Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000

> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.

Global warming whackos always make this claim. But their own words
betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
and the argument would be over.

Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
and belief has no limits.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science

And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
you explain that fact away?


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming

[Dawlish]

Says a deluded nutbar. It's just crazy what these people think, really.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>

> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
>
> And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> you explain that fact away?
>
> --
> Nemo me impune lacessit.
> "The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming

Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.

[Last Post]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:38:43 PM UTC-5, De Shit Pile bleated:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
>
> And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> you explain that fact away?
>

Ø — Har Dehar Har Har!!!!!!!!
The data that you have seen since 1950, is
fraudulent and/or from the cook books of
Hansen, Trenberth, Jones, Mann, et al.

>
> "The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming

Ø —

[Last Post]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:44:04 PM UTC-5, Dawlish wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:16:25 PM UTC, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> > > Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>
> > > Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> > > stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> > > the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.

Ø — You can not even for one moment provide any
proof of IR radiation via H2O, CO2, etc.

> > Global warming whackos always make this claim. But their own words
> > betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
> > make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
> > and the argument would be over.
>
> > Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
> > empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
> > and belief has no limits.

> Says a deluded nutbar. It's just crazy what these people think, really.

Ø — In the late '40s, The distinguished scientist
Dr Genvieve Woillard, while studying the
greenhouse effect declared that it is of no
value.

She agreed that the Water (95%), CO2 (3.5%),
Nitrous Oxide etc et al is the primary source
of natural fertilization.

Ø — The Principal of an (elite?) private school should
be ashamed of what you are posting. I do not care
that you are a silly jackass. But your students
deserve better.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 24, 12:38�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> >
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
> >
> > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > you explain that fact away?

> Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.

I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been

[tj Frazir]

plants die at 250 PPM its under 300 PPM outside and plant mass is 45 %.
going down fast...might not see any food this year.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Jan 24, 7:38 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:44:04 PM UTC-5, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:16:25 PM UTC, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> > > > Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>
> > > > Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> > > > stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> > > > the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>
> Ø — You can not even for one moment provide any
>         proof of IR radiation via H2O, CO2, etc.
>
> > > Global warming whackos always make this claim.  But their own words
> > > betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
> > > make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
> > > and the argument would be over.
>
> > > Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
> > > empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
> > > and belief has no limits.
> > Says a deluded nutbar. It's just crazy what these people think, really.
>
> Ø — In the late '40s, The distinguished scientist
>         Dr Genvieve Woillard, while studying the
>         greenhouse effect declared that it is of no
>         value.

"a pollen specialist" -- really? That's your scientific authority on
climate science?

I bet you cannot provide a reference to her saying the GH effect is of
no value either.

>
>         She agreed that the Water (95%), CO2 (3.5%),
>         Nitrous Oxide etc et al is the primary source
>         of natural  fertilization.

That has nothing to do with the GH effect.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:53:00 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > >
> > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
> > >
> > > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > > you explain that fact away?
>
> > Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.
>
> I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been
> measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do you explain that fact
> away?

Silence. Heh!

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

"Stop! Stop! It isn't ready!" -- Q

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 24, 5:53 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>

> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
> > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
>
> > > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > > you explain that fact away?
> > Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.
>
> I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been
> measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do you explain that fact
> away?

Well, obviously, you believe the greenhouse effect is measurable and
testable but science isn't about what you believe it's about what you
can demonstrate. The fact that you are unable to demonstrate the
supposed procedures and/or data of the purported measurements
substantiates my assertion that the greenhouse effect is untestable
pseudo-science, as indicated in the title of this thread.

Thank you for your participation.

Keep making videos!

[Dawlish]

Again, the unanswerable question for nutbars like deluded denky:

"Why does every single scientific institution on the planet, every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey think otherwise to you?"

[Claudius Denk]

Let me get this straight. You've indicated that 30,000 scientists
believe something and you are unable to explain why they believe it?
In fact you are so completely stumped you are asking me to explain it
for you. Well, all I can say is that I've been trying to figure this
out for close to ten years now. And I'm not any closer than the day I
started. And, it seems to me, the fact that you've described it as,
"the unanswerable question," suggests to me that you are in the same
boat.

Maybe the next time they do a survey they should ask them why they are
unable and/or unwilling to explain why they believe what they,
purportedly, believe.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Like the fool a few posts later, if you're too stupid or too lazy to
read the evidence that's been supplied, don't whine that there is no
evidence.

[Sleepalot]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>On Jan 22, 12:19�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000

Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.

>> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
>> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
>> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>
>Global warming whackos always make this claim. But their own words
>betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
>make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
>and the argument would be over.

