Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684993 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:53 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 19:17 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 18:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 22:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:03 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 07:24 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:44 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 19:08 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:45 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 12:23 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:34 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:13 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:31 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:47 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:25 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:58 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:23 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:31 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:32 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 18:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:44 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:36 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 13:59 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 18:13 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 17:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:26 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:35 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:56 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:10 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-13 12:48 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:07 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:49 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:39 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:29 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:04 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:47 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 14:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 10:04 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 19:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 11:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:57 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 12:19 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 12:20 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:33 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:54 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:00 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:00 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:11 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:31 -0700
Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-15 16:39 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:45 +1000
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:36 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 19:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 07:45 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:21 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 10:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 14:14 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 05:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrh3lFfp75U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685253 |
On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 11:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>> others. >>>> >>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>> >>>> Why is that? >>>> >>> >>> what about Water Vapor ? >> >> **What about water vapour? We can't do much about water vapour. We CAN >> deal with excessive CO2 emissions. It makes sense to deal with the >> problems we can address, rather than trying to deal with the problems we >> cannot. > > Why doesn't it make more sense to adapt to the (not necessarily > detrimental) consequences of (so say some) "excessive" CO2 emissions? **We will have to. However, the plants and animals we depend on for food are unable to evolve fast enough to do likewise. Then, of course, we have the nasty little problem of rising sea levels. The cost will be horrendous, when much of Florida, LA, NYC, London and Bangladesh are regularly inundated. Who will pay? Who will take in 100 million Bangladeshis, when their agriculture is destroyed? > >>> >>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>> than CO2. >> >> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, > > And focusing on CO2 is not? **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. > >> with >> misleading comments like this. You've been told before the precise >> details surrounding the Solar forcing of CO2 and H2O, yet you still lie. >> Why is that? > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 15:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tc4hfdppsguc0i1i2k7d9iur5gs3mfrbk3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685260 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>> than CO2. >>> >>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >> >> And focusing on CO2 is not? > >**Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. It is low on sane people's list of things to do: <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less inclined to your cause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 05:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrj35Fg687U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685263 |
On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>> than CO2. >>>> >>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>> >>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >> >> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, > > It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise yourself with. > > >> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. > > It is low on sane people's list of things to do: > <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> > Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority > > That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less > inclined to your cause. **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what you believe. Examine the science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdaah3$1le2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685265 |
On 5/13/2018 2:47 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>>> than CO2. >>>>> >>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>> >>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>> >>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, >> >> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. > > **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise > yourself with. "plain ole' science" > >> >> >>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >> >> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >> >> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >> inclined to your cause. > > **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what > you believe. Examine the science. > > > "Irrelevant to the science" "Examine the science" well Trevor, you failed the test, your use of the word 'science' shows you do not have a background in it. I doubt I could ever get you through the statistical processing of the raw data sets, and show you why specifying a single number instead of a range *with* confidence intervals is *fake science*. But you did provide the data that says *Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times* more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which it is, just look at the atmospheric transmission spectrums.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 07:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrqo9Fhs51U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685307 |
