FOSSIL FOOLS GET THEIR LITTLE LYING FANNIES SPANKED!
Roger Coppock
total support for NOAA, NASA, and Hadley Center
results. Fossil fool lies proven untrue. Industry
spin doctors, caught in multiple lies, back peddling
like crazy.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
- - - - - - - -
Climate skeptics lose their cool
Friends become enemies as a scientist expected to cast doubt on global
warming trends does the exact opposite
BY ANDREW LEONARD
Is there anything angrier than a climate skeptic scorned? On March 6,
Anthony Watts, operator of Watt's Up With That, one the most
industrious global-warming-is-not-happening (and if it is, it
certainly isn't caused by humans) websites on the Internet, expressed
his high hopes that a new review of surface temperature data conducted
by University of California, Berkeley, scientists would bring real
clarity to what's been happening to the earth's climate in the last
century. He pronounced himself delighted at the project's pledge that
its review would be "open source, fully transparent, and replicable."
All good things, to be sure, but one suspects, given the general
thrust of Watts Up With That? that Watts' real hope was that the new
round of data crunching would undermine the consensus climate-
scientist interpretation of available data indicating that the Earth
has been steadily warming. But Watts, seemingly, was ready to be
disappointed.
And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it
proves my premise wrong.
But that was before the lead scientist on the project, Richard Muller,
testified on Thursday at a House Science, Space and Technology
Committee hearing.
From the New York Times:
BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius
since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar
to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.
[ . . . ]
http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/?story=/tech/htww/2011/04/01/climate_skeptics_betrayal
Last Post
> An independent review of surface record data finds
> total support for NOAA, NASA, and Hadley Center
> results. Fossil fool lies proven untrue. Industry
> spin doctors, caught in multiple lies, back peddling
> like crazy.
>
Roger the Dodger is the fossil fool.
A far out left wing rag copies data from
GISS/NASA, NOAA and UK MET and
Roger calls it "independent"
ø Roger do you still believe co2 defies
Newton and is stored in the troposphere
long term
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all!
Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J.
Roger..............are you weird?
Unum
wrote:
trollboy, are you a shameless nutjob?
I guess you didn't read the article, it kicks your lying butt.
Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J.
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no evidence of any kind, amount or type, that CO2 is causing
the Earth to warm, none. Thus there is nothing to read, but the
mindless delusional ramblings of a gay old
fool........................................
Chow.
Roger Coppock
N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There is no evidence of any kind, amount or type, that CO2 is causing
> the Earth to warm, none.
See this for the direct measurement of greenhouse forcing:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
leona...@gmail.com
ø Roger the Dodger is beyond silly
The editor of Nature admitted that he will
only publish AGW papers.
ø There is NO greenhouse forcing.
ø What other lies do you have today?
Unum
Lol, if you keep your head stuffed firmly up your ass you will never
be able to see evidence of any kind. trollboy, are you a shameless nutjob?
Tom P
> of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface
> temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check
> our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning
> effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to
> the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.
>
> A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global
> temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so
> broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA,
> NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very
> small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for
> correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of
> observation bias, etc. "
>
> http://berkeleyearth.org/findings
>
> IOW: "We invented something with one wheel, that might become a car or
> something like it."
>
> There are no results yet, Roger.
> All you have is a small and uncorrected subset that consists of 2% of random
> data.
> This discredits you and Muller likewise.
>
> You're a bastard liar!
Have you tried ccc-gistemp yet?
Dawlish
On reading, the study will convince anyone with an open mind, that
data used so far allows an accurate assessment of global temperature
trends - *IF* the final full anlysis replicates the results shown in
the 2% sample. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the methods
used for the sample - the same methods that will be used for the full
study - will produce anything different. All deniers like petey can do
is hope that they do show something different. If the final study
shows the same as this, they'll never again be able to say that the
temperature record is "fudged", "false", "discredited" or whatever
other anti-science word they choose.
Mind you, if it doesn't show what they want, they'll just call people
like Judith Curry biased AGW alarmists and continue to doubt that what
they see in front of their eyes could possibly be real.
Why would the final study show anything different to this, petey?
If you've not read it, of course; it won't open your eyes to anything.