Indeed, that's why I got fed up of Poutnik - he produced nothing: no facts,
no links, no arguments - just claims.

[JohnM]

On Jan 25, 10:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

But in the face of an insurmountable quantity of evidence, what is a
loyal denialist to do. He can't let the side down by admitting he got
it wrong, can he?

A smart person would shut up and slink away. But Denkipoo isn't a
smart person.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 25, 1:32 pm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

The whole global warming argument can be paraphrased as follows:

AGW groupy:
I believe in global warming.

Skeptic:
Why do you believe in global warming?

AGW groupy:
I really really believe in global warming.

Skeptic:
Okay, but why do you really really believe in global warming?

AGW groupy:
A lot of other people also believe in global warming.

Skeptic:
Do you know why they believe in global warming?

AGW groupy:
They really really believe in global warming?

Skeptic:
Are you suggesting that the fact that others believe it is the only
reason you believe it?

AGW groupy:
You are a poo poo head.

[Mickey Langan]

On 2013-01-25, Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 1:32?pm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>>
>> Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
>>
>> >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
>> >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
>> >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>>

>> >Global warming whackos always make this claim. ?But their own words

Yup. Argument from authority, eventually resorting to ad-hominem.
It has been repeated in this group thousands of times.

--
Mickey

"Laughter is inner jogging." -- Norman Cousins

[tj Frazir]

it was not 275 PPM ..thats a govt lie.
Plant mass dont lie.
where plants grow and dont is fact.
Plant mass is fact.

It was 1000 PPM outside for 100 million years.
100 million acre forest burned evry year.

Its 300 PPM and under outside.
war on forest fires is a war on co2 is a war on life

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Dawlish]

Only you could believe that 30,000 scientists have conducted their research wrongly and an enormous number of peer reviewers have missed that fact. That's what you are asking people to believe.

Tell us why you believe they are wrong, instead of grovelling for someone to debate a stupidity with you, which has been shown to you a hundred times before.

The problem, deluded denky, lies solely with you. Your rock is calling you again.

[Sleepalot]

Yep, that about sums it up. <g>

[Sleepalot]

"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 24, 7:38�pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:44:04 PM UTC-5, Dawlish wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:16:25 PM UTC, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> > > On Jan 22, 12:19�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote
>> > > > Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>>
>> > > > Denying existence of greenhouse effect
>> > > > stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
>> > > > the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>>

>> � � You can not even for one moment provide any

>> � � � � proof of IR radiation via H2O, CO2, etc.
>>
>> > > Global warming whackos always make this claim. �But their own words
>> > > betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
>> > > make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
>> > > and the argument would be over.
>>
>> > > Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
>> > > empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
>> > > and belief has no limits.
>> > Says a deluded nutbar. It's just crazy what these people think, really.
>>

>> � � In the late '40s, The distinguished scientist

>> � � � � Dr Genvieve Woillard, while studying the
>> � � � � greenhouse effect declared that it is of no
>> � � � � value.
>
>"a pollen specialist" -- really? That's your scientific authority on
>climate science?

Who is your scientific authority on climate science?

[Dawlish]

deluded denky; you've been back on to post idiocy about skeptical science somehow not being scientific and you appear to have ignored this.........*again*.

why does every single scientific institution on the planet, every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey think otherwise to you?

There's no way out of that one, is there? You are in almost the tiniest minority possible, yet you feel that you know best.

Why on earth do you think that?

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:44:44 -0700, Desertphile

<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:53:00 -0700, Desertphile
> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 12:38�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > > >
> > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
> > > >
> > > > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > > > you explain that fact away?

> > > Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.

> > I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been
> > measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do you explain that fact
> > away?

> Silence. Heh!

Cultist still hiding.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 24, 5:53 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> >
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> >
> > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
> >
> > > > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > > > you explain that fact away?
> > > Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.
> >
> > I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been
> > measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do you explain that fact
> > away?

> Well, obviously, you believe

No: I refuse to believe. I have a healthy brain and I am an adult.
Belief is for infants.

> the greenhouse effect is measurable and testable but science

Both are correct. Measured and tested for over a century.

> isn't about what you believe it's about what you can demonstrate.

Scientists have demonstrated the greenhouse effect for over 100 years.
Physicists even fully explained the effect by year 1926. Even before
then the greenhouse effect was observed not only on Earth, but also on
Mars (in year 1898 there were several papers on the subject).

You know these facts, yet you still insist all of the world's
scientists have been lying for almost 180 years. Doesn't that give you
pause to worry about your mental health?

