More denialist crap
kdt...@earthlink.net
One should review this paper from Hanen carefully. It was written in
1967, at a time when the high temperatures of Venus were first
discovered.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
He attempts an explanation for this based solely upon the dust
particles in the Venusian atmosphere. Supposedly he and his co-author
have the mathematical analysis to show this to be valid.
Hansen, who supposedly is trained in physics, in this paper attributes
the cause of the higher temperatures to be due to the retention of
microwaves. This is invalid and shows his considerable lack of basic
understanding of energy. The elevated microwave levels may signal a
high temperature, but the microwaves carry very little actual energy
in comparison to infrared frequencies.
HIs analysis of the atmosphere does not include variations according
to any effect of 'greenhouse gases'.
This concept WAS NOT an accepted tenet of modern science, although it
may have existed in the field of climatology. There is no direct
science from chemistry or physics to support this concept of gases.
An actual analysis of gases leaves no room for this concept which
existed in classical theory before Planck and Einstein and modern
experimental technology of the 20th century.
At only one point does he mention CO2, he does this in the context
that it is not possible that CO2 or H20 are causing the heat retention
since their reactivity is inverse to temperature, while the action of
the dust particles increases with temperature.
He also discounts the 'cloud model', since he says this would not
retain heat near the surface.
Either this paper is a bunch of charlatan bunk, from Hansen who is
just determined and enthralled with the idea of making a name for
himself, or all the concepts accepted and promoted by him now are
bunk.
In any event, his paper here shows the principles of physics and
chemistry that were contemporary at this time. THE CONCEPT OF
GREENHOUSE GASES WAS NOT CONTEMPORARY AT THIS TIME. This is also true
of other publications, but coming from Hansen shows this clearly.
The idea of greenhouse gases won out among the theoretical charlatans
trying to get their name on the phenomenon of the temperature of
Venus. Hansen, the charlatan and opportunist that he is, jumped on
this bandwagon for his personal gain in theoretical science detached
from any actual science.
These charlatans have invented theoretical physics to invent the idea
that particular gases affect temperature of earth's atmosphere at even
incredibly minute concentrations.
Theoretical physics has decided to accomadate this false theoretical
physics which does not abide within the Law of the Conservation of
Energy and Matter.
This paper is proof that Hansen is a charlatan. Willing to invent or
falsify theoretical science or data for his own personal gain.
The academic world of theoretical science is dominated by these
charlatans.
The theory of anthorpogenic global warming is a farce and fraud, not
based upon direct science or valid theoretical science.
Those that oppose AGW, but accept the false theory of greenhouse gases
are fools and should validate the source of their beliefs.
This fraud is crime of the highest order, and Hansen and his collegues
should face capital charges for their crimes.
KD
erschro...@gmail.com
And that whole idea of the earth going around the sun -- really?
> Those that oppose AGW, but accept the false theory of greenhouse gases
> are fools and should validate the source of their beliefs.
>
> This fraud is crime of the highest order, and Hansen and his collegues
> should face capital charges for their crimes.
>
> KD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Read about Venus there.
Sam Wormley
Try something a bit more resent. Slides from Jim Hansen's
Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
Androcles
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EeGdndTocuK4ktvW...@mchsi.com...
[...]
Oh look, Androcles stumps Wormley once again!
I M @ good guy
wrote:
I resent that remark. I resent one of the
articles about the baseless claims of Global Warming.
Sam Wormley
That's a pretty recent remark on your part. Still I think
these slides from Jim Hansen's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco
AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008 are a bit more up2date.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Unfortunately things are going in the opposite
direction from what the top activists say.
kdt...@earthlink.net
.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/
thread/f3616705017a9244/f5eb44493153a856?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup
%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff3616705017a9244%3Fhl
%3Den%26#doc_f5eb44493153a856
Still I think
> these slides from Jim Hansen's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco
> AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008 are a bit more up2date.
Stupid asshole. Just more of the fabricated theoretical science.
You entirely miss the points made here.
A) It is a commonly told LIE that the theory of 'greenhouse gases' is
a fundamental part of science. At the time, 1967, when Hansen wrote
this, he did a supposed analysis of Venus, WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF
GREENHOUSE GASES AT ALL.
Modern chemistry and physics discarded the idea of greenhouse gases
because proper laboratory analysis of gases proves this postulate
invalid.,
Ignore this fact while you wish to impose draconian life changing
restrictions, taxations, and criminal penalties on people, and you can
go STRAIGHT TO HELL.
B) Hansen spent a lot of time and effort in this critically BOGUS
paper which shows his charlatan nature.