I look forward to the final results and the promised release of the
full dataset.
Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dawlish, are you seriously claiming that people like you, who claim
that temperature has nothing to do with climate, yet consistently
point to the hockey stick graph which is a temperature graph, as
evidence of climate change, are not delusional?
PS. Have you kissed a member of the opposite sex yet?
Chow
leona...@gmail.com
ø Indeed Dumbell, you are just another AGW alarmist idiot.
* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible.
Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
Desertphile
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> An independent review of surface record data finds
> total support for NOAA, NASA, and Hadley Center
> results.
But the anti-science whackos don't really believe what they claim
to believe: they know damn well that the data is excellent and
unassailable.
> Fossil fool lies proven untrue. Industry
> spin doctors, caught in multiple lies, back peddling
> like crazy.
See the book "Merchants of Doubt" for how and why.
> http://berkeleyearth.org/
> - - - - - - - -
> Climate "skeptics" lose their cool
> Friends become enemies as a scientist expected to cast doubt on global
> warming trends does the exact opposite
That doesn't make any sense. No scientist was "expected to cast
doubt on global warming trends."
> BY ANDREW LEONARD
>
> Is there anything angrier than a climate "skeptic" scorned? On March 6,
> Anthony Watts, operator of Watt's Up With That, one the most
> industrious global-warming-is-not-happening (and if it is, it
> certainly isn't caused by humans) websites on the Internet, expressed
> his high hopes that a new review of surface temperature data conducted
> by University of California, Berkeley, scientists would bring real
> clarity to what's been happening to the earth's climate in the last
> century.
Tens of thousands of scientists have already done that.
> He pronounced himself delighted at the project's pledge that
> its review would be "open source, fully transparent, and replicable."
Like all of the others.
> All good things, to be sure, but one suspects, given the general
> thrust of Watts Up With That? that Watts' real hope was that the new
> round of data crunching would undermine the consensus climate-
> scientist interpretation of available data indicating that the Earth
> has been steadily warming. But Watts, seemingly, was ready to be
> disappointed.
And who gives a bloody shit what Watts says or wants?
> And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it
> proves my premise wrong.
>
> But that was before the lead scientist on the project, Richard Muller,
> testified on Thursday at a House Science, Space and Technology
> Committee hearing.
>
> From the New York Times:
>
> BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius
> since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar
"Unexpected" by =WHOM?!= LOL!
> to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic
> and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/?story=/tech/htww/2011/04/01/climate_skeptics_betrayal
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
"Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J."
<fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Roger are you weird?
Facts sting, eh? LOL!
Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-N.J.
human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
Al Gore has figured this out, and has now shut up. If you had half a
brain, you would do the same.
LOL......................silly little willy
Benj
Does everyone understand all the lies here?
1. Ice age is over.
2. Earth has been warming since end of ice age though lately has
slowed down to next to nothing, but nevertheless IS STILL WARMING.
3. Warmers point to warming earth as "proof" that their theory that
CO2 is causing the warming is true because CO2 is a greenhouse gas
(true), and greenhouse gasses can cause warming (true) and finally
global warming is taking place (true).
Left unmentioned is that human produced CO2 cannot have ANY
significant effect on global temperatures. Therefore the entire
premise of AGW is false and a lie. This is easily scientifically
demonstrated, but harder to do publicly because of so much of the
leadership of scientific organizations have sold out to the scam.
Hence all we get is continuous propaganda from scientific
"authorities". "Sam Wormley" will be happy to provide you with a list
of them.
Last Post
> On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-
>
> N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What sting, there is still no evidence of any type or amount, that
> > human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
> > Al Gore has figured this out, and has now shut up. If you had half a
> > brain, you would do the same.
> 1. Ice age is over.
ø The Ice Age is just beginning
> 2. Earth has been warming since end of ice age though lately has
> slowed down to next to nothing, but nevertheless IS STILL WARMING.
ø The Ice Age — 100,000 years long— ended 11,600 years ago.
The interglacial period [10,000 yrs] ended 1,600 yrs ago.
ø the last 1,600 years are the coundown for reglaciation
Dawlish
You were doing fine in 1. 3 is mainlytrue. 2 is unlikely, as we are on
the cooling leg of a Milankovitch cycle and really, no-one knows
whether we are on the warming, or cooling limb, of an interglacial.