On 14/05/2018 7:25 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:47 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>>>> than CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>>> >>>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>>> >>>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, >>> >>> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >> >> **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >> yourself with. > > "plain ole' science" > >> >>> >>> >>>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >>> >>> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >>> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >>> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >>> >>> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >>> inclined to your cause. >> >> **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >> you believe. Examine the science. >> >> >> > > > "Irrelevant to the science" > "Examine the science" > > well Trevor, you failed the test, > your use of the word 'science' shows you do not have a background in it. **So you keep claiming. > > I doubt I could ever get you through the statistical processing of the > raw data sets, and show you why specifying a single number instead of a > range *with* confidence intervals is *fake science*. **Let me draw your attention to a claim you made recently in reference to atmospheric CO2 levels: "So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems..." ANYONE who makes one order of magnitude error in a claim, then goes on to make a second, is not a scientist's arsehole. You can make all the statements about me you like. When you make fundamental errors (TWICE) I am well aware of your (lack of) abilities. > > > But you did provide the data that says *Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times* > more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which it is, just look at the > atmospheric transmission spectrums. **I said nothing of the sort. Quote me accurately or not at all, Mr 0.3%. YIKES! -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdad3v$1pq0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685316 |
On 5/13/2018 4:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 7:25 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 2:47 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse >>>>>>>> gas >>>>>>>> than CO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>>>> >>>>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>>>> >>>>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming >>>>> trend, >>>> >>>> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >>> >>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >>> yourself with. >> >> "plain ole' science" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >>>> >>>> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >>>> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >>>> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >>>> >>>> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >>>> inclined to your cause. >>> >>> **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >>> you believe. Examine the science. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> "Irrelevant to the science" >> "Examine the science" >> >> well Trevor, you failed the test, >> your use of the word 'science' shows you do not have a background in it. > > **So you keep claiming. > >> >> I doubt I could ever get you through the statistical processing of the >> raw data sets, and show you why specifying a single number instead of a >> range *with* confidence intervals is *fake science*. > > > **Let me draw your attention to a claim you made recently in reference > to atmospheric CO2 levels: > > "So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has > risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems..." > > ANYONE who makes one order of magnitude error in a claim, then goes on > to make a second, is not a scientist's arsehole. You can make all the > statements about me you like. When you make fundamental errors (TWICE) I > am well aware of your (lack of) abilities. if you insist, go ahead and use 0.03% and 0.04% and see where that gets you. actually it cooled off, the "pause" it is called. > > >> >> >> But you did provide the data that says *Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times* >> more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which it is, just look at the >> atmospheric transmission spectrums. > > > **I said nothing of the sort. > Quote me accurately or not at all, Mr 0.3%. I did, I said you provided the data, which you did. > > YIKES! yea, 3 to 4 times is a lot! They should be working on Water Vapor!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrs82Fi5dfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685319 |
On 14/05/2018 8:10 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 4:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 7:25 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 2:47 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse >>>>>>>>> gas >>>>>>>>> than CO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming >>>>>> trend, >>>>> >>>>> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >>>> >>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >>>> yourself with. >>> >>> "plain ole' science" >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >>>>> >>>>> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >>>>> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >>>>> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >>>>> >>>>> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >>>>> inclined to your cause. >>>> >>>> **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >>>> you believe. Examine the science. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> "Irrelevant to the science" >>> "Examine the science" >>> >>> well Trevor, you failed the test, >>> your use of the word 'science' shows you do not have a background in it. >> >> **So you keep claiming. >> >>> >>> I doubt I could ever get you through the statistical processing of the >>> raw data sets, and show you why specifying a single number instead of a >>> range *with* confidence intervals is *fake science*. >> >> >> **Let me draw your attention to a claim you made recently in reference >> to atmospheric CO2 levels: >> >> "So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems..." >> >> ANYONE who makes one order of magnitude error in a claim, then goes on >> to make a second, is not a scientist's arsehole. You can make all the >> statements about me you like. When you make fundamental errors (TWICE) I >> am well aware of your (lack of) abilities. > > if you insist, go ahead and use 0.03% and 0.04% and see where that gets you. > > actually it cooled off, the "pause" it is called. > >> >> >>> >>> >>> But you did provide the data that says *Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times* >>> more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which it is, just look at the >>> atmospheric transmission spectrums. >> >> >> **I said nothing of the sort. > > > >> Quote me accurately or not at all, Mr 0.3%. > > I did, I said you provided the data, which you did. **Liar. Find my quote and then see if it tallies with yours. Should you fail to do so, then I will. Either way, you would be well advised to stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. > > > >> >> YIKES! > > yea, 3 to 4 times is a lot! They should be working on Water Vapor! **Should "they"? What should "they" be doing? Be precise in your response. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdaebn$1rnq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685320 |