C) Many of the thoeretical tenets upon which he relies in this paper,
entirely contradict the theoretical outlays of greenhouse theory. Such
as his statement that the cloud theory proposed was not valid because
the clouds would trap the heat too far from the surface which he then
attempts to outlay the dynamics. In present theory, a considerable
amount of Wm-2 is considered to get the values by which it is claimed
that present greenhouse gases raiste the temperature of the earth by
33C.
Read em and weep, greenie weenie believers, your head weenie staked
his carreer and reputation on a completely BUNK formal paper entirely
disputing the existence or effect of ANY GREENHOUSE GASES ON VENUS.
This means the application to earth's climate is ALSO INVALID, which
can be prove by PROPER SCIENCE.
Enjoy your false dogma of your psuedo religion until the day that you
are properly prosecuted for capital crimes and crimes againse
humanity.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
kdt...@earthlink.net
Natsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean you don't like the realist's slant on things in your settled
"science"?
But this is probably more to the point...
CK
I M @ good guy
Has he ever expanded his discussion of microwaves that
radiate most strongly at 900 degrees? :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg
I M @ good guy
The "realist"? His activism suggests he would
like to shut down all coal plants - yesterday - !
A realist would at least give me 6 months to
switch from electric heat to a modern coal stove.
> But this is probably more to the point...
>
>http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=Euro&pgurl=/mtweb/content/Euro/archives/2010/01/met_office_prediction_is_a_farce_1.asp
>
>CK
You are confusing me, wouldn't Hansen be supporting
the same line of thinking as the Met?
Doesn't that article suggest just about everything
about non-thinking future predictions of "warming" is
wrong?
No skeptic will claim it can't get warmer, but
until it does, AGW "science" is in the toilet.
kdt...@earthlink.net
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/f3616705017a9244/f5eb44493153a856?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff3616705017a9244%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_f5eb44493153a856
>
> You mean you don't like the realist's slant on things in your settled
> "science"?
>
I am a realist. And as such, I point out to you the REALITY that you
can not refer here formal scientific documentation of simple
laboratory results which prove the property of 'greenhouse gases',
which is defined as differential and inordinate absorption of infrared
radiation energy by different gases.
Use qualifying terms about anything you choose.
But evade the fact that there is plenty of blank space below,
for reference to your scientific basis for your intial belief in this
particular absorption of IR by CO2 and methane which in anyway affects
temperature or climate.
A simple laboratory analysis, and one which the scientists in their
proactive postition will be found criminally liable for NOT PRESENTING
as fundamental evidence of their topic of aggression against humanity.
A chamber is set with only O2 and N2 gas. Radiation readings are taken
for about 3 meters through the gas. The full spectrum of the infrared
comes through. Careful thermometer readings are taken and maintained.
CO2 is introduced into the chamber in small concentrations. With very
little CO2 added, the infared spectrum becomes deficient and dark at
the particular bands associated with CO2.
If inordinant absorption is occuring, it occurs here where the dark
bands appear.
If the CO2 is the same temperature as the gases already in the
chamber, there is NO EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE WITH THE SUPPOSED
ABSORPTION OF IR BY THE CO2.
To put you more to shame,
The important wavelength for CO2's absorption of outgoing infrared
radiation is 15um. hv, or the energy of a photon of 15um, is 0.0825
electron volts.
At around 300K, 81F, the most basic principles of gases, which is what
is the average energy of a single molecule of the gas, derived by
Boltzman, kT is 0.026 electron volts, or 3 times less than the energy
of 1 photon of 15um.
The temperature would be around 1000K for the average energy of the
molecules to be increased 3 times like this.
You cannot show any effect upon temperature. But by the mathematics of
gases derived and proved in the early 20th century, the quantity of
energy supposedly absorbed by the CO2 at 15um, would take the
temperature off the chart in just a few minutes.
Theoretical physics is a bunch of no mathematics, and no convervation
of energy lying brats impressed with their own ability to believe
their stupid little lies and to rob the public by their theory which
is not based upon any actual science at all.
This average energy of the molecules of a gas, was derived by Boltzman
by the energy exerted by 1 mole of gas in it's expansion occuring with
the increase of temperature by 1degK. In extropolating absolute
temperature from absolute zero, the total energy for the expansion of
1 mole of gas is therefore, RT, or the 'gas constant' times the
absolute temperature.
If this is the energy of 1 mole of gas, and the total above absolute
zero for each degree of temperature, than this reflects the sum total
of the energy of the molecules in their linear motion. Some of these
molecules are traveling faster, some slower and constantly changing.
