not even human error. It was a computer, he said, that bumped us beyond our ability to use the signal, causing repeated modem malfunction. So, since February, we’ve not known the luxury or reliable Internet. We had sort of gotten used to that until maybe ten days ago when it frizzed completely. I’ve been trying to keep up with things on my iPhone, but I am not a teenager and cannot make my fingers move like buzz saws. Were it not for texting, which I do use frequently, I would not need a mobile phone.
This has gotta be boring reading. If dealing with Centurylink, their technicians are good, their tech support people less so. Moving along.
This is something I’ve known about on some level for quite some time, but had to relearn. It has to do with CO2 and the 2nd Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2), where they are using an oxygen isotope as a proxy for temperature. Boring down in the ice that has accumulated over 10,000 years, they are able to identify eras and temperatures, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is really an accomplishment, a feat of science. Climate alarmists want nothing to do with it. It tells them they are wrong about the past and present.
This is from Bill Pekny’s book A Tale of Two Climates, One Real, On e Imaginary, page 32:
Confusion ensues when, for example, some declare that a rise in the level of CO2 is followed by a rise in temperature. Increasing CO2 does not cause increasing temperature. It is the other way around. Temperature controls CO2. A change in temperature (the cause) results in a change in CO2 (the effect). Think of a bottle or can of soda and what happens to the drink’s carbonation (CO2) when you leave it in the sun. The soda warms and the carbonation departs the drink, and quite rapidly, I might add.
The GISP people have gotten so sophisticated that they have been able to identify rising CO2 levels and warming periods, and say that CO2 levels rise after warming, usually a hundred years or so later. That would be the ocean warming and its CO2 leaving and entering the atmosphere.
Of course, alarmists, even as they have cause and effect ass backwards, are not blaming the ocean as the source of rising CO2 levels, but rather fossil fuels. The GISP show us as well that CO2 and temperature operate quite independently of one another. Nonetheless, as the graph above relates about our current interglacial period, temperature (blue) and CO2 levels (red) are not at all correlated. The Climate Change movement has chosen CO2 as a villain solely for the reason that it is a way for them to attack fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with wealth and population. They want less wealth for all of us except them, and fewer people. This link takes you to a Jon Rappoport article describing how primatologist Jane Goodall wants the world population reset at 461 million, or what it was 500 years ago. How’s that for a misanthrope who works with primates. I presume she feels she should be one who makes the cut along with a monkey or two.
This has to do with a paper linked to on the blog by Kenshophomestead, here. At the end of her comment is a link is to a PDF which I do not know how to link directly, titled Weather Modification Techniques by Electric Field. There’s been some back and forth on that topic here on the blog, and I am only mentioning Kensho here because she provided the link, and certainly not to show her up or anything like that. She makes a legitimate point on a topic aside from what caught my eye in that paper.
Rather than rehash everything, I will offer my response to that paper:
OK, had a chance to look it over [The Science Direct paper posted by Kensho]. Imagine this: We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars on wind and solar, boondoggle devices to solve a nonexistent problem. That’s what I am reading in the paper, development of new technology to counter “…climate warming, increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, pollution, dust, acidification of ocean …” in other words, if you liked wind and solar, massively expensive failed technologies to solve nonexistent problems, we’ve got even more in store, new technologies that will cost billions, fail, and not even solve the nonexistent problems.
If it were just the boondoggle aspect, the pocket lining, we could survive the nonsense. But Europe right now is in an energy crisis due to wind and solar and net zero. I tend to think that these are deliberate policies to lower living standards and cause depopulation, working hand in hand with Covid and the vaccines. But that is just me. We are next in line, and don’t even talk about Africa and the racist aspects of this misanthropy.
Aside from that comment, several have been trying to convince me that weather modification technology is here and in widespread use. The paper referenced is nothing more than a plea for funding. I can imagine that the authors saw how many people got wealthy from solar and wind, and see weather modification in response to “Climate Change”, not proven to be a problem, as a means to an end, $$$.
Is weather modification going on? Who can tell? Our climate in Colorado has barely changed in the last 100 years – I’ve got the data on hand that shows this. So here’s my challenge: Rather than broad-brushing that it’s here and we are in some kind of danger, somehow under manipulation, provide specific instances of its use. I do not think that can be done, so that the topic is undebatable, that is, no one can prove it is in use and point out its effects, and I cannot prove a negative.
(I can think of one instance that appeared to be an experiment. That is record temperatures (100°F+) in June of 2021 in Seattle and Vancouver, BC. At that very same time, HAARP was posted off limits to all overflights. Was it up and running? I want to connect the two, but of course, can only speculate. And it would make sense if this was done that climate fanatics were behind it, as it is malevolent. They mean to harm people.) That’s what Climate Change is all about, harming us. Check Europe, especially Germany, if you want more evidence than my say so.