On 5/13/2018 5:23 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 8:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 4:58 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 7:25 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 2:47 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse >>>>>>>>>> gas >>>>>>>>>> than CO2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming >>>>>>> trend, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >>>>> >>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >>>>> yourself with. >>>> >>>> "plain ole' science" >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >>>>>> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >>>>>> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >>>>>> >>>>>> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >>>>>> inclined to your cause. >>>>> >>>>> **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >>>>> you believe. Examine the science. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Irrelevant to the science" >>>> "Examine the science" >>>> >>>> well Trevor, you failed the test, >>>> your use of the word 'science' shows you do not have a background in >>>> it. >>> >>> **So you keep claiming. >>> >>>> >>>> I doubt I could ever get you through the statistical processing of the >>>> raw data sets, and show you why specifying a single number instead of a >>>> range *with* confidence intervals is *fake science*. >>> >>> >>> **Let me draw your attention to a claim you made recently in reference >>> to atmospheric CO2 levels: >>> >>> "So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems..." >>> >>> ANYONE who makes one order of magnitude error in a claim, then goes on >>> to make a second, is not a scientist's arsehole. You can make all the >>> statements about me you like. When you make fundamental errors (TWICE) I >>> am well aware of your (lack of) abilities. >> >> if you insist, go ahead and use 0.03% and 0.04% and see where that >> gets you. >> >> actually it cooled off, the "pause" it is called. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But you did provide the data that says *Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times* >>>> more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which it is, just look at the >>>> atmospheric transmission spectrums. >>> >>> >>> **I said nothing of the sort. >> >> >> >>> Quote me accurately or not at all, Mr 0.3%. >> >> I did, I said you provided the data, which you did. > > **Liar. Find my quote and then see if it tallies with yours. Should you > fail to do so, then I will. Either way, you would be well advised to > stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. > > its over in the thread: " Global Warming is a religion " >> >> >> >>> >>> YIKES! >> >> yea, 3 to 4 times is a lot! They should be working on Water Vapor! > > **Should "they"? What should "they" be doing? > > Be precise in your response.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a5chfd12pgr1tukftcto9k12har6e1eekn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685265 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:47:34 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>>> than CO2. >>>>> >>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>> >>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>> >>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, >> >> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. > >**Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >yourself with. Do you understand the difference between "contributed to" and "caused?" Then there are the questions of how much that contribution has been and how important it is. <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> At the 21:30 mark, Dyson explains: "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good. Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine." Note his use of the word, "imagine." http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926 "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous." >>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >> >> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >> >> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >> inclined to your cause. > >**Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >you believe. Examine the science. Science does not make value judgements about what "makes sense" to have as a priority. The political climate does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrsoiFi9oqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685311 |
On 14/05/2018 7:48 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:47:34 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 5:31 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:13:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 4:34 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:28:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>>>> than CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, >>>>> >>>>> And focusing on CO2 is not? >>>> >>>> **Well, given that it is CO2 that has caused the present warming trend, >>> >>> It is not a "given," it is a religious belief. >> >> **Nope. Just plain ole' science. Something you should familiarise >> yourself with. > > Do you understand the difference between "contributed to" and > "caused?" **Indeed. I used the term "caused" for simplicity. I am, after all, trying to discuss these things with some spectacularly ignorant people. > > Then there are the questions of how much that contribution has been > and how important it is. > > <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> > At the 21:30 mark, Dyson explains: > > "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s > real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those > are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good. > Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine." > > Note his use of the word, "imagine." **Is Mark Dyson a climatologist? > > http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926 > "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for > exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will > wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally > ridiculous." **Again: Is the author a climatologist? > > >>>> it makes perfect sense to deal with CO2. >>> >>> It is low on sane people's list of things to do: >>> <http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.130> >>> Global Warming Ranks Dead Last As An American Priority >>> >>> That was in 2010. The current political "climate" is even less >>> inclined to your cause. >> >> **Irrelevant to the science. Global warming is occurring, despite what >> you believe. Examine the science. > > Science does not make value judgements about what "makes sense" to > have as a priority. The political climate does. **Indeed. And it is largely politicians who do not accept the science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 18:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fffhfddugv7mha6kidndlb7ctkn2ajpuc9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685323 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:32:33 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >**Again: Is the author a climatologist? Are you? Why should I care what you say on the topic of AGW?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrtfpFidm9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685324 |