However; how do you reconcile the fact that the science points to the
exact opposite of everything you have said in your last paragraph?
What drives you to deny so much science?
Desertphile
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Does everyone understand all the lies here?
So you decided to add more. LOL!
> 1. Ice age is over.
More or less, yes.
> 2. Earth has been warming since end of ice age though lately has
> slowed down to next to nothing
No, the rate or warming is still the same as it has been for
roughly 10 years.
> but nevertheless IS STILL WARMING.
Of course.
> 3. Warmers
What the bloody fuck is "warmerS?"
> point to warming earth as "proof"
Huh? The subject is global climate change, not mathematics.
> that their theory that
> CO2 is causing the warming is true because CO2 is a greenhouse gas
> (true), and greenhouse gasses can cause warming (true) and finally
> global warming is taking place (true).
That isn't a theory: it is a tiny subset of climate theory.
> Left unmentioned is that human produced CO2 cannot have ANY
> significant effect on global temperatures.
Why do =ALL= of the experts say it can and did? How do you explain
your bizarre assertion in the face of all of the evidence?
> Therefore the entire premise of AGW is false and a lie.
You mean it is an observed fact.
> This is easily scientifically demonstrated
Yes, if you can do that you will win the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Er, ah.... good luck with that.
> but harder to do publicly because of so much of the
> leadership of scientific organizations have sold out to the scam.
"It's a massive world-wide multi-generational conspiracy against
me!"
Nutter.
> Hence all we get is continuous propaganda from scientific
> authorities.
Nutter.
> Sam Wormley will be happy to provide you with a list of them.
Better yet, examine the evidence. Human "fingerprints" showing
humans caused the current global temperature anomaly:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/Just_5_Questions_Fingerprinting_the_climate_20100322.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/humanfingerprintshighres.pdf
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climates_strong_fingerprint_in_global_cholera_outbreaks_/2371/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210172225.htm
erschro...@gmail.com
There is no evidence of evolution, or a big bang, or the earth being
billions of years old. Chow knows because he reads this on right-wing
web sites and Glenn Beck tells him this.
erschro...@gmail.com
N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What sting, there is still no evidence of any type or amount, that
> human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
Why do all scientists say otherwise?
Answer that question or go stick something up your sphincter.
erschro...@gmail.com
>
> N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What sting, there is still no evidence of any type or amount, that
> > human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
> > Al Gore has figured this out, and has now shut up. If you had half a
> > brain, you would do the same.
>
> > LOL......................silly little willy
>
> Does everyone understand all the lies here?
>
> 1. Ice age is over.
>
> 2. Earth has been warming since end of ice age though lately has
> slowed down to next to nothing, but nevertheless IS STILL WARMING.
What's causing the warming?
>
> 3. Warmers point to warming earth as "proof" that their theory that
> CO2 is causing the warming is true because CO2 is a greenhouse gas
> (true), and greenhouse gasses can cause warming (true) and finally
> global warming is taking place (true).
>
> Left unmentioned is that human produced CO2 cannot have ANY
> significant effect on global temperatures.
Left unmentioned is that you're a nut. Certifiable nut.
> Therefore the entire
> premise of AGW is false and a lie. This is easily scientifically
> demonstrated, but harder to do publicly because of so much of the
> leadership of scientific organizations have sold out to the scam.
> Hence all we get is continuous propaganda from scientific
> "authorities". "Sam Wormley" will be happy to provide you with a list
> of them.
Yeah, all the scientists are liars and only people like you see the
truth. Sociopaths like you.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
See how two different deniers have two different ideas about the same
thing? They can't agree on whether we are cooling, or warming, but
they can agree on one thing.....
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
Catchy, isn't it? *>))
Desertphile
That shut him up.
Desertphile
Yeah, no evidence except all of that evidence accumulated for over
a century. Other than that, represented in many tens of thousands
of science papers published in peer-reviewed science journals,
there's no evidence. Oh, and the missing ice: other than that.
> There is no evidence of evolution, or a big bang, or the earth being
> billions of years old. Chow knows because he reads this on right-wing
> web sites and Glenn Beck tells him this.