> The fact that you are unable to demonstrate the
> supposed procedures and/or data of the purported measurements
> substantiates my assertion that the greenhouse effect is untestable
> pseudo-science, as indicated in the title of this thread.
>
> Thank you for your participation.
>
> Keep making videos!

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:03:47 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Over 660 science organizations in over 80 countries, in fact, have
stated "Claudius Denk" is full of shit.

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 26, 9:36 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28:13 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

<snip>

If you can't answer this question then what
makes you think it would be any different
for me?

> There's no way out of that one, is there?

I agree. If they won't talk there's nothing
we can do. You can't force people to
explain talk if they don't want to.

> You are in almost the tiniest minority
> possible, yet you feel that you know best.
>
> Why on earth do you think that?

Let me get this straight. You are telling
us that there is a global emergency. You
are also telling us that this global emergency
has been detected by 30,000 scientists.
But these same 30,000 scientist refuse to
discuss/debate the specific scientific basis
of how they, purportedly, detected this
impending global catastrophe. In fact they
have been so tight lipped that you yourself,
a true believer, are completely incapable of
explaining to us how they, purportedly,
detected this impending global calamity.

To me the suggestion that there is even one
scientist that has detected an impending
global catastrophe and is not willing and even
eager to tell/discuss/debate with anyone and
everyone the specific scientific methods used
to detect this impending global catastrophe is
hard to believe. I just refuse to believe that
anybody could be so self-centered and
impudent. Yet you are trying to tell me that
not only does such scientist exist but there
are 30,000 of them!!!

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 26, 10:29 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk

> Scientists have demonstrated the greenhouse effect for over 100 years.
> Physicists even fully explained the effect by year 1926. Even before
> then the greenhouse effect was observed not only on Earth, but also on
> Mars (in year 1898 there were several papers on the subject).

If that is the case then it should be easy for you to present an
argument by way of quoting them and providing specific reference to
purported reproducible experimental evidence to substantiate your
argument. Right? Why don't you stop whining and do that?

> You know these facts, yet you still insist all of the world's
> scientists have been lying for almost 180 years. Doesn't that give you
> pause to worry about your mental health?
>
> > The fact that you are unable to demonstrate the
> > supposed procedures and/or data of the purported measurements
> > substantiates my assertion that the greenhouse effect is untestable
> > pseudo-science, as indicated in the title of this thread.
>
> > Thank you for your participation.
>
> > Keep making videos!

Why don't you make a video to respond to this post. If nothing else
it should be very entertaining.

[Dawlish]

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:30:44 PM UTC, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:03:47 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Jan 24, 5:53�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
> > > >
>
> > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

.......but deluded denky can't see the shit within.....so as to speak! *>))

He *still* thinks he knows better than all of them put together and all the scientists who are members. Just incredible.

The trouble is, amongst deniers; he's not alone in thinking that.

[Dawlish]

No-one wants to talk with a nutbar like you who believes that tens of thousands of climate scientists are wrong and a deluded denier like you is correct.

That's one fact that you can never quite grasp, isn't it?

[Claudius Denk]

Let me get this straight, you are telling us there are 660 science
organizations in over 80 countries that claim to have detected
impending global calamity and not one of them is willing to to explain
to you/us the scientific methods and procedures thereof? Does this
make sense to you?

[Dawlish]

It's the way he continues to make an idiot of himself that's the hugely entertaining thing, isn't it?

I think deluded denky may actually believe what he says. Now that is scary.

[Claudius Denk]

So, . . . uh, why do you think it is that they won't talk to you
either?

[Dawlish]

Why on earth would they want to talk to me? I just happen to agree with what they say - which is the opposite of what you do. Let me reiterate and include what d rightly says:

"Why does every single scientific institution on the planet (660 institutions in 80 countries), every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey think otherwise to you?"

Well? We're hanging on your answer deluded denky. You've got someone to talk to you.......so talk.

[Claudius Denk]

Why wouldn't they?

> I just happen to agree with what they say

But you can't explain why you agree. Right? Why do you expect other
people to agree with you if you admit that you can't explain why you
believe?

- which is the opposite of what you do. Let me reiterate and include
what d rightly says:
>
> "Why does every single scientific institution on the planet (660 institutions in 80 countries), every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey think otherwise to you?"
>
> Well? We're hanging on your answer deluded denky. You've got someone to talk to you.......so talk.

Why are you asking me this question. Shouldn't you be asking them?

