Karl Wants Debate Called Off Too
0Z0NB
very shaky foundations!!
July 4 2008
Add the ABC's Dr Karl Kruszelnicki to the list of global warming
preachers above who won't want to debate any more. Listen and laugh as
he gets a call on Triple J from a polite sceptic who clearly knows more
about the science than does this former Climate Change Coalition
candidate (from 18:50).
And the sceptic of man-made warming who drove preacher Clive Hamilton to
flee On Line Opinion wonders in comments to the column above why he's so
scary. Or Hamilton so abusive.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
V for Vendicar
"0Z0NB" <0Z...@do00od00.com> wrote in message
news:486d9372$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> The warmist fanatics are only too aware that their faith is built on
> very shaky foundations!!
Ya, shaky foundations like the foundations of modern science...
Thermodynamics, Radiative transfer, Spectrascopy, etc.
It' all wrong claims the KKKonservative KKKlown. All of science since
1850 is fundemantally flawed and a communist plot to take over the world -
as the claim goes.
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSS
Roald B. Larsen
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> skrev
i melding news:x4_ck.14858$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "0Z0NB" <0Z...@do00od00.com> wrote in message
> news:486d9372$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> The warmist fanatics are only too aware that their faith is built on
>> very shaky foundations!!
>
> Ya, shaky foundations like the foundations of modern science...
> Thermodynamics, Radiative transfer, Spectrascopy, etc.
Yepp, foundations endorsed by NASA, NOAA, WMO, NCDC, AGU, the National
Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and Science Academies across the entire
planet.
They must all be "warmist fanatics" who are "only too aware that their faith
is built on very shaky foundations" ... ;-)
Whata Fool
Well, thank God for GreenHouse Gases, without them the atmosphere
would have no way to cool, and would be too hot.
V for Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> Well, thank God for GreenHouse Gases, without them the atmosphere
> would have no way to cool, and would be too hot.
Ya, the earth would be a molten wasteland of hot melted rock, just like
the surface of the moon and Mars.
URAh MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Roald B. Larsen
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> skrev i melding
news:se7974hb7at5hra53...@4ax.com...
What a Fool! You evidently likes to turn the reality upside down. The earth
would be around 33 degrees COLDER without an atmosphere with greenhouse
gases. This is a well known scientific fact that even normal greenhouse
deniers accept.
So well, thanks for the greenhouse gases. The only trouble is that we humans
turned so plentiful and so demanding in our fossil energy use that we, in
less than a couple of hundred years, put so much of those gases into the
atmosphere that the earth never saw so much in at least a million years! We
know that the greenhouse gases warm the earth, and we know that the earth
has warmed very much in the last century, when our fossil energy use
exploded. And we know that the warming continues and will do so in the
foreseable future. And we know that this means a big stress on a nature that
is already being stressed and destroyed by man's use and exploitation. We
need a nature that can cover our demands for food for the whole of humanity.
And we need a civilization that makes food for all to more than an
individual economic possibility, depending on where you live and from what
level of the society you come from or belong to...
Claudius Denk
> "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> skrev i meldingnews:se7974hb7at5hra53...@4ax.com...
> > "Roald B. Larsen" <berth...@online.no> wrote:
>
> >>"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com>
> >>skrev
> >>i meldingnews:x4_ck.14858$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> >>> "0Z0NB" <0Z...@do00od00.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:486d9372$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>>> The warmist fanatics are only too aware that their faith is built on
> >>>> very shaky foundations!!
>
> >>> Ya, shaky foundations like the foundations of modern science...
> >>> Thermodynamics, Radiative transfer, Spectrascopy, etc.
>
> >>Yepp, foundations endorsed by NASA, NOAA, WMO, NCDC, AGU, the National
> >>Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and Science Academies across the
> >>entire
> >>planet.
>
> >>They must all be "warmist fanatics" who are "only too aware that their
> >>faith
> >>is built on very shaky foundations" ... ;-)
>
> > Well, thank God for GreenHouse Gases, without them the atmosphere
> > would have no way to cool, and would be too hot.
>
> What a Fool! You evidently likes to turn the reality upside down. The earth
> would be around 33 degrees COLDER without an atmosphere with greenhouse
> gases.
All gasses are greenhouse gasses.
> This is a well known scientific fact that even normal greenhouse
> deniers accept.
You AGW whackos never define anything so your thinking is so wishy-
washy it's about impossible to take anything you say seriously.
> So well, thanks for the greenhouse gases. The only trouble is that we humans
> turned so plentiful and so demanding in our fossil energy use that we, in
> less than a couple of hundred years, put so much of those gases into the
> atmosphere that the earth never saw so much in at least a million years!
This is an absurd statement. You whackos are continually hand-
wringing about some silly notion that the miniscule effect humans have
had on atmospheric levels of CO2 has somehow, magically we can only
assume, had an effect on atmospheric temperatures despite the fact
there is absolutely no experimental basis for such concerns. You
people have issues. And your issues begin and end with your inability
to think clearly.
> We
> know that the greenhouse gases warm the earth,
All gasses warm the earth, you retard.
> and we know that the earth
> has warmed very much in the last century, when our fossil energy use
> exploded.
Pure bullshit. There's been no shift in global temp average.
Moreover we don't even have a reliable way to measure/calculate such.
> And we know that the warming continues and will do so in the
> foreseable future.
Only whackos believe they can predict the future.
> And we know that this means a big stress on a nature that
> is already being stressed and destroyed by man's use and exploitation. We
> need a nature that can cover our demands for food for the whole of humanity.