But the sum total of the energy of these molecules according to their
kinetic energy, E = 1/2mv^2, is accorded by the average velocity of
the molecules, which is the cause of the pressure of the gas, by the
collisions of the molecules and the sum of the force delivered by
these collisions.
So if the total energy is RT. The average energy for 1 molecule, is
this total divided by the number of molecules in 1 mole.
This is the value of kT. this value of the average energy of a
molecule of a gas, increases as a direct proportion to temperature, as
kT represents, since the constant multiplied by the temperature,
represents the actual energy in Joules or ergs of the average kinetic
energy of a molecule of the gas for it's average velocity..
CO2 is a normal gas at lower pressures. It obeys the Perfect Gas Law
as almost all gases do. It has a specific heat capacity like any other
gas. Obeys the laws of partial pressure, which at normal temperatures
and pressures denotes NO DIFFERENTIATION for specific gases.
There is no laboratory evidence beyond the Tyndell, school yard hoax
exhibit of CO2 in glass irradiated with visible light.
To subject CO2 to normal infrared radiation produces no such results.
In doulble pained glass, argon transfers heat slower due to it's low
heat capacity. It therefore slows the loss of heat, which retains
energy and causes a higher temperature. CO2 does not retain energy to
cause higher temperature.
You have no laboratory science
You have no science at all.
AGW is pure fraud from and insane clique of charlatans and supported
by the charlatans that dominate theoretical physics and any
theoretical science as a whole.
All scientists and organizations who lend their name to AGW have
staked their accreditation upon the science which they do not check
and which does not exist. Perhaps intimidation or partaking in the
embezzlement of public funds?
The public will eventually call them on their sacrifice of their right
to use or associate with the term 'science, and their cupability in
the flagrant misuse of public funding.
.
The EPA now has various numbers for the 'pollution' value of various
gases. Without any science for these numbers, except theoretical
estimation mainly from Hansen's submissions to the IPCC.
Their ommision of pertinent facts about their supposed 'science' can
now be considered criminal action. If they wish to plead that they are
just dumb asses who shouldn't be expected to know their science or the
law, I guess that's better than acknowledging that they are conscious
of their fraud and hostile and unjustified attacks upon American
citizens and the country as a whole.
And always, they are wished the very best of luck in hell.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
Benj
> I resent that remark. I resent one of the
> articles about the baseless claims of Global Warming.
Bwahahaha!
Wormley-bot needs the spell-checker part of his program updated! Hey
Sam the Sham, there's a newer version of you out now, don't you know?
Benj
> You have no laboratory science
> You have no science at all.
>
> AGW is pure fraud from and insane clique of charlatans and supported
> by the charlatans that dominate theoretical physics and any
> theoretical science as a whole.
>
> All scientists and organizations who lend their name to AGW have
> staked their accreditation upon the science which they do not check
> and which does not exist. Perhaps intimidation or partaking in the
> embezzlement of public funds?
>
> The public will eventually call them on their sacrifice of their right
> to use or associate with the term 'science, and their cupability in
> the flagrant misuse of public funding.
Of course holowarming (or should be term it holocosting?) Is utter
fraud. Scientific proof resides everywhere. A simple quick look at sea
level data shows NO significant increases in the period from the
industrial revolution to present. None. So if ice is melting so fast
that the world's first "climate refugees" are being created and polar
bears are becoming extinct, just where is all that water going? Maybe
the scientific "explanation" is someone pulled the stopper in the
drain at the bottom of the ocean.
The problem, of course is that the public will NOT call these
criminals on their activity because those in power not only control
the science "authorities" but also the science publication and funding
and even, yes, even the mass media. And the public, being largely
sheeple, will just believe whatever lies they are told. Already the
EPA has pronounced CO2 as THE cause of AGW and nary a cry is raised
from real scientists who know better, let alone from the public. The
mass media simply ridicules any critics out of existence by calling
them "deniers". That alone PROVES they have no real evidence on their
side. Instead of simply pointing to the data supporting their
contention which obviously doesn't exist they instead are force to
name-call like children at recess using a terminology that implies
that anyone who questions ANY aspect of their "global warming"
assertions are in the same class as neo-Nazis who claim that
concentration camps were actually wonderful resorts where Jews and
others laid around sunning themselves all day instead actually being
the slave labor that made the vast amounts of arms used against the
allies. That's right, when AGW "deniers" meet they all greet each
other with the Nazi raised arm salute! And that is the level of any
"scientific" proof offered to justify the destruction of western
economies.
The bottom line is the public will never catch on until the mass media
tells them what to do. And since they are the lap-dogs of the
holowarming crowd that ain't ever gonna happen!