On 14/05/2018 8:37 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:32:33 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> **Again: Is the author a climatologist? > > Are you? **Nope. > > Why should I care what you say on the topic of AGW? **Because I cite climatologists. Not politicians, newsreaders, TV weathermen or any of the others you and Sergio seem fond of referring. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 11:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1352932-bf4b-4584-9888-370adef3a9a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685326 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:45:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 8:37 AM, Wally W. wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:32:33 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > >> **Again: Is the author a climatologist? > > > > Are you? > > **Nope. > > > > > Why should I care what you say on the topic of AGW? > > **Because I cite climatologists. Not politicians, newsreaders, TV > weathermen or any of the others you and Sergio seem fond of referring. > > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au Climatology is a conversational science. They don't know physics or chemistry. Climatologists are failed meteorologists. They are geographer, not real scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 20:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdap6a$69b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685323 |
On 5/13/2018 5:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 7:48 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> Then there are the questions of how much that contribution has been >> and how important it is. >> >> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> >> At the 21:30 mark, Dyson explains: >> >> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s >> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those >> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good. >> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine." >> >> Note his use of the word, "imagine." > > **Is Mark Dyson a climatologist? Freeman Dyson is a physicist. >> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926 >> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will >> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >> ridiculous." > > **Again: Is the author a climatologist? Matt Patterson is a journalist. [snip] Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 11:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfiKC.121878$LR2.73536@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #685251 |
On 5/13/2018 2:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 11:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>> others. >>> >>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>> >>> Why is that? >>> >> >> what about Water Vapor ? > > **What about water vapour? We can't do much about water vapour. We CAN > deal with excessive CO2 emissions. It makes sense to deal with the > problems we can address, rather than trying to deal with the problems we > cannot. Trevor's got you Sergio! You can't tax the oceans but you CAN tax fossil fuels. So why blame something you can't tax that is actually controlling climate, when you can tax something very easily that really is of negligible effect? The whole point is doing something that gets the money, not solving any problems. Trevor is RIGHT ON! >> >> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >> than CO2. > > **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, with > misleading comments like this. You've been told before the precise > details surrounding the Solar forcing of CO2 and H2O, yet you still lie. > Why is that? Wait a minute, the peer-reviewed NASA paper on GHG placed the effect of CO2 at 1/5 not 1/4. You saw that paper (unless you lie about in which case we'll post it again) Furthermore, the FACT that from 1940 to 1970 CO2 when UP while Climate Temperature WENT DOWN! puts a lie to your CO2 being somehow a "major cause" of warming. And yet you babble and drool and call those us us providing science facts as "liars". The above science is "settled" and beyond doubt. Your fantasies are not. But then, you do have a world tax agenda, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdcm9m$1k3h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685414 |
On 5/14/2018 10:50 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 11:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>> others. >>>> >>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>> >>>> Why is that? >>>> >>> >>> what about Water Vapor ? >> >> **What about water vapour? We can't do much about water vapour. We CAN >> deal with excessive CO2 emissions. It makes sense to deal with the >> problems we can address, rather than trying to deal with the problems >> we cannot. > > Trevor's got you Sergio! You can't tax the oceans but you CAN tax > fossil fuels. So why blame something you can't tax that is actually > controlling climate, when you can tax something very easily that really > is of negligible effect? The whole point is doing something that gets > the money, not solving any problems. Trevor is RIGHT ON! well, if 'they' have justified taxing CO2, seems like 'they' could also justify taxing oceans, but wait, there are no Ocean Emitters...... I see..... So, how about a Guilt Tax ? (GTax) if you have Guilt because of your living style, just send in money to the Government, (use a monthly plan) so overweight people need to fess up, those with cars that cost over $10,000 need to fess up, Those who eat steaks instead of hamburger, need to fess up. perhaps these questions could be put on the National Census and tag over consumers for GTax. but what is the mean, or average consumption? a Georgia Redneck in trailor home that does a case of beer a day,,, or a Politician like Nancy Pelosi ($10,000 a day) > >>> >>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>> than CO2. >> >> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, with >> misleading comments like this. You've been told before the precise >> details surrounding the Solar forcing of CO2 and H2O, yet you still >> lie. Why is that? > > Wait a minute, the peer-reviewed NASA paper on GHG placed the effect of > CO2 at 1/5 not 1/4. You saw that paper (unless you lie about in which > case we'll post it again) Furthermore, the FACT that from 1940 to 1970 > CO2 when UP while Climate Temperature WENT DOWN! puts a lie to your CO2 > being somehow a "major cause" of warming. > > And yet you babble and drool and call those us us providing science > facts as "liars". The above science is "settled" and beyond doubt. Your > fantasies are not. But then, you do have a world tax agenda, right? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bSnKC.157269$DS3.24614@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #685423 |