> And we need a civilization that makes food for all to more than an
> individual economic possibility, depending on where you live and from what
> level of the society you come from or belong to.
Let me guess: And all we need to do is follow your lead. Right?
Roald B. Larsen
It is simply not correct that all gases are greenhouse gases.
Are you a liar, or just a stupid fool without the simplest knowledge
of climate science? There are only those two possibilities.
Greenhouse gases are defined as those gases that absorb this infrared
radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Even school children
learn that today.
Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s
surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back
into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly
constant. Right now, the earth receives more energy from the sun than
it sends back to space. So the earth is warming -- the global
temperatures are getting higher.
Quite many gases exhibit the “greenhouse” properties. Some of them
occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for
aerosols).
Whata Fool
>
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> skrev i melding
>news:se7974hb7at5hra53...@4ax.com...
>> "Roald B. Larsen" <bert...@online.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Yepp, foundations endorsed by NASA, NOAA, WMO, NCDC, AGU, the National
>>>Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and Science Academies across the
>>>entire
>>>planet.
>>>
>>>They must all be "warmist fanatics" who are "only too aware that their
>>>faith is built on very shaky foundations" ... ;-)
>>
>>
>> Well, thank God for GreenHouse Gases, without them the atmosphere
>> would have no way to cool, and would be too hot.
>
>What a Fool!
I hear you, don't shout, please.
>You evidently likes to turn the reality upside down.
I sho duz, what is your first language anyway?
>The earth
>would be around 33 degrees COLDER without an atmosphere with greenhouse
>gases.
Learn to read, I said the atmosphere, you said the Earth.
There is a difference.
That 33 degrees is probably nonsense too, the Earth would be
quite a bit warmer than Mars because it is closer to the sun, and
because it has a lot more atmosphere that acts as a buffer and as
a heat sink or source as appropriate.
>This is a well known scientific fact that even normal greenhouse
>deniers accept.
It is NOT a FACT, it is an outhouse rumor at present, just a
rehash of early papers written before much was known about radiation
or even all the chemical elements.
>So well, thanks for the greenhouse gases. The only trouble is that we humans
>turned so plentiful and so demanding in our fossil energy use that we, in
>less than a couple of hundred years, put so much of those gases into the
>atmosphere that the earth never saw so much in at least a million years!
And the grass has never been greener, huh?
> We
>know that the greenhouse gases warm the earth,
A lot of people think that because they believe what they are taught
and part of what the read.
>and we know that the earth
>has warmed very much in the last century,
We also know that Scandinavia and northern Europe had ice
kilometers thick 18,000 years ago, it must be a awful lot warmer
there now.
>when our fossil energy use
>exploded.
Take my word for it, people sweated a lot in the 19300s and
1950s, and then I froze in the early 1960s and headed south to find
some warm air.
>And we know that the warming continues and will do so in the
>foreseable future.
Put away the crystal ball and get busy producing some kind of
alternate energy, preferably liquid fuel if possible, you are wasting
time and breath here.
>And we know that this means a big stress on a nature that
>is already being stressed and destroyed by man's use and exploitation.
That's BS, nature puts a stress on me just trying to keep a quarter
acre of land cleared of brush and weeds, hampered in the effort by every
insect, parasite and vermin known in the region.
>We
>need a nature that can cover our demands for food for the whole of humanity.
You need people who are willing to work and do what is needed to
provide that food, maybe you should study the life style of the people
having problems with food or housing.
>And we need a civilization that makes food for all to more than an
>individual economic possibility, depending on where you live and from what
>level of the society you come from or belong to...
Sure, ask Fran or Fernbach to help, no doubt they will agree with
you.
It must be nice to have ideas, but disappointing when nobody is
willing to do what you think they should do, maybe a big advertising
campaign is needed to get people to cooperate and be one big commune.
Ouroboros_Rex
Claudia here is an internet nutbar who postulates crap with no basis in
reality and then impugnes folks who disagree as if they are the ones with
the problem.
You should see his crap about beach chimp theory. lol
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Roald B. Larsen" <bert...@online.no> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> skrev i melding
>> news:se7974hb7at5hra53...@4ax.com...
>>> "Roald B. Larsen" <bert...@online.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yepp, foundations endorsed by NASA, NOAA, WMO, NCDC, AGU, the
>>>> National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and Science Academies
>>>> across the entire
>>>> planet.
>>>>
>>>> They must all be "warmist fanatics" who are "only too aware that
>>>> their faith is built on very shaky foundations" ... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, thank God for GreenHouse Gases, without them the
>>> atmosphere would have no way to cool, and would be too hot.
>>
>> What a Fool!
>
> I hear you, don't shout, please.
No one is shouting.
>
>> You evidently likes to turn the reality upside down.
>
> I sho duz, what is your first language anyway?
>
>
>> The earth
>> would be around 33 degrees COLDER without an atmosphere with
>> greenhouse gases.
>
> Learn to read, I said the atmosphere, you said the Earth.
And you are still wrong.
>
> There is a difference.
>
>
> That 33 degrees is probably nonsense too, the Earth would be
> quite a bit warmer than Mars because it is closer to the sun, and
> because it has a lot more atmosphere that acts as a buffer and as
> a heat sink or source as appropriate.
None of which invalidates the 33 degree figure.
>
>
>> This is a well known scientific fact that even normal greenhouse
>> deniers accept.
>
>
> It is NOT a FACT, it is an outhouse rumor at present, just a
> rehash of early papers written before much was known about radiation
> or even all the chemical elements.
You are lying.