And the manned landings on the moon were faked, too.
Desertphile
> On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-
> N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > What sting, there is still no evidence of any type or amount, that
> > human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
> Why do all scientists say otherwise?
> Answer that question or go stick something up your sphincter.
Notice how I have posted links to the evidence well over 600 times
now, and this clown snips the links ever time he replies with
"What evidence?" LOL!
Roger Coppock
The fossil fool motto:
ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
You have a hypothesis.
I have a hypothesis.
You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
Last Post
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/2011 11:56 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 12:07 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 4, 6:15 am, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 3, 11:35 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, "Bally-Total-Fitness-8-Edgeboro-Road-East-Brunswick-
>
> >>>> N.J." <fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> What sting, there is still no evidence of any type or amount, that
> >>>>> human introduced CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Earth temperatures.
> >>>>> Al Gore has figured this out, and has now shut up. If you had half a
> >>>>> brain, you would do the same.
> >>>> 1. Ice age is over.
>
>
> >>>> 2. Earth has been warming since end of ice age though lately has
> >>>> slowed down to next to nothing, but nevertheless IS STILL WARMING.
>
> >>> The interglacial period [10,000 yrs] ended 1,600 yrs ago.
>
>
> >>>> 3. Warmers point to warming earth as "proof" that their theory that
> >>>> CO2 is causing the warming is true because CO2 is a greenhouse gas
> >>>> (true), and greenhouse gasses can cause warming (true) and finally
> >>>> global warming is taking place (true).
>
> >>>> Left unmentioned is that human produced CO2 cannot have ANY
> >>>> significant effect on global temperatures. Therefore the entire
> >>>> premise of AGW is false and a lie. This is easily scientifically
> >>>> demonstrated, but harder to do publicly because of so much of the
> >>>> leadership of scientific organizations have sold out to the scam.
> >>>> Hence all we get is continuous propaganda from scientific
> >>>> "authorities". "Sam Wormley" will be happy to provide you with a list
> >>>> of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> See how two different deniers have two different ideas about the same
> >> thing? They can't agree on whether we are cooling, or warming, but
> >> they can agree on one thing.....
>
> > ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
>
> You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
>
> You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
>
> You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
>
> You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
>
> You have a hypothesis.
>
> I have a hypothesis.
>
> You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
>
> I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
ø Roger the Dodger continues to claim that
co2 accumulates in the atmosphere— an
impossible thing. When I ask for proof he
runs and hides.
Matt Perkins
Desertphile
> > http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/?story=/tech/htww/2011/04/01/climate_skeptics_betrayal
That "Unexpected" still cracks me up!
Desertphile
<Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/2011 11:56 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
> > The fossil fool motto:
> > ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
> You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> You have a hypothesis.
Nutter. He has the observed facts.
> I have a hypothesis.
You're a ntter.
> You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
All of the evidence says so.
> I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
Nutter.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:00:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2011 11:56 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>>> The fossil fool motto:
>>> ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
>
>> You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
>
> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>
>> You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
>
> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>
>> You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
>
> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>
>> You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
>
> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>
>> You have a hypothesis.
>
> Nutter. He has the observed facts.
>
>> I have a hypothesis.
>
> You're a ntter.
>
>> You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
>
> All of the evidence says so.
>
>> I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
>
> Nutter.
But I have proof that life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2.
I can give conjecture like you have, by showing plans to terraform planets.
So I have an educated guess(hypothesis) like you and I also have a
history of life doing exactly as I said.
Desertphile
<Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 12:00 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:00:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/4/2011 11:56 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
> >
> >>> The fossil fool motto:
> >>> ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
> >
> >> You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
> >
> > No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> >
> >> You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
> >
> > No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> >
> >> You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
> >
> > No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> >
> >> You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
> >
> > No scientists has claimed there is proof.
> >
> >> You have a hypothesis.
> >
> > Nutter. He has the observed facts.
> >
> >> I have a hypothesis.
> >
> > You're a ntter.
> >
> >> You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
> >
> > All of the evidence says so.
> >
> >> I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
> >
> > Nutter.
> But I have proof that life (photosynthesis) balances the CO2.
No, you do not.
rasterspace
or believe the big white lie about the monarchy,
which seems to have been initated by the abdication
of what's-his-name "for love, is a very good alibi."