On 5/14/2018 2:59 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/14/2018 10:50 AM, benj wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 2:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 11:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>>> >>>>> Why is that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> what about Water Vapor ? >>> >>> **What about water vapour? We can't do much about water vapour. We CAN >>> deal with excessive CO2 emissions. It makes sense to deal with the >>> problems we can address, rather than trying to deal with the problems >>> we cannot. >> >> Trevor's got you Sergio! You can't tax the oceans but you CAN tax >> fossil fuels. So why blame something you can't tax that is actually >> controlling climate, when you can tax something very easily that really >> is of negligible effect? The whole point is doing something that gets >> the money, not solving any problems. Trevor is RIGHT ON! > > > well, if 'they' have justified taxing CO2, seems like 'they' could also > justify taxing oceans, but wait, there are no Ocean Emitters...... > > I see..... > > So, how about a Guilt Tax ? (GTax) > if you have Guilt because of your living style, > just send in money to the Government, (use a monthly plan) > > so overweight people need to fess up, those with cars that cost over > $10,000 need to fess up, Those who eat steaks instead of hamburger, > need to fess up. > > perhaps these questions could be put on the National Census and tag over > consumers for GTax. > > but what is the mean, or average consumption? > a Georgia Redneck in trailor home that does a case of beer a day,,, > or a Politician like Nancy Pelosi ($10,000 a day) > > > > >> >>>> >>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>> than CO2. >>> >>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, with >>> misleading comments like this. You've been told before the precise >>> details surrounding the Solar forcing of CO2 and H2O, yet you still >>> lie. Why is that? >> >> Wait a minute, the peer-reviewed NASA paper on GHG placed the effect of >> CO2 at 1/5 not 1/4. You saw that paper (unless you lie about in which >> case we'll post it again) Furthermore, the FACT that from 1940 to 1970 >> CO2 when UP while Climate Temperature WENT DOWN! puts a lie to your CO2 >> being somehow a "major cause" of warming. >> >> And yet you babble and drool and call those us us providing science >> facts as "liars". The above science is "settled" and beyond doubt. Your >> fantasies are not. But then, you do have a world tax agenda, right? Consumption doesn't count if you can get someone else to pay for it (Like Pelosi does) That way they pay for your consumption AND the tax on consumption! Sweet!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 17:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdd203$8ka$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685450 |
On 5/14/2018 5:13 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/14/2018 2:59 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/14/2018 10:50 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 2:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 3:23 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 11:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>>>> others. >>>>>> >>>>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is that? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> what about Water Vapor ? >>>> >>>> **What about water vapour? We can't do much about water vapour. We CAN >>>> deal with excessive CO2 emissions. It makes sense to deal with the >>>> problems we can address, rather than trying to deal with the problems >>>> we cannot. >>> >>> Trevor's got you Sergio! You can't tax the oceans but you CAN tax >>> fossil fuels. So why blame something you can't tax that is actually >>> controlling climate, when you can tax something very easily that really >>> is of negligible effect? The whole point is doing something that gets >>> the money, not solving any problems. Trevor is RIGHT ON! >> >> >> well, if 'they' have justified taxing CO2, seems like 'they' could also >> justify taxing oceans, but wait, there are no Ocean Emitters...... >> >> I see..... >> >> So, how about a Guilt Tax ? (GTax) >> if you have Guilt because of your living style, >> just send in money to the Government, (use a monthly plan) >> >> so overweight people need to fess up, those with cars that cost over >> $10,000 need to fess up, Those who eat steaks instead of hamburger, >> need to fess up. >> >> perhaps these questions could be put on the National Census and tag over >> consumers for GTax. >> >> but what is the mean, or average consumption? >> a Georgia Redneck in trailor home that does a case of beer a day,,, >> or a Politician like Nancy Pelosi ($10,000 a day) >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> By Trevor's own admission, Water vapor is 4 times the greenhouse gas >>>>> than CO2. >>>> >>>> **And again: You are massively over-simplifying the issue, with >>>> misleading comments like this. You've been told before the precise >>>> details surrounding the Solar forcing of CO2 and H2O, yet you still >>>> lie. Why is that? >>> >>> Wait a minute, the peer-reviewed NASA paper on GHG placed the effect of >>> CO2 at 1/5 not 1/4. You saw that paper (unless you lie about in which >>> case we'll post it again) Furthermore, the FACT that from 1940 to 1970 >>> CO2 when UP while Climate Temperature WENT DOWN! puts a lie to your CO2 >>> being somehow a "major cause" of warming. >>> >>> And yet you babble and drool and call those us us providing science >>> facts as "liars". The above science is "settled" and beyond doubt. Your >>> fantasies are not. But then, you do have a world tax agenda, right? > > Consumption doesn't count if you can get someone else to pay for it > (Like Pelosi does) That way they pay for your consumption AND the tax on > consumption! Sweet! > Gov already has a Gift Tax, where the Gov takes 45% of it, and the Estate Tax... Dems want 50% but repug pushed the limit up to 5 million. that wont help our rural farmers who have to sell the farm when papa dies to pay the estate taxes to Gov.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 04:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flreatFf2nmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685225 |
On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >> others. > > But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." > > Why is that? > **For two reasons: 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 14:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9u0hfdlt8d33fssh4pd96qnb1eeipp46f0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685249 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>> others. >> >> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >> >> Why is that? >> > >**For two reasons: > >1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. >2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel consumption can be measured. BTW: What "problem?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web