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:50:40 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:29:25 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk

> > <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 5:53 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > > >
> > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:16:25 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > > >
> > > > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science
> > > >
> > > > > > And yet it has been measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do
> > > > > > you explain that fact away?
> > > > > Whackos always answer a different questions than the one asked.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see you answer, Whacko. The greehouse gas effect has been
> > > > measured and tested for almost 180 years; How do you explain that fact
> > > > away?
> >
> > > Well, obviously, you believe
> >
> > No: I refuse to believe. I have a healthy brain and I am an adult.
> > Belief is for infants.
> >
> > > the greenhouse effect is measurable and testable but science
> >
> > Both are correct. Measured and tested for over a century.
> >
> > > isn't about what you believe it's about what you can demonstrate.
> >

> > Scientists have demonstrated the greenhouse effect for over 100 years.
> > Physicists even fully explained the effect by year 1926. Even before
> > then the greenhouse effect was observed not only on Earth, but also on
> > Mars (in year 1898 there were several papers on the subject).
> >

> > You know these facts, yet you still insist all of the world's
> > scientists have been lying for almost 180 years. Doesn't that give you
> > pause to worry about your mental health?

> If that is the case then it should be easy for you to present an
> argument by way of quoting them and providing specific reference to
> purported reproducible experimental evidence to substantiate your
> argument. Right?

Yes, it was very easy, and it upset you for some reason. Why?

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:51:27 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:30:44 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:03:47 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 5:53 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:06:18 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > > > >
> > > > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> .......but deluded denky can't see the shit within.....so as to speak! *>))
>
> He *still* thinks he knows better than all of them put together and
> all the scientists who are members. Just incredible.
>
> The trouble is, amongst deniers; he's not alone in thinking that.

Imagine how wounding to the mind such a thought must be: to know that
all of the scienists in the world state the exact opposite of what one
believes.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:54:10 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Idiot.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 26, 8:32 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:50:40 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:29:25 -0700, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk

Why don't you make video about it?

[Dawlish]

That is the best response.........however, he didn't like it, so he thought he'd better start another thread to stamp his feet and wave his arms about a little more and beg for attention in a different thread.

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 1:32ĸpm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
> >
> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
> >
> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
> >

> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. ĸBut their own words

No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
temperature!
No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!

No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
greenhouse!
No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
No!
I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:05:17, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net>
wrote:

[Dawlish]

Silly sod.

When scientists think differently to a denier and are quoted to him to show him up as an idiot, it becomes an "argument from authority" for the denier, which he can then use to convince himself that he is surely correct.

In this case the authority includes all these people and organisations: every single scientific institution on the planet (660 institutions in 80 countries), every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey.

Why do you know better?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:04:49, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Silly sod.
>
> When scientists think differently to a denier and are quoted to him to show him up as an idiot, it becomes an "argument from authority" for the denier, which he can then use to convince himself that he is surely correct.
>
> In this case the authority includes all these people and organisations: every single scientific institution on the planet (660 institutions in 80 countries), every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 29950/30000 published scientists in a recent survey.
>
> Why do you know better?

It certantly does beggars your false belief in AGW that anyone can
think moe clearly than you!.
ANYONE can think better than you!

Can you falsify any of the below?

No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of

temperature!.

No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!!

No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
greenhouse!
No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!

No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what?

No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!

No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley.

[DonH]

"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net...

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>> On Jan 25, 1:32�pm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>> >
>> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
>> >
>> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
>> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
>> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>> >

>> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. �But their own words

# Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
after years of meticulous research.
How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
consequences?
The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
and expect nothing to happen.
Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
threat of extinction - due to us.
But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant win the
day.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 1:26 PM, DonH wrote:
> "Will Janoschka"<wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message

>> >

Will doesn't care... about science or what's happening on the earth
due to human activity. Will could care less.

[Wally W.]

Sam,

You only harp on the supposed problem.

What solutions do you offer to your imagined problem other than to
counter "human activity" with massive "depopulation"?

If your goal is genocide, why don't your posts speak often and plainly
about it?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 2:14 PM, Wally W. wrote:

>
> Sam,
>
> You only harp on the supposed problem.
>
> What solutions do you offer to your imagined problem other than to
> counter "human activity" with massive "depopulation"?
>
> If your goal is genocide, why don't your posts speak often and plainly
> about it?
>
>

I would like to see humans (and millions of other species) live
and thrive sustainably on the planet.

[Poutnik]

Will Janoschka posted Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:57:21 -0600

>
> No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> temperature!
> No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!
>
> No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
> No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> greenhouse!
> No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> No!
> I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-

Do not be clown yourself....

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

How many humans?

A number achieved by what means over what time?

C'mon, Sam. Spill the beans on what you want for your fellow man.
Remember, it is Sunday: a day reserved for congeniality and
truth-telling.

How will the rate of accomplishing your "sustainable" population
affect the rate of global warming over the next century?

Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?

Or can you only say "the sky is falling"?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>

I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>>

Apparently not.

> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.

Which means what?

Do you prefer culling?

What is the target number after the culling?

You snipped and didn't answer the question:

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.

No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

And he believes it as a matter of faith. Even No science at all.

This wacko is a disgrace to every real scientist out there.

[Claudius Denk]

Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

He gave a number about a year or so ago and got a pile of crap over his
misanthropic viewpoint and desire to see the majority of humanity eliminated.

This vile little piece of shit prbobably longs for the days when the ovens
were running at full capacity.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
>
> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

Marvin is now sounding like many climate science deniers in
these newsgroups. Marvin won't read Franzen's paper which
develops very equations he has been demanding be posted!

"The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change"

prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
San Diego, 1980

by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)

> http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.

What the science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.

What the science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

What the Science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
The lifespan of humanity is much like my own.
The more active I am, the harder I work, the sooner I die.

Many short, low⋅weight people, like George Burns and Sammy Davis, Jr.,
live to 100 because THEY EAT LESS.  Amazingly, this is true despite
chain⋅smoking alcoholism.  Tax away obesity, not cigarettes.

Not that it's best to live to 100, of course.

Further: Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits.
Historically, Afghans and Viet Cong have dropped like flies, for example.

In contrast, we Americans live longer because we've a division of labor;
e.g. bankers and doctors.  Taxes and regulations are the price we pay.

-- Regular Posters of Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy and Sci.Physics.

[Claudius Denk]

> by Fritz Franzen (hfran...@iastate.edu)
>
>  >http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:27 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
> argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
> thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
> your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.

The thread subject says that the greenhouse effect is immeasurable.

What the science says...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

> The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave
> radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the
> surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation
> escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while
> the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This
> is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the
> Earth's surface would be much colder.

> Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's
> capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the
> Earth's surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth's surface
> is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all
> the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most
> of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually
> escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.
>
> This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small
> part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation,
> and are called "greenhouse gases". The most important greenhouse
> gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional
> contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the
> atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and
> Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.
>
> Observing the greenhouse effect in action
>
> The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is
> atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal
> radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of
> Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of
> the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all
> directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface
> and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in
> total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.
>
> The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the
> atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the
> downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of
> the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of
> heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each
> direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and
> the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no
> greenhouse effect.
>
> Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty
> years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern
> measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

There's more:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.

Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a policy
statement concerning global climate change:
> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing
the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse
gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and
other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range
of industrial and agricultural processes".

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring".

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the
Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and
human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases beginning now".

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction
difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects
of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the
technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near
and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities,
national laboratories and its membership to support policies and
actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases".

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

"There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to
support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose
of the following commentary is to provide clarification and
additional details".

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 1:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Believers believe.  Scientists measure and test.
>
>    Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a policy
>    statement concerning global climate change:
>  >http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The subject under discussion here, you imbecile, is measuring and
testing of the "greenhouse effect." Policy is not the subject being
discussed here. Try to follow.

[Marvin the Martian]

Worm has posted this crap AT LEAST twice. Both times we took his silly
power point apart, and he RAN AWAY and changed the subject.

I don't have a cut and paste list like this WORM ASSHOLE. He can cut and
paste a lot faster than honest people can reply.

He posts his crap, and then if there is any debate about it he runs away
and post some different crap. He goes in a big circle of crap-posting.

He's too damned stupid or too damned dishonest to actually DISCUSS what
he's posting, so he just a damned spammer and liar.

And nowhere in his idiot power point does it explain the last 16 years of
non-warming, so his "hypothesis" doesn't even fit past observation. It's
a damned non-starter. Not just me but other's explained it to the Worm
before, but he just starts posting another cut and paste and then comes
back and post the same damned thing a month or two later.

No wonder some people believe the Worm to be a mindless spam-bot.

[Marvin the Martian]

aw fuck! That again!?

You mindless idiot spamming bastard!

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 4:04 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Worm has posted this crap AT LEAST twice. Both times we took his silly
> power point apart, and he RAN AWAY and changed the subject.

Marvin has yet to read the presentation or comment on any of its
specific content.

The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change

prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
San Diego, 1980

by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)

> http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

Do you find fault with the American Physical Society Policy Statement,
Marvin? If so, what part?

[Claudius Denk]

Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
to discuss this then go start your own thread.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 5:48 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

>
> Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
> to discuss this then go start your own thread.
>

WRT to the thread topic, Claudius,

[Marvin the Martian]

That thing... that worm thing... it just POSTS Crap. I think he's using a
bot.

Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
just posted something else from his list.

This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the faults
on his Power point or this APS statement before.