Canadians in particular are wont to deny the whole idea,
in spite of being a Dominionate.
so, there's really no arguing with them
about my Congressman Waxman's old ('91) cap&trade,
Free-er Trade Nostrum, because that is the very foundation
of British Imperialism.
as it is, the voluntary USA cap&trade is huge,
amounting to tens of billions of dollars per annum
since 2003.
Desertphile
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No, you do not.
> there are few British folks around here, who promote and/
Huh?
Beam Me Up Scotty
I think he said Global Warming is a power grab to tax you and usurp your
freedoms like King George did causing the American Revolution. But I had
to read between the lines to get it so he could be thinking something
totally different.
Desertphile
<Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
But that makes no sense. Global warming is an observed phenomena
in nature: it has nothing at all to do with "power," nor "grabbing
power," nor taxation, nor "usuping freedom."
> But I had
> to read between the lines to get it so he could be thinking something
> totally different.
Only a complete utter would believe it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Neither did tea..... but it ended up that the political use of it and
taxing for it helped create a revolution.
>> But I had
>> to read between the lines to get it so he could be thinking something
>> totally different.
>
> Only a complete utter would believe it.
You can believe King George and King Obama if you like.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:13:31 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> > On 4/7/2011 10:47 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:27:08 -0700 (PDT), rasterspace
You lying piece of filth.
ALL SOLUTIONS TO THE agw HOAX INVOLVE
"a power grab to tax you and usurp your
freedoms like King George did ...."
rasterspace
with the God-am Godqueen's English?... if you believe that
Adam Smith was a virtual founder of the USA, and
that oilcos are utterly against my own Congressman's cap&trade
-- just like his old, '91 cap&trade, "caveat emptor re NOX et SO2,"
but applied to carbon dioxide & particualry "fossilized fuels" --
then, you may be a British Subject, like Canadians are, or
like Sir Colin Powell is (and thus could never have
been elected to teh Presidency, as stated
in the Constitution; yeah, ours is actually written .-)
Ray Fischer
>On 4/6/2011 12:00 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:00:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2011 11:56 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>
>>>> The fossil fool motto:
>>>> ABCD: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
>>
>>> You have no proof it's Human's Carbon Dioxide.
>>
>> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>>
>>> You have no proof it's Carbon Dioxide.
>>
>> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>>
>>> You have no proof that it's *NOT* Natural.
>>
>> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>>
>>> You have no proof that we are in a warming cycle.
>>
>> No scientists has claimed there is proof.
>>
>>> You have a hypothesis.
>>
>> Nutter. He has the observed facts.
>>
>>> I have a hypothesis.
>>
>> You're a ntter.
>>
>>> You say CO2 will accumulate and Change the EARTH.
>>
>> All of the evidence says so.
>>
>>> I say life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2/Oxygen as it always has.
>>
>> Nutter.
>
>But I have proof that life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2.
Are you referring to the vast forests that cover the Earth and absorb CO2?
No, wait, those have mostly been cut down by humans, haven't they?
>I can give conjecture like you have, by showing plans to terraform planets.
There are no such plans. There are ideas.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Beam Me Up Scotty
Those and phyto plankton and more.... and grass and wetlands....
>> I can give conjecture like you have, by showing plans to terraform planets.
>
> There are no such plans. There are ideas.
Plans are ideas that have been put on paper.
Ray Fischer
And you think that that means that the loss of most of the world's
forests is of no relevance.
Last Post
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> >On 4/9/2011 2:29 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> On 4/6/2011 12:00 PM, De Shit Pile ran out of lies:
> >>>> Nutter.
> >>> But I have proof that life(photosynthesis) balances the CO2.
>
> >> Are you referring to the vast forests that cover the Earth and absorb CO2?
> >> No, wait, those have mostly been cut down by humans, haven't they?
ø some have been cut but the field crops
that replaced them do it just fine.
> >Those and phyto plankton and more.... and grass and wetlands....
>
> And you think that that means that the loss of most of the world's
> forests is of no relevance.
ø The jackass, Ray Ban, once again betrays his
ignorance. Currently, only 14 ppm of the total
380± ppm is human sourced.
— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