Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #678885 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-29 06:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-04-05 14:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 226 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-29 06:12 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 08:55 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-29 10:03 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:11 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 13:51 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 13:56 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-30 05:40 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-30 09:04 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-30 08:25 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-30 11:53 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 07:30 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 19:46 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 10:08 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 19:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:56 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 11:27 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 22:00 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 14:57 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:41 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 17:31 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 11:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-02 10:37 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 22:11 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 00:03 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:27 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:12 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 20:10 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 13:18 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 23:12 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 14:39 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:40 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:15 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:04 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:02 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 00:01 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:16 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 19:38 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-01 12:39 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-02 11:22 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 18:29 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 12:07 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-02 22:26 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:35 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:29 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 19:57 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 15:51 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:30 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-03 14:20 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 12:23 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 13:47 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 13:21 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 15:39 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:54 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 13:59 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 15:03 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 14:09 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 18:48 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:15 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:23 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:40 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:57 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 19:39 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 19:48 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:50 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:53 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:04 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-03 07:09 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:31 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:13 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:45 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:29 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 05:46 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:49 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:20 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:25 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 18:38 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:45 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:50 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 13:37 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 02:12 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 02:31 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 06:53 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 17:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 18:20 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 09:42 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:52 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 20:18 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 15:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 19:14 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 15:34 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 18:10 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 16:38 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:35 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 06:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:19 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 08:01 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 16:06 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 09:05 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 18:58 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:04 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:17 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:37 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:50 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:29 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:13 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 12:39 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:35 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 15:44 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:58 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:21 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 19:14 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:41 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:49 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 14:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 09:15 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 10:20 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:32 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 10:55 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 19:16 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 13:17 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 18:17 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:23 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 08:35 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:41 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 20:06 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 10:19 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 22:35 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 13:44 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 23:04 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-05 07:00 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-05 09:47 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 06:17 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 15:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 06:43 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 15:54 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 14:00 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 07:04 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:33 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 17:39 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 20:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:31 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:27 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 19:38 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 22:37 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 17:40 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:59 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 20:18 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:16 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:02 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:14 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 19:17 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:40 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 11:28 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-01 08:57 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 04:42 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:29 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-02 17:34 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-02 13:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-02 20:05 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 15:41 -0500
NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 19:17 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 13:20 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:26 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:36 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:46 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:02 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:21 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Tom Niven <tniven7694@herringmail.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:51 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-04-05 17:38 +0100
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:04 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-06 17:36 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 11:42 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-06 20:11 +0100
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-06 12:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 11:52 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-04-06 10:49 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-06 19:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 13:57 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:31 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 21:41 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-07 00:50 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-06 20:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 20:39 -0600
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-06 21:56 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:20 -0700
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 11:13 -0400
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-07 23:41 +0000
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-07 17:57 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 18:25 -0400
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:33 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:47 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:03 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 23:52 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:55 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 23:14 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 20:23 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:28 -0700
China is winning the game (imperialism). Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 08:46 -0700
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:14 -0500
If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 09:26 -0700
Re: If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 15:05 -0500
Re: If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 18:00 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 13:53 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-03-29 14:32 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 13:34 -0700
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 17:54 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 18:33 -0500
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Tom Niven <tniven7694@herringmail.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:42 +0000
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 12:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gX7wC.128218$3k.21889@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #679357 |