[Claudius Denk]

I used to believe in global warming. But when I started asking
questions I found that the answers just weren't there. Moreover,
there were a lot of simpletons telling me that my questions didn't
count. Global warming cultists aren't capable of addressing an
issue. They are just a bunch of dingbats.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
> before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
> criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
> just posted something else from his list.
>
> This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
> faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the faults
> on his Power point or this APS statement before.
>

Marvin, most of your posting are either name calling, similar
disparagements, or claims that are listed as climate science myths,
including the subject of this thread.

> Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
>
> The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed
> science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many
> arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic
> arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while
> neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate
> emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made
> global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the
> world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global
> cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating
> heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the
> peer reviewed scientific literature.
>
> Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to
> be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
> spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
> cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be
> largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove".
> However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific
> question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by
> concentrating solely on the science.
>
> About the Author

> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate
> Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the
> University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of
> Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics
> in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.
> Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his
> own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.
> To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to
> address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links
> to the full papers are provided whenever possible).
>
> CO2 and its effect on climate
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> Swiss Re Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Skeptics
> http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
> http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf
>
> How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
> http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 7:14 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> I used to believe in global warming. But when I started asking
> questions I found that the answers just weren't there.

The data of climate science is very robust. The IPCC resources
are a good overview.

> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
> https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faqIndex.html
>
> The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most
> recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced
> worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does
> not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or
> parameters.
>
> Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the
> work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of
> the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of
> current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and
> expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises
> with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO
> headquarters in Geneva.
>
> The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member
> countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries
> are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review
> process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC
> work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and
> approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also
> elected during the plenary Sessions.
>
> Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC
> embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced
> scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC
> reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific
> content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant
> and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
>

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/13 7:14 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > I used to believe in global warming.  But when I started asking
> > questions I found that the answers just weren't there.
>
>    The data of climate science is very robust.

Yes, I know. I am a climate scientist.

>    The IPCC resources
>    are a good overview.

Good for what?

[Marvin the Martian]

I've had a similar experience. It is not like I *want* to parboil the
environment. You ask these guys how it works and you get a pile of
glittery generalities. You investigate it yourself and ask questions, and
they try to bog you down in irrelevant side issues or start calling you a
"denier" or worse.

And NO ONE can answer your questions. They are unapologetic about using
bad data. They're good with the CRU e-mails and the obvious unethical,
unscientific advocacy. They openly STATE political policy and claim that
their political policy is SCIENCE. When it doesn't predict, they just
blow it off!! Then there is Worm, who lies to my face and acts surprised
I'm insulted by his goddamned bald faced lies. Or that eshrodinger
fellow, who didn't even know that the only thing that can change an
equilibrium constant is TEMPERATURE (a chem 101 factoid), but he plays
his "authority" as a chemistry teacher at a junior college.

It just gets OLD. These AGW guys have NO SHAME at all. I cant figure out
if that is because they're not intelligent enough to learn and realize
they're wrong, if AGW is some kind of religious belief to them, or if
they just lie.

[Sam Wormley]

It is an excellent resource for policy makers. Do you not agree?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 7:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> And NO ONE can answer your questions. They are unapologetic about using
> bad data.

There you go again, Marvin, claiming conclusion are based on bad data.

> What the science says...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm


> The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data
> sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only
> was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU
> neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could
> not have hid or tampered with data.

> Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of
> emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University
> of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November
> 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning
> when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the
> scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate
> Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do:
> it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations.
> Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists'
> rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not
> prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to
> display the proper degree of openness.
>
> One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research,
> the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is
> very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National
> Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege
> that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that
> CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other
> information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director
> Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years
> ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
>
> To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists
> take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they
> calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature
> anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data
> into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be
> made to account for sources of error such as changing station
> locations or urban heat island effect.
>
> Following Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have
> attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and
> arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC. The Review
> took a similar approach, going back to primary sources and obtaining
> raw station data to see if it was possible for critics to replicate
> CRU’s results. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary
> from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the
> National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to
> write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of
> two days, without requiring any information from CRU.
>
> Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything:
> sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any
> competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they
> had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very
> similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make
> no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review
> stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that
> CRU’s conclusions are robust.
>
> Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
>
> CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or
> tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can
> download station data directly from primary sources and undertake
> their own temperature trend analysis.
>
> On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find
> no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land
> temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to
> the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement
> between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that
> CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
> [1.3.1]
>
> This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
>
> It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data
> unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources.
> We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case
> this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO
> records [6.4]
>
> The Review also considered the availability of metadata; that is,
> whether there was enough information available to identically
> replicate CRUTEM. As noted above, the computer code was no problem.
> Getting an exact list of temperature stations included in CRUTEM was
> more of an issue. Such a list was provided with the first version of
> CRUTEM in 1986, but CRU neglected to update it in the latest version,
> CRUTEM3, published in 2006.