Sleep well... as long as you can.
leona...@gmail.com
> > Read em and weep, greenie weenie believers, your head weenie staked
> > his carreer and reputation on a completely BUNK formal paper entirely
> > disputing the existence or effect of ANY GREENHOUSE GASES ON VENUS.
> > This means the application to earth's climate is ALSO INVALID, which
> > can be prove by PROPER SCIENCE.
• The only element in the greenhouse gasses
that has even a trivial influence on climate
is water which is carried to the clouds by
convection from the warm waters below.
• kdth.. is an hysteric fool, screaming and
thinking that his hysteria will influence
anything except believers and other fools.
• Kdthrge, when are you going to provide us with
one peer reviewed paper that proves
unequivocably, without any shoulda, woulda,
coulda, and maybes, that the global climate is
warming. I will not accept any data that as been
processed through a computer -- I want raw
data. That is what is required for peer review
instead of the funny stuff that Nature and
Science have been allowing all along.
Will the 22 January be sufficient? Let me
know if you need mote time
kdt...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>
> Will the 22 January be sufficient? Let me
> know if you need mote time?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
This is about the most damning article ever published to AGW. Hansen
wrote this before the false theory of greenhouse gases was
regurgitated by theoretical scientists.
This article proves;
a) The concept of greenhouse gases is not supported by any modern
science. It was not a part of theoretical science at the time of this
article or Hansen would have had to account for the effects of the
gases of the atmosphere, WHICH HE DOES NOT.
b) It proves any use of the term 'greenhouse gas' is not valid and the
propaganda of algore and others is crminal fraud.
c) It proves Hansen to be the charlatan that he is. Here he falsifies
theoretical physics to his end conclusion that it is dust in the
atmosphere of Venus that is causing the high temperatures. He
discounts the other theories of 'clouds' and gases of CO2 or H2O.
Eventually among the theoretical assholes, the idea of greenhouse
gases won out for the explanation of the temperature of Venus. Now
this is pointed to as scientific proof of the concept.
There is NO SCIENCE in this and NO SCIENCE in this article from
Hansen, or any other articles from Hansen. Hansen is a fraud and
charlatan, and careful analysis of his work shows this clearly.
----------------
In this book from a Nobel Laureate in chemistry from the 1950's, a
complete analysis of gases is given in which all laboratory evidence
of gases is acknowledged up to this time. This analysis of gases
precludes and proves the concept of greenhouse gases invalid.
A simple analysis of gases and the energy that can be transfered by
gases, proves the concept that some gases are 'transparent' or 'non-
reactive' to infrared radiation to be invalid, and accounting of the
energy transfered by infrared radiation shows that the inordinate
absorption claimed from CO2 and methane to be completely false and
erroneous.
Scientific proof that the EPA's ratings for 'greenhouse gases' is
invalid and criminal in application to any application of law.
The theoretical beliefs of 'scientists' means nothing in direct view
of direct science.
======
You should know by my posts, that my postition is that all of the
scientists of AGW are pure charlatan's. They and the theoretical
physicists that accomadate their bullshit theory are charlatans.
There is absolutely no science or theoretical science for AGW. There
is absolutely no effect upon climate from humans, and proper science
can PROVE this fact.
The daily operation of these charlatan's is to falsify, omit and
distort any actual science for thier false conclusions. Their motive
for this is initially personal advancement and then for the sheer
embezzlement of public funding this falsification of science brings
them.
The email from Phil Jones in which he is warning the other top
comrades in proxies that he has altered their studies according to
Mann's method of 'mining' the data points that fit the curve that is
wanted, shows that this is a conspiracy.
In this email, P Jones shows that he is conscious of the forgery of M
Mann of the hockey stick graph, which was accepted and the main
operatiing graph of the IPCC for a long time, and basically is still
their graph which they presented at Copenhagen.
He then states that he is using this manner of forgery himself.
It is clear that he has also forged and falsified the world
temperature statistics of the CRU. This was the most complete record
of world statistics. GISS and NOAA and the Met Office, use these
statistics of which they only recieve the 'modified' versions.
Phil Jones, (the self incriminated forger) had complete control over
these statistics and their hard copies. Now we find out the hard
copies have been destroyed. And it is claimed that when CRU moved
their computers, the intial computer code of these records was also
lost. So now we must only depend upon the integrity of P Jones for the
accuracy of the records and their modifications or corrections.
This means that all of the continued use of science based upon or
using this data is fraudulent, and those doing so are criminally and
civially liable for this fraud and aggresion against people and
nations.