On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote: >> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link >>>>>>>>>> kensi pupa >>>>>>>>>> posted? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do >>>>>>>>> you froth >>>>>>>>> so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to >>>>>>>>> your k'lame >>>>>>>>> that it's too silly to be believed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly >>>>>>>> froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your >>>>>>>> beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and >>>>>>>> "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try >>>>>>>> to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Pot, kettle, black you moron. >>>>>> >>>>>> Liberal "science": puerile name-calling. >>>>> >>>>> **Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back >>>>> any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my >>>>> questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. >>>>> You are a lying moron. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Not necessarily. >>>>>> >>>>>> True, >>>>> >>>>> **There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to >>>>> one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be >>>>> holding my breath. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. >>> >>> **Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the >>> same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar. >>> An ignorant one, at that. >> >> I called YOU a liar because you are one. > > **And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I guess > you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope for the > best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world. > > > That's your job I think. > > **Nope. You don't think. You "debate" noted and reportd. >> >>> I note that you >>>> provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. >>> >>> **You only need to ask: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier >> >> Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway >> life sciences and medicine aren't real science. > > **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason. Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given. >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball >> >> Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he >> discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to >> see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a >> Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, >> Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence. > > **Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request. > In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You just > scurry away. Every single time. > >> >>> There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, >>> Steven Hawking, who authored a huge number of papers, articles and >>> books: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking >> >> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? > > **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very > broad. So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already did) is a journalist. There's no talking to you libs you just make shit up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies. > > hey I have >> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist. > > **You're nothing. Scientific point noted and reported. >> >>> I can live >>>> with a single theoretical exception. >>> >>> **Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual. >> >> Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong >> except by your fantasies and stretching meanings. > > **What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've > given you three examples. There are many, many more. No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with no evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes popular "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies. > >> >>>> >>>> I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who >>>> have sold out for money, fame, employment etc. >>> >>> **Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that >>> they are likely in the minority. >> >> Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science >> deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you >> warmballers always pretend exists. > > **Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased > temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even > Mythbusters proved it. Well that settles it. I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are right! Idiot. > >> >>> >>> and purposely lie and distort >>>> facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you >>>> Trevor? >>> >>> **LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many >>> questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond >>> and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are >>> beaten, so you just give up and scurry away. >> >> I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there >> is nothing and you heard nothing. Links to propaganda isn't science. "kensi" gives us more than all the links to journalists we need. > > **You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so. > (See the cut n copy at the end of this post) Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ has said so. You are pathetic. > So this: Stick your fingers in your ears >> and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've >> never answered any of your so-called questions. > > **I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack the > intellect and the knowledge to do so. How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true. > I'm still waiting for >> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and >> Temperature went DOWN! > > **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob: La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons? > -- > On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote: > > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote: > >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote: > >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > melt! > >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly- > >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true? > >>>>> > >>>>> No, HTH > >>>> > >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm > statement > >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial. > >>> > >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said > here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science > agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think > that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes > YOU the 'science denier". > >>> > >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something > you've also > >>>> tried to maintain deniability about. > >>> > >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused > me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard > sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist > commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your > utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social > experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the > only ones left refusing to accept the data. > >>> > >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the > record as > >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular. > >>> > >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer > reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and > paste journalist propaganda. > >> > >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question > or comment I make. Not once, not ever. > > > > The liar is YOU. > > **LOL. Let's see. > > Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling > > other people names and slandering them to further you political > scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that > you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You > are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself. > > > > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times? > > **NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit. I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!! YOu laying sack of shit. If you say there is no link then there must be none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your lown little fantasy world. > > Any idea what > > GISS data is? > > **I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do > you? > > > Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming > > is? > > **The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After > him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming > research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you > would know, if you took the time to study the science. Utter blather. 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made it political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should be killed. Now that is real science! > > Do you recognize HIS data? Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing but a political propagandist. > **Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I > said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic > claims. SOP. <Snip this> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING! You are lying crooked scum. > Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 > > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? > > **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many > times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol > pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note > (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when > governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol > pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor > understand): > > https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg > > > > And you have > > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? > > **Idiot. The science is undeniable. > > > How > > ignorant are you anyway. > > **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant > that you. > > > Why don't you show how much science you know > > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? > > **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When > infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate > (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 > molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to > nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus > raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts > at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus > nighttime temperatures are raised. What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas? How much warming duw to CO2? What percentage of that due to human produced CO2? <nothing but crickets> > > > > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax > to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. > > **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"? Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait! > > > >> Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any > >>> of it, > >> > >> > >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward > a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you > will when you see this post. > > > > Liar. > > **You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous > posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me. You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as science. That is dishonest and has no place in science. > You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with > > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did. This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are confronted with science you deny it exists and just repeat your sad climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something. It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In fact I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic writer job. > **You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt. > > > Take > > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong. > > **Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data. > You are. > > > > > >> instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating > >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never > been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that > makes you a fraud. > >> > >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to > respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong. > > > > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong. I certainly did. I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is say I posted nothing. Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty > **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar. Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT! You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I know your tricks. Fuck off creep. Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE! > > > YOU > > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda > over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either. > > > > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy > yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick! > > **Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down. > > > > > > We'll wait right here for your answer. > > **Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 11:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fideu9Fqd82U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679427 |
