[AzCal Retred]

"Alexander Eriksson instead flew to the Canary Islands. He was met at the airport by a special operations unit of the Swedish police. "
Related 9PM News blurb >> "Eleven other criminals as well as several bystanders were turned away when they also tried to surrender...more film at 10PM..." <<   

[Arschloch]

...I would not trust anything that comes out of that place. Surprisingly they didn't use a battery powered helicopter made out of recycled cardboard.

[AzCal Retred]

Serbian Goran Bojovic, a former BIA Red Beret, led the robbery. The Bell 206 Jet Ranger (aka OH-58 Kiowa) is most assuredly not from Sweden, isn't made out of Papier Mache, and was probably spec'd out by Goran from previous experience. The actual robbery went well, the getting away part not so much; a common crime problem not restricted to Sweden. Try the national dish of meatballs washed down with some Akvavit, serenaded with an evening of ABBA's finest tunes and you'll feel better in the morning
https://ingmar.app/blog/swedish-national-dish-meatballs/
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/top-10-foods-try-sweden


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Agency
The BIA is a national intelligence agency of Serbia. The agency is responsible for collecting, reporting and disseminating intelligence, and conducting counter-intelligence in the interest of Serbia's national security.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_206

Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dačić claims that former members of the BIA Red Berets took part in the robbery. One month prior to the robbery, the Swedish embassy was allegedly given "certain information about a criminal group which was preparing a robbery" by Serbian police. One out of seven sentenced men were from Serbia.[8]

Swedish police quickly identified and arrested the suspects. Two days after the robbery, Safa Kadhum flew to Dominican Republic where he was arrested by local law enforcement on Swedish government's request. Swedish police immediately chartered a private plane to bring him back to Sweden. Alexander Eriksson instead flew to the Canary Islands. He was met at the airport by a special operations unit of the Swedish police. The police identified Goran Bojovic as the one who led the robbery. [9]

More fun from the "KDKB Master Criminal of the Week!" files.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqNVmuTeRcI

[Arschloch]

A paper mache helicopter would have had a better public impact. The chinese Aquavit and horse meet made köttbullar are unlikely to find a place on my table ever. I'm not inclined to sponsor Gretas new villa, ever. Greta go to work!

[AzCal Retred]

Say Whaaat? 

[Arschloch]

Say Whaaat? 

Greta could bake a cake and invite her friends for a coffe party. Ohhh, can't do that, in commie parasitistan they would make fun of her how stupid she is doing actual work. Or accuse her of being greedy because she didn't serve champagne with caviar.

I guess she will have to come up with another theory why the world is coming to an end.

[AzCal Retred]

Here's a theory for you that doesn't depend on demonizing anyone or anyplace in particular:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

World population now is about 7.8 billion. In 1920 total population was about 1.8 billion, so over a 400% growth the last 100 years. Things really took off after 1800. Before that it took 900 years to increase 400% from an estimated 250 million in 900 AD to 1 billion in 1800 AD.

There was a lot more arable land available in 1800 for those 1 billion. The land area of Earth is still about 57 million square miles, 29% of the total surface area.

In 1920 total population was about 1.8 billion and there was more arable or potentially arable land available. Currently at 7.8 billion that yields an "average" of about 137 people per square mile. Unfortunately only about 12 million is farmable, so each square mile of farmland supports about 650 people and puts the rest of us up to about 170 per square mile.