> An up-to-date list was not released until October 2007, in response
> to an FoI request. Even then, the Review Team found it was not
> straightforward to identify all the stations, due to a lack of
> standardisation. However, 90% could be matched with stations in the
> GHCN database, and CRU informed them that the remaining 10% could be
> obtained from other sources such as the relevant National
> Meteorological Office. As a “test case”, the Review did obtain data
> directly from the Japanese NMO.
>
> The Review makes the following criticism of CRU:
>
> CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations
> used in each of the versions of [CRUTEM] at the time of publication.
> We find that CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information
> were unhelpful and defensive. [1.3.1]
>
> The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was
> complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to
> allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”,
> whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island
> effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a
> certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time.
> Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud.
> Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed
> analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was
> only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban
> heat island effect.
>
> The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the
> extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should
> be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
> [1.3.1]
>
> Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of
> anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated
> CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science
> community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small
> part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
> That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour
> of a few individuals.

[Claudius Denk]

Sure, in the same sense that Bernie Madoff is an excellent financial
advisor.

[gordo]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:22:47 -0600, Marvin the Martian

You are a conspiracy nut case being studied by scientists.Maybe you
should seek professional help. Imagine an adult who thinks he is
smarter than the finest scientists in the world. Do you think
sometimes that you are Napoleon?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:26:13, "DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

> "Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net...
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk
> > <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 25, 1:32ĸpm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
> >> >
> >> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
> >> >
> >> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> >> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> >> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
> >> >
> >> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. ĸBut their own words
> >> > >betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
> >> > >make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
> >> > >and the argument would be over.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, that's why I got fed up of Poutnik - he produced nothing: no
> >> > facts,
> >> > no links, no arguments - just claims.
> >> > >Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
> >> > >empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
> >> > >and belief has no limits.
> >>
> >> The whole global warming argument can be paraphrased as follows:
> >>
> >> AGW groupy:
> >> I believe in global warming.
> >>
> >> Skeptic:
> >> Why do you believe in global warming?
> >>
> >> AGW groupy:
> >> I really really believe in global warming.
> >>
> >> Skeptic:
> >> Okay, but why do you really really believe in global warming?
> >>
> >> AGW groupy:
> >> A lot of other people also believe in global warming.
> >>
> >> Skeptic:
> >> Do you know why they believe in global warming?
> >>
> >> AGW groupy:
> >> They really really believe in global warming?
> >>
> >> Skeptic:
> >> Are you suggesting that the fact that others believe it is the only
> >> reason you believe it?
> >>
> >> AGW groupy:
> >> You are a poo poo head.
> >
> > No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> > temperature!
> > No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

> >
> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >

> > No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> > greenhouse!
> > No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> > No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> > No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> > No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> > No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> > No!
> > I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> > As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>
> # Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
> after years of meticulous research.

Sorry! No research only much consideration of blaming the coal
industry
You are thinking science, but dealing with politics!



> How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
> consequences?

The Arctic has no ice cap, only a bunch of solidified water,
it is ocean with icebergs. Antarctica is a land mass with lots of
ice like Greenland and the Himalayas, a way different thing!

> The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
> world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
> are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
> tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
> and expect nothing to happen.

So far, from the Earth, We have no evidence to show threat to

Earth, that cannot accommodate seven billion stupid earthlings .


> Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
> technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
> likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
> threat of extinction - due to us.

I agree, Earthlings foul the nest always, as per the nature of
earthlings.
This is no reason for you to pay an idiotic "carbon tax".


> But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
> Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
> We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant
> win the day.
>
This planet has tried to rid itself of Homo Saps for a long time.
A failure of the Planet, the Universe, and God!. Sleep well!,
however, some still survive!, nasty critters! Worry!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:19:14, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> Will Janoschka posted Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:57:21 -0600

>
>
> >
> > No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> > temperature!
> > No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!
> >
> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >
> > No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> > greenhouse!
> > No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> > No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> > No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> > No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> > No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> > No!
> > I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> > As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>

> Do not be clown yourself....
>
Which of the above can you disagree?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:44:48, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
>
> What the science says...
> >

What total nonsense!
No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated!

No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin!

No Greenhouse gasses! No gas prevents convection!

No Radiative forcing! Hansen weird buzzwords!

No Positive feedbacks! Hansen plural buzzwords!

No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's faker!

No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!