On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote: > On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link >>>>>>>>>>> kensi pupa >>>>>>>>>>> posted? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do >>>>>>>>>> you froth >>>>>>>>>> so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to >>>>>>>>>> your k'lame >>>>>>>>>> that it's too silly to be believed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly >>>>>>>>> froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your >>>>>>>>> beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and >>>>>>>>> "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try >>>>>>>>> to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Pot, kettle, black you moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liberal "science": puerile name-calling. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to >>>>>> back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any >>>>>> of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my >>>>>> points. You are a lying moron. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no >>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Not necessarily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True, >>>>>> >>>>>> **There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to >>>>>> one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be >>>>>> holding my breath. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. >>>> >>>> **Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the >>>> same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a >>>> liar. An ignorant one, at that. >>> >>> I called YOU a liar because you are one. >> >> **And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I >> guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope >> for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world. >> >> >> That's your job I think. >> >> **Nope. You don't think. > > You "debate" noted and reportd. > >>> >>>> I note that you >>>>> provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. >>>> >>>> **You only need to ask: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier >>> >>> Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. >>> Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science. >> >> **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason. > > Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given. **You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this little fact: Here is a survey conducted by CSIRO: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940 Scroll down to figure 42: Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and National voters are right wing. You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National voters accept that human induced global warming is real. So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science. Your choice. > >>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball >>> >>> Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he >>> discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to >>> see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a >>> Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, >>> Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence. >> >> **Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request. >> In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You >> just scurry away. Every single time. >> >>> >>>> There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, >>>> Steven Hawking, who authored a huge number of papers, articles and >>>> books: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking >>> >>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >> >> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >> very broad. > > So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already > did) is a journalist. **Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist. Stop being a fuckwit and move on. There's no talking to you libs you just make shit > up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies. **You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it. > >> >> hey I have >>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist. >> >> **You're nothing. > > Scientific point noted and reported. **Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't see how you can possibly write an article on science. > >>> >>>> I can live >>>>> with a single theoretical exception. >>>> >>>> **Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual. >>> >>> Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong >>> except by your fantasies and stretching meanings. >> >> **What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've >> given you three examples. There are many, many more. > > No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with no > evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes popular > "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies. **I gave you three examples. Get over it. > >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who >>>>> have sold out for money, fame, employment etc. >>>> >>>> **Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that >>>> they are likely in the minority. >>> >>> Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science >>> deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you >>> warmballers always pretend exists. >> >> **Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased >> temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even >> Mythbusters proved it. > > Well that settles it. **Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth. I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with > you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You > might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are > right! Idiot. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> and purposely lie and distort >>>>> facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you >>>>> Trevor? >>>> >>>> **LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many >>>> questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond >>>> and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are >>>> beaten, so you just give up and scurry away. >>> >>> I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there >>> is nothing and you heard nothing. > > Links to propaganda isn't science. **True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links. "kensi" gives us more than all the > links to journalists we need. > >> >> **You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so. >> (See the cut n copy at the end of this post) > > Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted > nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ > has said so. You are pathetic. **Let me remind you: YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK! Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. > >> So this: Stick your fingers in your ears >>> and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've >>> never answered any of your so-called questions. >> >> **I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack >> the intellect and the knowledge to do so. > > How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true. **It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see. Or, more likely, you won't. > >> I'm still waiting for >>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP >>> and Temperature went DOWN! >> >> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob: > > La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you > heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust > scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons? **Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where you failed to answer my questions. > >> -- >> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote: >> > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote: >> >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >> snowflakes, melt! >> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly- >> >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> No, HTH >> >>>> >> >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm >> statement >> >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial. >> >>> >> >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said >> here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science >> agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who >> think that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. >> That makes YOU the 'science denier". >> >>> >> >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something >> you've also >> >>>> tried to maintain deniability about. >> >>> >> >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused >> me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard >> sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist >> commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your >> utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social >> experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are >> the only ones left refusing to accept the data. >> >>> >> >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the >> record as >> >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular. >> >>> >> >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer >> reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut >> and paste journalist propaganda. >> >> >> >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question >> or comment I make. Not once, not ever. >> > >> > The liar is YOU. >> >> **LOL. Let's see. >> >> Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling >> > other people names and slandering them to further you political >> scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown >> that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming >> family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself. >> > >> > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times? >> >> **NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit. > > > I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!! **I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't. > > YOu laying sack of shit. **I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of the thread. Go look for yourself. If you say there is no link then there must be > none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your > lown little fantasy world. **Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it either. Its all in your tiny mind. > >> >> Any idea what >> > GISS data is? >> >> **I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. >> Do you? >> >> >> Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming >> > is? >> >> **The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. >> After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global >> warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is >> information you would know, if you took the time to study the science. > > Utter blather. **Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, you would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it was back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering intellects, not to be dismissed by morons like you. 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global > warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made it > political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should be > killed. Now that is real science! **Did Hanson say that? Cite please. > >> >> Do you recognize HIS data? > > Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't > correct. **Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. **Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the next most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important. Nobody had even done > tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing but > a political propagandist. **And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, if it helps you live in your fantasy land. > >> **Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I >> said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you >> idiotic claims. SOP. > > <Snip this> > > http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm > > LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING! > > You are lying crooked scum. **The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link. > > >> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >> > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >> >> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >> many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >> understand): >> >> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg **No comment, I notice. SOP. >> >> >> >> And you have >> > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >> >> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >> >> >> How >> > ignorant are you anyway. >> >> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >> that you. >> >> >> Why don't you show how much science you know >> > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >> >> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >> When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to >> vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. >> The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >> energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et >> al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. Most >> critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the >> Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised. > > What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas? **The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant. How much warming duw to CO2? **Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on location, time of day, time of year, etc. What > percentage of that due to human produced CO2? **Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere. Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various business and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 each year. That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. From 1750 through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion Tonnes. So, it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all the time. Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased CO2 levels from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. That's roughly a 43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human activity. Here's a pretty graph: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/ Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the industrial revolution happened (1750). > > <nothing but crickets> > >> > >> > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >> tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >> >> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. > > So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"? **Cut CO2 emissions. > > Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three > times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait! > >> > >> >> Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any >> >>> of it, >> >> >> >> >> >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put >> forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. >> Like you will when you see this post. >> > >> > Liar. >> >> **You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous >> posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me. > > You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as > science. That is dishonest and has no place in science. **I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't. > >> You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with >> > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did. > > This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are > confronted with science you deny it exists **YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. I will await your apology. and just repeat your sad > climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something. > It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In fact > I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic writer > job. > >> **You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying >> cunt. >> >> >> Take >> > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong. >> >> **Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data. >> You are. >> >> >> > >> >> instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating >> >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has >> never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And >> that makes you a fraud. >> >> >> >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to >> respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong. >> > >> > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong. > > I certainly did. **Bullshit. I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global > warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is say > I posted nothing. **WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do. Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty > >> **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar. > > Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT! > > You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to > waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I know > your tricks. Fuck off creep. > > Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can > convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE! >> >> >> YOU >> > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda >> over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either. >> > >> > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy >> yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick! >> >> **Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down. >> >> >> > >> > We'll wait right here for your answer. >> >> **Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen. **[Sounds of crickets] -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 18:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <P8ywC.70189$sr5.45844@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #679508 |
On 4/1/2018 9:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote: >> On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article >>>>>>>>>>>> link kensi pupa >>>>>>>>>>>> posted? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do >>>>>>>>>>> you froth >>>>>>>>>>> so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie >>>>>>>>>>> to your k'lame >>>>>>>>>>> that it's too silly to be believed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is >>>>>>>>>> hardly froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that >>>>>>>>>> your beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you >>>>>>>>>> and "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and >>>>>>>>>> try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a >>>>>>>>>> nice day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Pot, kettle, black you moron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Liberal "science": puerile name-calling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to >>>>>>> back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any >>>>>>> of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my >>>>>>> points. You are a lying moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no >>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Not necessarily. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to >>>>>>> one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't >>>>>>> be holding my breath. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. >>>>> >>>>> **Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the >>>>> same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a >>>>> liar. An ignorant one, at that. >>>> >>>> I called YOU a liar because you are one. >>> >>> **And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I >>> guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope >>> for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world. >>> >>> >>> That's your job I think. >>> >>> **Nope. You don't think. >> >> You "debate" noted and reportd. >> >>>> >>>>> I note that you >>>>>> provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. >>>>> >>>>> **You only need to ask: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier >>>> >>>> Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. >>>> Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science. >>> >>> **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason. >> >> Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given. > > **You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this > little fact: > > Here is a survey conducted by CSIRO: > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940 > > > Scroll down to figure 42: > > Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and > National voters are right wing. > > You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National > voters accept that human induced global warming is real. > > So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary > political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science. > > Your choice. > >> >>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball >>>> >>>> Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he >>>> discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to >>>> see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a >>>> Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, >>>> Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence. >>> >>> **Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your >>> request. In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer >>> mine. You just scurry away. Every single time. >>> >>>> >>>>> There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, >>>>> Steven Hawking, who authored a huge number of papers, articles and >>>>> books: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking >>>> >>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>> >>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>> very broad. >> >> So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already >> did) is a journalist. > > **Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist. > > Stop being a fuckwit and move on. > > > There's no talking to you libs you just make shit >> up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just >> fantasies. > > **You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it. > >> >>> >>> hey I have >>>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist. >>> >>> **You're nothing. >> >> Scientific point noted and reported. > > **Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't see > how you can possibly write an article on science. > >> >>>> >>>>> I can live >>>>>> with a single theoretical exception. >>>>> >>>>> **Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual. >>>> >>>> Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong >>>> except by your fantasies and stretching meanings. >>> >>> **What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? >>> I've given you three examples. There are many, many more. >> >> No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with >> no evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes >> popular "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies. > > **I gave you three examples. Get over it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who >>>>>> have sold out for money, fame, employment etc. >>>>> >>>>> **Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that >>>>> they are likely in the minority. >>>> >>>> Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science >>>> deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you >>>> warmballers always pretend exists. >>> >>> **Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased >>> temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even >>> Mythbusters proved it. >> >> Well that settles it. > > **Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth. > > > I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with >> you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You >> might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are >> right! Idiot. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> and purposely lie and distort >>>>>> facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you >>>>>> Trevor? >>>>> >>>>> **LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many >>>>> questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond >>>>> and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are >>>>> beaten, so you just give up and scurry away. >>>> >>>> I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there >>>> is nothing and you heard nothing. >> >> Links to propaganda isn't science. > > **True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links. > > > "kensi" gives us more than all the >> links to journalists we need. >> >>> >>> **You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so. >>> (See the cut n copy at the end of this post) >> >> Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted >> nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ >> has said so. You are pathetic. > > **Let me remind you: > > YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK! > > Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. > > >> >>> So this: Stick your fingers in your ears >>>> and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" >>>> I've never answered any of your so-called questions. >>> >>> **I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack >>> the intellect and the knowledge to do so. >> >> How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true. > > **It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and > address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see. > Or, more likely, you won't. > >> >>> I'm still waiting for >>>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP >>>> and Temperature went DOWN! >>> >>> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob: >> >> La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you >> heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust >> scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons? > > **Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I > provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where > you failed to answer my questions. > >> >>> -- >>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote: >>> > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote: >>> >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>> snowflakes, melt! >>> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly- >>> >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat? >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> No, HTH >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a >>> firm statement >>> >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said >>> here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in >>> science agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards >>> who think that you can stop the planet and keep change from >>> happening. That makes YOU the 'science denier". >>> >>> >>> >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something >>> you've also >>> >>>> tried to maintain deniability about. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you >>> accused me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. >>> Blowhard sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than >>> leftist commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall >>> of your utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the >>> largest social experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and >>> Democrats are the only ones left refusing to accept the data. >>> >>> >>> >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on >>> the record as >>> >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular. >>> >>> >>> >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with >>> peer reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" >>> cut and paste journalist propaganda. >>> >> >>> >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any >>> question or comment I make. Not once, not ever. >>> > >>> > The liar is YOU. >>> >>> **LOL. Let's see. >>> >>> Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling >>> > other people names and slandering them to further you political >>> scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown >>> that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming >>> family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself. >>> > >>> > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times? >>> >>> **NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit. >> >> >> I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!! > > **I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't. > >> >> YOu laying sack of shit. > > **I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of > the thread. Go look for yourself. > > If you say there is no link then there must be >> none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your >> lown little fantasy world. > > **Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it > either. Its all in your tiny mind. Everyone I know can see it. It's been posted for years by me. Of course in OZ you probably have internet censorship that removes any posts proving the true facts about forbidden subjects like gun rights or actual climate science. > >> >>> >>> Any idea what >>> > GISS data is? >>> >>> **I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. >>> Do you? >>> >>> >>> Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming >>> > is? >>> >>> **The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. >>> After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global >>> warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is >>> information you would know, if you took the time to study the science. >> >> Utter blather. > > **Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, you > would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it was > back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering intellects, > not to be dismissed by morons like you. > > 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global >> warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made >> it political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should >> be killed. Now that is real science! > > **Did Hanson say that? Cite please. > >> >>> >>> Do you recognize HIS data? >> >> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >> correct. > > **Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today. > > > Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. > > **Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the next > most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important. > > Nobody had even done >> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing >> but a political propagandist. > > **And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, if > it helps you live in your fantasy land. > > >> >>> **Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I >>> said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you >>> idiotic claims. SOP. >> >> <Snip this> >> >> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm >> >> LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING! >> >> You are lying crooked scum. > > **The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link. > >> >> >>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>> > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>> >>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>> many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to >>> aerosol pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may >>> care to note (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise >>> when governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>> understand): >>> >>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg > > > **No comment, I notice. SOP. > > >>> >>> >>> >>> And you have >>> > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>> >>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>> >>> >>> How >>> > ignorant are you anyway. >>> >>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>> ignorant that you. >>> >>> >>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>> > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>> >>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>> When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to >>> vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. >>> The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>> energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et >>> al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. Most >>> critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the >>> Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised. >> >> What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas? > > **The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant. > > > How much warming duw to CO2? > > **Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on > location, time of day, time of year, etc. > > > What >> percentage of that due to human produced CO2? > > **Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere. > Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various business > and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 each year. > That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. From 1750 > through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into the > atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion Tonnes. So, > it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all the time. > Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased CO2 levels > from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. That's roughly a > 43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human activity. Here's a pretty > graph: > > https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/ > > Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the > industrial revolution happened (1750). Bigdog posted data for much more than 800 years and it definitely WAS NOT flat! In fact CO2 was higher previously than it is now industrial revolution and all. OF course I'm sure you'll deny that Bigdog ever posted anything like that and I could post the same graph but you'd just lie and say I posted nothing. Please explain why any person who is not insane would bother trying to have a discussion with you? Your WArmballer political debates are Off-topic here in a science group and also Off-topic in the talk.politics.guns group as well. You there is a global warming political group where you can drool all you want. >> >> <nothing but crickets> >> >>> > >>> > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>> tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>> >>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >> >> So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"? > > **Cut CO2 emissions. With a huge tax that will be wasted that hyou deny promoting! You are so deep in your left-wing fantasies nobody and make any sense of your drool. > >> >> Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three >> times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait! >> >>> > >>> >> Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any >>> >>> of it, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put >>> forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. >>> Like you will when you see this post. >>> > >>> > Liar. >>> >>> **You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous >>> posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me. >> >> You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as >> science. That is dishonest and has no place in science. > > **I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't. Propaganda lies 101. > >> >>> You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with >>> > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did. >> >> This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are >> confronted with science you deny it exists > > **YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. I > will await your apology. > > > and just repeat your sad >> climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something. >> It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In >> fact I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic >> writer job. >> >>> **You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying >>> cunt. >>> >>> >>> Take >>> > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong. >>> >>> **Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the >>> data. You are. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >> instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating >>> >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has >>> never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And >>> that makes you a fraud. >>> >> >>> >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to >>> respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong. >>> > >>> > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong. >> >> I certainly did. > > **Bullshit. > > > I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global >> warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is >> say I posted nothing. > > **WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post > your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do. Propaganda 101: Never discuss the issues. Keep demanding your opponent post "proof" and when they do it over and over say they never did and then ask them to do it again. Keep the "kooks" spinning and they'll neer prove you wrong! Right? > > Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty >> >>> **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar. >> >> Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT! >> >> You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to >> waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I >> know your tricks. Fuck off creep. >> >> Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can >> convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few >> SOMEWHERE! >>> >>> >>> YOU >>> > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda >>> over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value >>> either. >>> > >>> > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding >>> energy yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" >>> trick! >>> >>> **Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > We'll wait right here for your answer. >>> >>> **Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to >>> happen. > > **[Sounds of crickets] > Propaganda 101. One can't nail jello to the wall you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 12:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fig5ujFe7kiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679652 |
On 3/04/2018 8:29 AM, benj wrote: > On 4/1/2018 9:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article >>>>>>>>>>>>> link kensi pupa >>>>>>>>>>>>> posted? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why >>>>>>>>>>>> do you froth >>>>>>>>>>>> so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie >>>>>>>>>>>> to your k'lame >>>>>>>>>>>> that it's too silly to be believed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is >>>>>>>>>>> hardly froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that >>>>>>>>>>> your beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you >>>>>>>>>>> and "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge >>>>>>>>>>> and try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. >>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Pot, kettle, black you moron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liberal "science": puerile name-calling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to >>>>>>>> back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any >>>>>>>> of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my >>>>>>>> points. You are a lying moron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no >>>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Not necessarily. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted >>>>>>>> to one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I >>>>>>>> won't be holding my breath. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the >>>>>> same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a >>>>>> liar. An ignorant one, at that. >>>>> >>>>> I called YOU a liar because you are one. >>>> >>>> **And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I >>>> guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and >>>> hope for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's your job I think. >>>> >>>> **Nope. You don't think. >>> >>> You "debate" noted and reportd. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> I note that you >>>>>>> provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. >>>>>> >>>>>> **You only need to ask: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier >>>>> >>>>> Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. >>>>> Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science. >>>> >>>> **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason. >>> >>> Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given. >> >> **You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this >> little fact: >> >> Here is a survey conducted by CSIRO: >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940 >> >> >> Scroll down to figure 42: >> >> Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and >> National voters are right wing. >> >> You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National >> voters accept that human induced global warming is real. >> >> So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary >> political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science. >> >> Your choice. **No comment on your constant reference to political beliefs of Australians? >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball >>>>> >>>>> Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he >>>>> discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM >>>>> to see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a >>>>> Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, >>>>> Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative >>>>> evidence. >>>> >>>> **Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your >>>> request. In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer >>>> mine. You just scurry away. Every single time. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, >>>>>> Steven Hawking, who authored a huge number of papers, articles and >>>>>> books: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking >>>>> >>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>> >>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>>> very broad. >>> >>> So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already >>> did) is a journalist. >> >> **Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist. >> >> Stop being a fuckwit and move on. >> >> >> There's no talking to you libs you just make shit >>> up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just >>> fantasies. >> >> **You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it. >> >>> >>>> >>>> hey I have >>>>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist. >>>> >>>> **You're nothing. >>> >>> Scientific point noted and reported. >> >> **Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't >> see how you can possibly write an article on science. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> I can live >>>>>>> with a single theoretical exception. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual. >>>>> >>>>> Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong >>>>> except by your fantasies and stretching meanings. >>>> >>>> **What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? >>>> I've given you three examples. There are many, many more. >>> >>> No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with >>> no evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes >>> popular "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies. >> >> **I gave you three examples. Get over it. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who >>>>>>> have sold out for money, fame, employment etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that >>>>>> they are likely in the minority. >>>>> >>>>> Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science >>>>> deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" >>>>> you warmballers always pretend exists. >>>> >>>> **Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and >>>> increased temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. >>>> Hell, even Mythbusters proved it. >>> >>> Well that settles it. >> >> **Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth. >> >> >> I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with >>> you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You >>> might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you >>> are right! Idiot. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and purposely lie and distort >>>>>>> facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that >>>>>>> you Trevor? >>>>>> >>>>>> **LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many >>>>>> questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to >>>>>> respond and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know >>>>>> when you are beaten, so you just give up and scurry away. >>>>> >>>>> I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending >>>>> there is nothing and you heard nothing. >>> >>> Links to propaganda isn't science. >> >> **True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links. >> >> >> "kensi" gives us more than all the >>> links to journalists we need. >>> >>>> >>>> **You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so. >>>> (See the cut n copy at the end of this post) >>> >>> Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted >>> nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of >>> OZ has said so. You are pathetic. >> >> **Let me remind you: >> >> YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK! >> >> Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. **Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. >> >> >>> >>>> So this: Stick your fingers in your ears >>>>> and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" >>>>> I've never answered any of your so-called questions. >>>> >>>> **I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack >>>> the intellect and the knowledge to do so. >>> >>> How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true. >> >> **It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and >> address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see. >> Or, more likely, you won't. >> >>> >>>> I'm still waiting for >>>>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP >>>>> and Temperature went DOWN! >>>> >>>> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob: >>> >>> La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you >>> heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust >>> scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons? >> >> **Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I >> provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where >> you failed to answer my questions. >> >>> >>>> -- >>>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote: >>>> > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote: >>>> >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>> snowflakes, melt! >>>> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly- >>>> >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> No, HTH >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a >>>> firm statement >>>> >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have >>>> said here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in >>>> science agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you >>>> kooktards who think that you can stop the planet and keep change >>>> from happening. That makes YOU the 'science denier". >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something >>>> you've also >>>> >>>> tried to maintain deniability about. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you >>>> accused me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the >>>> case. Blowhard sales types are not my favorite people though higher >>>> up than leftist commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about >>>> the fall of your utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by >>>> the largest social experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea >>>> and Democrats are the only ones left refusing to accept the data. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on >>>> the record as >>>> >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with >>>> peer reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" >>>> cut and paste journalist propaganda. >>>> >> >>>> >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any >>>> question or comment I make. Not once, not ever. >>>> > >>>> > The liar is YOU. >>>> >>>> **LOL. Let's see. >>>> >>>> Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling >>>> > other people names and slandering them to further you political >>>> scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown >>>> that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming >>>> family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for >>>> yourself. >>>> > >>>> > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times? >>>> >>>> **NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit. >>> >>> >>> I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!! >> >> **I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't. **Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. >> >>> >>> YOu laying sack of shit. >> >> **I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of >> the thread. Go look for yourself. >> >> If you say there is no link then there must be >>> none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your >>> lown little fantasy world. >> >> **Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it >> either. Its all in your tiny mind. > > Everyone I know can see it. **No one can see what was never posted. Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see. Or, more precisely, not see. It's been posted for years by me. **That may be the case, but you failed to post it, when you claimed you did. Of course > in OZ you probably have internet censorship that removes any posts > proving the true facts about forbidden subjects like gun rights or > actual climate science. **Nope. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Any idea what >>>> > GISS data is? >>>> >>>> **I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. >>>> Do you? >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming >>>> > is? >>>> >>>> **The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. >>>> After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global >>>> warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is >>>> information you would know, if you took the time to study the science. >>> >>> Utter blather. >> >> **Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, >> you would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it >> was back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering >> intellects, not to be dismissed by morons like you. >> >> 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global >>> warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made >>> it political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should >>> be killed. Now that is real science! >> >> **Did Hanson say that? Cite please. **Did Hanson say that? Cite please. Still waiting for your cite. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Do you recognize HIS data? >>> >>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories >>> aren't correct. >> >> **Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today. >> >> >> Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. >> >> **Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the >> next most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important. >> >> Nobody had even done >>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing >>> but a political propagandist. >> >> **And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, >> if it helps you live in your fantasy land. >> >> >>> >>>> **Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I >>>> said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you >>>> idiotic claims. SOP. >>> >>> <Snip this> >>> >>> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm >>> >>> LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING! >>> >>> You are lying crooked scum. >> >> **The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link. **Then YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link. >> >>> >>> >>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>> > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>> >>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>>> many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to >>>> aerosol pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may >>>> care to note (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to >>>> rise when governments around the world got serious about reducing >>>> aerosol pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading >>>> (nor understand): >>>> >>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >> >> >> >> **No comment, I notice. SOP. **No comment, I notice. SOP. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And you have >>>> > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>> >>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>> >>>> >>>> How >>>> > ignorant are you anyway. >>>> >>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>>> ignorant that you. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>> > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>> >>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>> When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to >>>> vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. >>>> The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of >>>> their energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, >>>> oxygen, et al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. >>>> Most critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated >>>> from the Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised. >>> >>> What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas? >> >> **The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant. >> >> >> How much warming duw to CO2? >> >> **Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on >> location, time of day, time of year, etc. >> >> >> What >>> percentage of that due to human produced CO2? >> >> **Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere. >> Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various >> business and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 >> each year. That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. >> From 1750 through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 >> into the atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion >> Tonnes. So, it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all >> the time. Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased >> CO2 levels from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. >> That's roughly a 43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human >> activity. Here's a pretty graph: >> >> https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/ >> >> >> Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the >> industrial revolution happened (1750). > > Bigdog posted data for much more than 800 years and it definitely WAS > NOT flat! **Duh. I posted data that pertained to the CO2 levels up to and after the start of the Industrial Revolution. In fact CO2 was higher previously than it is now industrial > revolution and all. **We have accurate data dating back to around 1 million years. At NO TIME, have CO2 levels been higher in the past million years or so. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they were today, was around 75 MILLION years ago. OF course I'm sure you'll deny that Bigdog ever > posted anything like that **Nope. Bigdog did post his graph. You failed to post yours. and I could post the same graph but you'd just > lie and say I posted nothing. **LOL! Weasel words. Please explain why any person who is not > insane would bother trying to have a discussion with you? **You are having a discussion with me. Your > WArmballer political debates are Off-topic here in a science group and > also Off-topic in the talk.politics.guns group as well. **I did not start the thread. You there is a > global warming political group where you can drool all you want. **Cool. > >>> >>> <nothing but crickets> >>> >>>> > >>>> > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>>> tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>> >>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>> >>> So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"? >> >> **Cut CO2 emissions. > > With a huge tax that will be wasted that hyou deny promoting! **HOW CO2 emissions should be cut, is not for me to say. > > You are so deep in your left-wing fantasies nobody and make any sense of > your drool. > >> >>> >>> Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together >>> three times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait! >>> >>>> > >>>> >> Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any >>>> >>> of it, >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put >>>> forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. >>>> Like you will when you see this post. >>>> > >>>> > Liar. >>>> >>>> **You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my >>>> previous posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me. >>> >>> You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as >>> science. That is dishonest and has no place in science. >> >> **I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't. > > Propaganda lies 101. **Fact, dickhead. Fact. > >> >>> >>>> You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with >>>> > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did. >>> >>> This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are >>> confronted with science you deny it exists >> >> **YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. >> I will await your apology. >> >> >> and just repeat your sad >>> climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something. >>> It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In >>> fact I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic >>> writer job. >>> >>>> **You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying >>>> cunt. >>>> >>>> >>>> Take >>>> > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong. >>>> >>>> **Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the >>>> data. You are. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating >>>> >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has >>>> never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And >>>> that makes you a fraud. >>>> >> >>>> >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to >>>> respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong. >>>> > >>>> > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong. >>> >>> I certainly did. >> >> **Bullshit. >> >> >> I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global >>> warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is >>> say I posted nothing. >> >> **WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post >> your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do. > > Propaganda 101: Never discuss the issues. **That IS the issue! You made a claim and failed to back it with any evidence. Keep demanding your opponent > post "proof" and when they do it over and over say they never did and > then ask them to do it again. Keep the "kooks" spinning and they'll neer > prove you wrong! Right? **Read the thread and you will see that you failed to present your evidence. > >> >> Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty >>> >>>> **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar. >>> >>> Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT! >>> >>> You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to >>> waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I >>> know your tricks. Fuck off creep. >>> >>> Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can >>> convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few >>> SOMEWHERE! >>>> >>>> >>>> YOU >>>> > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering >>>> propaganda over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing >>>> of value either. >>>> > >>>> > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding >>>> energy yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" >>>> trick! >>>> >>>> **Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > We'll wait right here for your answer. >>>> >>>> **Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to >>>> happen. >> >> **[Sounds of crickets] >> > > Propaganda 101. One can't nail jello to the wall you know. **Fortunately, it is easy to prove that you are a liar. It's all on the record. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 22:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p9uoog$1uff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679688 |
On 4/2/2018 10:07 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > **Fact, dickhead. Fact. That's the best response. True facts can't be refuted. Not even by dumnass copy-pasting true bullshit. -- Dinsdale
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 05:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p9stgg$pam$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679427 |
On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: > Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't > correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done > tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9tenj$1m94$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679548 |
On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: > On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. > > https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm > Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball worming activists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <NrzwC.78943$eJ7.55562@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #679568 |
On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >> >> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >> > > Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball > worming activists. > Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! Oh what the hell! http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big energy instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people like Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 15:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <figj3gFgofvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679669 |
On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: > On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>> >>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>> >> >> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >> worming activists. >> > Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as > some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. > > I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG but > then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their ears and > sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! > > Oh what the hell! > > http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf > > > Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they > estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to that > 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. > > But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big energy > instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people like > Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious? **There you go again: Blathering on about politics and ignoring the science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa036m$ai4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679716 |
On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>> >>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>> >>> >>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>> worming activists. >>> >> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >> >> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >> >> Oh what the hell! >> >> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >> >> >> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. > > **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a > number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the > atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot > claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. bullshit, the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the shallow minds Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. > >> >> But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big >> energy instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people >> like Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious? > > **There you go again: Blathering on about politics and ignoring the > science. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 14:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_BPwC.101071$q15.7347@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #679740 |
On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>> >>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>> >>>> >>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>> worming activists. >>>> >>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>> >>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>> >>> Oh what the hell! >>> >>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>> >>> >>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >> >> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. > > bullshit, > > the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then > clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% > > READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the > shallow minds > > Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural cycle. Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been." http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total waste of your time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 12:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8lh7cdhmi6qma6pq1errfu9ij82hlgki0e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #679777 |
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>> worming activists. >>>>> >>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>> >>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>> >>>> Oh what the hell! >>>> >>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>> >>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >> >> bullshit, >> >> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >> >> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >> shallow minds >> >> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. > >Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >"plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >cycle. > >Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: > >"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >has always been." > >http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs > >As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >waste of your time. Even people that smoke pot know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa0i7f$17ts$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679778 |
On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > >> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>> >>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>> >>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>> >>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>> >>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>> >>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>> >>> bullshit, >>> >>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>> >>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>> shallow minds >>> >>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >> >> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >> cycle. >> >> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >> >> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >> has always been." >> >> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >> >> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >> waste of your time. > > > Even people that smoke pot know that. > pot smokers like global worming, as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 13:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c1l7cdll84kupv0ij6vtf73uel0alj06c5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #679781 |
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> >>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>> >>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>> >>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>> >>>> bullshit, >>>> >>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>> >>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>> shallow minds >>>> >>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>> >>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>> cycle. >>> >>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>> >>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>> has always been." >>> >>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>> >>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>> waste of your time. >> >> >> Even people that smoke pot know that. >> > >pot smokers like global worming, >as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming is a scam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa0oqe$1mdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679783 |