Unless there is some ultimate illegal-aliens-from-outer-space-issued "prize" for exponential population expansion into a finite resource area, maybe some thought should be given to that prickly issue? Instead of banging on about "Gretas" & "evil Sweden" taking away your Keurig, maybe that time might be more productively spent encouraging those folks at Planned Parenthood. (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ )
“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy”  Alfred Henry Lewis (1855-1914)
What is the predictable outcome of billions of people fighting over the last scraps of resources left? Do you remotely think that "Greta" would have garnered an audience any sort of audience in 1800, when folks could see with their own eyes limitless natural resources and plentiful empty space?
Very well documented indeed is what happens in uncontrolled population expansion scenarios, that the "carrying capacity" of the "range" is permanently & significantly degraded by the expansion & crash cycle. This is in reference to biological time of course, not geological time, which isn't of much use to an existing species.
China had a "One-Child" policy and had to replace it with the "Two-Child" policy to counter threats from population growth from adjacent Islamic nations. Going to war with a geriatric army against a bunch of 16 year old's didn't appeal to them. Had these same nations had a lower birth rate, China could have continued on it's original strategy towards a stable population of 700 million. With a land area of 3.7 million square miles, that would have put them at about 190/ sq.mi.; presently they're at about 350 with a population of 1.3 billion.
Greta & Sweden aren't the problem here. We need to apply our brains to our continued survival and start to behave like we're sentients, not ground squirrels or deer. Not filling up the oceans with plastic bags which results in killing off everything big enough to swallow them is a good start. Or we could just go on inutility excoriating a 17 year old that happens to be the current focus of media attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/09/where-and-why-the-median-age-for-muslims-is-so-low/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy#:~:text=The%20new%20policy%20allowing%20Chinese,effective%20from%201%20January%202016.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/environmental-limits-to-population-growth/#:~:text=When%20the%20population%20size%2C%20N,shaped%20growth%20curve%20is%20produced.&text=In%20logistic%20growth%2C%20population%20expansion,in%20an%20S%2Dshaped%20curve.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Arable_land.htm#:~:text=Of%20the%20earth's%2057%20million,38%2C610%20square%20miles)%20per%20year.
"Of the earth's 57 million square miles (148,000,000 km²) of land, approximately 12 million square miles (31,000,000 km²) are arable; however, arable land is being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km² (38,610 square miles) per year."

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

[Arschloch]

Wow, sounds great, planned parenthood. Can't get any better, send me the concubines.

Can someone shoot this Malthus, what exactly is scares the cash on Bill Gatses account? I'm not at all inclined to spend my life disproving these theories by the way. There is no point, what Greta says is a scientific fact so why bother. 

Consequently a typical Swedish company is run by the genetically privileged. HA-HA

[AzCal Retred]

"I'm not at all inclined to spend my life disproving these theories by the way."

So all this "Greta" & "Sweden" drivel we are incessantly bombarded with is what exactly, pointless self-entertainment? No provable basis for any of it? Don't care enough about the other forum members to actually do the work and support your positions?

Your tech-related stuff is great; incisive & informative. I really look forward to it. Why you constantly wander off into the Sweden & Greta filled weeds is a mystery. That stuff isn't anything like your tech writing. We all have demons, most of us leave them behind with the "delete" key.

[Arschloch]

So how does one person disprove a theory that some billionaires club spend endless amounts of cash to develop and propagate into the world?

It's not up to me to prove or disprove anything. The FFF crowd is considering to put particles in the atmosphere. I live under the the atmosphere too, I never had an issue with diesel particles neither with the climate. Now I don't want any artificial particles in the atmosphere, simple.

https://www.cnet.com/videos/how-putting-particles-in-the-stratosphere-might-just-slow-global-warming/

[Adrian II]

Or just wait for the super volcano building up under Jellystone Yellowstone Park to do its thing?

A.

[Arschloch]

Or just wait for the super volcano building up under Jellystone Yellowstone Park to do its thing?

A.

Or for the comet striking? Alternatively you could go on and organise the whole thing, a very important page to you in the history books would be granted. 