No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> That thing... that worm thing... it just POSTS Crap. I think he's using a
> bot.

Climate change: Oh, it's real. (8 talks)
> http://www.ted.com/playlists/78/climate_change_oh_it_s_real.html

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:40:25, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 1:26 PM, DonH wrote:
> > "Will Janoschka"<wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >

> >> >No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> >> >temperature!

> >> >No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

> >> >
> >> >No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >> >

> >> >No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> >> >greenhouse!
> >> >No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> >> >No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what

> >> >No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!

> >> >No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!

> >> >No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!

> >> >No!
> >> >I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> >> >As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>
>

> > # Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
> > after years of meticulous research.

> > How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
> > consequences?

> > The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
> > world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
> > are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
> > tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
> > and expect nothing to happen.

> > Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
> > technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
> > likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
> > threat of extinction - due to us.

> > But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
> > Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
> > We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant win the
> > day.
> >
> >
>

> Will doesn't care... about science or what's happening on the earth
> due to human activity. Will could care less.
>
I care about science, you do not. Try to disprove or falsify, any of
my above
Fuck earthlings!!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:26:52, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> >
> > Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
> >
>
> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>
>
Do not worry Sam, you will be first!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:03:59, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
> >>
> >>
> > I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>

> Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
>
> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).
>

> And he believes it as a matter of faith. Even No science at all.
>
> This wacko is a disgrace to every real scientist out there.

True indeed. How is that Earththing on Mars doing?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:17:32, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
> >
> > No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> > No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> > No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).
>

> Marvin is now sounding like many climate science deniers in
> these newsgroups. Marvin won't read Franzen's paper which
> develops very equations he has been demanding be posted!
>

> "The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change"
>
> prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
> Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
> Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
> San Diego, 1980
>
> by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)
>
> > http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf
>

Fritz Franzen? Sam, you have reached an alltime low! (

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:36:28, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 3:27 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
> > argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
> > thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
> > your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.
>

> The thread subject says that the greenhouse effect is immeasurable.
>
> What the science says...

What the fuck is radiant heat??????

[Will Janoschka]

No wonder some people believe the Worm to be a mindless spam-bot.

[Will Janoschka]

[Will Janoschka]

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:44:48, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
>

[Dawlish]

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:03:59 PM UTC, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>
>
>

> Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
>
>
>
> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
>
> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
>
> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).
>
>
>

> And he believes it as a matter of faith. Even No science at all.
>
>
>
> This wacko is a disgrace to every real scientist out there.

Alien asks for proof......again.

Any nutbar like to tell him that he will die before he gets any?

Denky perhaps? He knows about science and stuff.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:44:48 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:


> There's more:

You always have more, Sam.

Try posting better.

[Wally W.]

It depends what policy one wants.

What policy do *you* want, Sam?

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:34:43 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>>>
>

>Apparently not.

>
>
>> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>

>Which means what?
>
>Do you prefer culling?
>
>What is the target number after the culling?
>
>You snipped and didn't answer the question:
>
>How will the rate of accomplishing your "sustainable" population
>affect the rate of global warming over the next century?

<crickets>

Tell us, Sam. How quickly would culling 93% of the world's population
stop global warming?

Would the oceans still rise over the beach-front homes of the Master
Race until 2100?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:16:31 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
>> before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
>> criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
>> just posted something else from his list.
>>
>> This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
>> faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the
>> faults on his Power point or this APS statement before.
>>
>>

> Marvin, most of your posting are either name calling, similar
> disparagements, or claims that are listed as climate science myths,
> including the subject of this thread.

You're a jackass.

Admit that you posted that before, admit that we had rebuttals to it, and
admit that you ignored them and changed the subject.

Instead you lied your ass off and said I never read it. I read it at
least twice, you damned liar. At LEAST twice, and I replied. Talking to
you is like talking to a brick wall, because you're so damned STUPID.
You're a troll, a spammmer, and a waste of everyone's time. You're not
here to discuss, but to spam.

[Dawlish]

Nope? No-one? The alien doesn't seem bothered by his own demand, so who cares?

Nutbars ask for proof at regular intervals and in doing so write "Ignorant science denier" over their own foreheads.

[Desertphile]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:30:59 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:03:59 PM UTC, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> > No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.

No scientist claims there is such proof.

> > No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.

No scientist claims there is such proof.

> > No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

No scientist claims there is such proof.

> Alien asks for proof......again.

Yes. Stupid shit has a memory problem just like paul whatshisname.

> Any nutbar like to tell him that he will die before he gets any?

Sane people already explained it to him a few hundred times.

> Denky perhaps? He knows about science and stuff.

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"Stop! Stop! It isn't ready!" -- Q