On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>> >>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>> >>>>> bullshit, >>>>> >>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>> >>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>> shallow minds >>>>> >>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>> >>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>> cycle. >>>> >>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>> >>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>> has always been." >>>> >>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>> >>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>> waste of your time. >>> >>> >>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>> >> >> pot smokers like global worming, >> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win > > > Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming > is a scam. > well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion alive about global warming perhaps another decade. At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy not lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 14:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6fq7cdt0hukpiab6o64f7b73fus1ru8ep1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #679794 |
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:39:37 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>>> >>>>>> bullshit, >>>>>> >>>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>>> >>>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>>> shallow minds >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>>> cycle. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>>> >>>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>>> has always been." >>>>> >>>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>>> >>>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>>> waste of your time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>>> >>> >>> pot smokers like global worming, >>> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >>> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >>> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win >> >> >> Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming >> is a scam. >> > >well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, >wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they >win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for >ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all >turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... > >seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion >alive about global warming perhaps another decade. > >At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, >and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy >not lost. I have thawed out many frozen pipes with a incandescent bulb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5tfh4.u54.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #679797 |
On 2018-04-03 1:54 PM, Skeeter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:39:37 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bullshit, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>>>> shallow minds >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>>>> cycle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>>>> >>>>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>>>> has always been." >>>>>> >>>>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>>>> >>>>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>>>> waste of your time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> pot smokers like global worming, >>>> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >>>> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >>>> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win >>> >>> >>> Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming >>> is a scam. >>> >> >> well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, >> wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they >> win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for >> ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all >> turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... >> >> seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion >> alive about global warming perhaps another decade. >> >> At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, >> and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy >> not lost. > > I have thawed out many frozen pipes with a incandescent bulb. > i've smoked hash oil off a lightbulb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 15:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c0r7cdp6hreep71p8lo8q63456t27idtf7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #679799 |
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:59:46 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2018-04-03 1:54 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:39:37 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bullshit, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>>>>> shallow minds >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>>>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>>>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>>>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>>>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>>>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>>>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>>>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>>>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>>>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>>>>> cycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>>>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>>>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>>>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>>>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>>>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>>>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>>>>> has always been." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>>>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>>>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>>>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>>>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>>>>> waste of your time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> pot smokers like global worming, >>>>> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >>>>> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >>>>> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming >>>> is a scam. >>>> >>> >>> well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, >>> wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they >>> win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for >>> ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all >>> turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... >>> >>> seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion >>> alive about global warming perhaps another decade. >>> >>> At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, >>> and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy >>> not lost. >> >> I have thawed out many frozen pipes with a incandescent bulb. >> >i've smoked hash oil off a lightbulb Yup.....meth too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5tg3c.4sf.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #679801 |
On 2018-04-03 2:03 PM, Skeeter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:59:46 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2018-04-03 1:54 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:39:37 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bullshit, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>>>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>>>>>> shallow minds >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>>>>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>>>>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>>>>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>>>>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>>>>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>>>>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>>>>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>>>>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>>>>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>>>>>> cycle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>>>>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>>>>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>>>>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>>>>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>>>>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>>>>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>>>>>> has always been." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>>>>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>>>>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>>>>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>>>>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>>>>>> waste of your time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> pot smokers like global worming, >>>>>> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >>>>>> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >>>>>> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming >>>>> is a scam. >>>>> >>>> >>>> well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, >>>> wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they >>>> win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for >>>> ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all >>>> turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... >>>> >>>> seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion >>>> alive about global warming perhaps another decade. >>>> >>>> At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, >>>> and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy >>>> not lost. >>> >>> I have thawed out many frozen pipes with a incandescent bulb. >>> >> i've smoked hash oil off a lightbulb > > > Yup.....meth too. > i never did that but i never smoked it either anyway
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 18:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa13sn$9pr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679801 |
On 4/3/2018 4:03 PM, Skeeter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:59:46 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2018-04-03 1:54 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:39:37 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/3/2018 2:21 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball >>>>>>>>>>>> worming activists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG >>>>>>>>>>> but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their >>>>>>>>>>> ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what the hell! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they >>>>>>>>>>> estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to >>>>>>>>>>> that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a >>>>>>>>>> number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the >>>>>>>>>> atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot >>>>>>>>>> claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bullshit, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then >>>>>>>>> clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9% >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the >>>>>>>>> shallow minds >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his >>>>>>>> 43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare >>>>>>>> people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much >>>>>>>> CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2 >>>>>>>> and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the >>>>>>>> planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets >>>>>>>> do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website >>>>>>>> used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they >>>>>>>> pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more >>>>>>>> "plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural >>>>>>>> cycle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural >>>>>>>> sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is >>>>>>>> coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean >>>>>>>> surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels >>>>>>>> is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, >>>>>>>> driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is >>>>>>>> temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it >>>>>>>> has always been." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to >>>>>>>> sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning >>>>>>>> things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to >>>>>>>> waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or >>>>>>>> trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total >>>>>>>> waste of your time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even people that smoke pot know that. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> pot smokers like global worming, >>>>>> as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot >>>>>> plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up, >>>>>> and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming >>>>> is a scam. >>>>> >>>> >>>> well.... compair climate change effects on beer, wine, gin, vodka, >>>> wiskey, and alkichoul production, they are all plant based too, so they >>>> win if the temperature goes up as well. it will cost a little more for >>>> ice. Don't try to chug warm Champagne though from the bottle, it all >>>> turns to bubbles in 1 second, and comes back out, spewed thusly... >>>> >>>> seriously though, I wonder how long the press can keep the illusion >>>> alive about global warming perhaps another decade. >>>> >>>> At least we have LED lightbulbs now, but the cost about 3 times more, >>>> and the heat from old tunston bulb is a benifit in winter time, energy >>>> not lost. >>> >>> I have thawed out many frozen pipes with a incandescent bulb. >>> >> i've smoked hash oil off a lightbulb > > > Yup.....meth too. > Have you heard that with each prescription of Medical Meth you get an old light bulb ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web