[AzCal Retred]

You don't have to "disprove" anything. You need to look at the proven known science and draw logical conclusions. Just like you already do so well when you diagnose mechanical of electrical issues, you don't set out to reformulate metallurgy or re-theorize magnetic theory. Take the best, repeatable, proven-by-multiple-source data you can get and do the best you can to get useful results. Use the tools you already have to get useful results.
"Now I don't want any artificial particles in the atmosphere, simple." As AdrianII pointed out, volcanic eruptions (not remotely under our jurisdiction) release tremendous quantities of sulfur & sulfur compounds when they erupt. Historical data show a clear correlation between eruptions and global-scale cooling. There's also zero way to match those vast quantities of materials. As far as "artificial particles", remember the "ozone hole"? The one that began to heal when fluorocarbon refrigerant releases were reduced? It's still an ongoing process, but we all don't need "Sunblock 60" yet, so maybe a small success. Science is a tool. It can be used for good or evil, it's still just a tool. Ignoring science doesn't make it wrong, it just blocks you from using it well.

A comet strike? Like this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#:~:text=in%20mid%2Dair.-,Asteroid%20or%20comet%3F,atmosphere%2C%20leaving%20no%20obvious%20traces.
Asteroid or comet?
In 1930, the British astronomer F. J. W. Whipple suggested that the Tunguska body was a small comet. A comet is composed of dust and volatiles, such as water ice and frozen gases, and could have been completely vaporised by the impact with Earth's atmosphere, leaving no obvious traces. The comet hypothesis was further supported by the glowing skies (or "skyglows" or "bright nights") observed across Eurasia for several evenings after the impact, which are possibly explained by dust and ice that had been dispersed from the comet's tail across the upper atmosphere.[39] The cometary hypothesis gained a general acceptance among Soviet Tunguska investigators by the 1960s.[39]
Again, take what you know and see what best fits the data. "Use what you know to figure out what you don't know".

Paranoia is useful but has its limits: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Ben Franklin
Vast world wide conspiracies are a very tough slog. Occam's razor cuts to the truth more often than not.

[Arschloch]

The proven known science is that climate change has very little to do with human activity. All the evidence exists, nobody wants to hear it neither see it. What else?

Why are you talking about conspiracies? There is no conspiracy, it's a collective delusion.

[AzCal Retred]

The only reason to make the absurd statement that human activity has no effect on Earths climate is to entertain yourself.
It is pretty self evident that deforestation, i.e. albedo changes (thermal reflectivity), atmospheric gas changes, etc. all impact climate.
At #66 & #72 points were presented regarding human impact and the utility of applying what is known & can be proven.
Cretaceous CO2 levels were nearly 1000 PPM. Presently they are about 410 PPM, up in about 150 years from a relatively steady state 270 or so of the last 1000 or more years. The Cretaceous world was ice free, and forests extended to the poles. There was less available dry land. From #66, the implications of that are grim for people. A smart guy would try to get ahead of that end if he could. Maybe yes, maybe no, but without trying the end result is predictable.
Earths climate also has solar, geologic and probably interstellar components. The ones we can affect through our actions are land albedo and CO2 from our activities. A survivable environment is another thing we can affect, which is related to but not exactly the same as climate.
"Why are you talking about conspiracies? There is no conspiracy, it's a collective delusion."
Really? This from a guy constantly banging on about "Greta" and her "Swedish Overlords" and their dark designs for us? We have real world issues that are not going to be resolved by ignoring them and doing nothing. That's not entirely true though, as doing nothing is also a choice. If you are "all good" with the probable outcome of inaction, you're already there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
The Cretaceous ( /krɪˈteɪ.ʃəs/, krih-TAY-shəs)[1] is a geological period that lasted from about 145 to 66 million years ago (mya). It is the third and final period of the Mesozoic Era, as well as the longest. At nearly 80 million years, it is the longest geological period of the entire Phanerozoic. The name is derived from the Latin creta, 'chalk', which is abundant in the latter half of the period. It is usually abbreviated K, for its German translation Kreide. The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land. The world was ice free, and forests extended to the poles. During this time, new groups of mammals and birds appeared. During the Early Cretaceous, flowering plants appeared and began to rapidly diversify, becoming the dominant group of plants across the Earth by the end of the Cretaceous, co-incident with the decline and extinction of previously widespread gymnosperm groups.