The complaceny of people willing to accept the fraud of these
theoretical scientists will someday fade, and they will be held
rightfully to their criminal and civil liability for their falsified
science.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
kdt...@earthlink.net
tg
Interesting. Can you give a reference to this experiment? Your
description is unclear as to the details.
-tg
Dawlish
wrote:
The level of tosh has gone up a gear**.
There is a high probability* that in 10-20 years you will have been
shown to be entirely wrong and that you will wonder what on earth
prompted you to rail against all this inmagined climate conspiracy in
this way.
*probability, as there is an outside chance you may be correct. I
don't think you are, but certainty is not something I'm prepared to
deal in!
**any chance of keeping this stuff to your own little group instead of
cross posting it? If I'd wanted to dip into those other 4 newsgroups
to see what you'd written, I would do. Hey! Why not post it to all the
newsgroups; imagine then the amount of people who would be able to see
the truth!
JohnM
Don't pay any mind to deathrage. He's a cent or two short of a dollar.
Surfer
>
>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
>
>This is about the most damning article ever published to AGW. Hansen
>wrote this before the false theory of greenhouse gases was
>regurgitated by theoretical scientists.
>
>This article proves;
>a) The concept of greenhouse gases is not supported by any modern
>science.
>
It proves nothing of the sort.
Your mis-interpretation proves you don't understand physics or
science.
Richard Henry
> Of course holowarming (or should be term it holocosting?) Is utter
> fraud. Scientific proof resides everywhere. A simple quick look at sea
> level data shows NO significant increases in the period from the
> industrial revolution to present. None.
Liar.
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:30:51 -0800 (PST), "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>
> <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
>
> >This is about the most damning article ever published to AGW. Hansen
> >wrote this before the false theory of greenhouse gases was
> >regurgitated by theoretical scientists.
>
> >This article proves;
> >a) The concept of greenhouse gases is not supported by any modern
> >science.
>
> It proves nothing of the sort.
>
> Your mis-interpretation proves you don't understand physics or
> science.
Now that is funny. Did you read Hansen's paper?
He wrote this in 1967. This was just when results from probes to Venus
revealed very high levels of microwaves, consistent with a very high
surface temperature. According to theoretical calculations, this
temperature was much higher than expected.
Now the race was on among the idiots of theoretical science, to get
their name on the explanation. There were various theories, the cloud
theory, or the theory of greenhouse gases. In the literary and
philosophical realms of theoretical science, the false idea of
'grenhouse gases' eventually won out and was basically accepted as the
cause. This idea was regurgitated from the garbage heap of clasical
physics.
Hansen determined that the high temperatures were caused by dust in
the atmosphere. He and his coauthor then did this elaborate paper in
which basic principles of physics are supposedly used along with the
mathematics to define the temperature and the cause of the higher
temperatures to be due to dust particles in the atmosphere.
He therefore must do a complete analysis of the thermodynamics of this
atmosphere. Nowhere does he account for 'greenhouse gases', which
means clearly that this concept WAS NOT BASIC TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
SCIENCE OF THE TIME, which it was not.
Hansen discounts the idea that the gases of CO2 and H20 are causing
the high temperatures, at the only point that he mentions any effects
of different gases. He claims that their reactivity is inverse to
temperature.
The idea of greenhouse gases had been discarded by Planck, Einstein
and MODERN science and laboratory technique. Still there is no direct
scientific establishment of this property which is defined as an
inordinate property of retention or absorption of infrared radiation
energy.
You are a fool and a believer of lies which is proved by your
inability to refer proper formal documentation of scientific
establishment of actual scientific evidence of this property.
NO PROPER FORMAL SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION EXISTS
THIS IDEA AND BELIEF IS NOT BASED UPON ACTUAL SCIENCE
The US EPA now has relative values for this property for differenet
gases which they presume to apply to application of law.
They have no actual scientific support for their numbers.
They have only theoretical surmise for these numbers.
This mostly comes only from Hansen's submissions to the IPCC.
This lack of actual scientific basis for their findings of harm from
anthropogenic CO2, means their actions are criminal and they will be
liable criminally and civilly for any actions they take, especially in
lieu of their lack of actual scientific investigation and publication
of the actual scientific results.
This paper from Hansen proves absolutely that the concept of
greenhouse gases was not a part of modern chemistry or physics in
1967, having no actual scientific basis.
It also proves the propaganda to which you subscribe is criminal
fraud.
It also proves Hansen a charlatan, as the theoretical physics
presented here are false and contradict his theoretical physics that
were derived to support the false theory of greenhouse gas effect upon
temperature or climate.
Ignore the facts and believe your false dogma and propaganda.
At some point a valid review of all the science and theory of AGW will
be conducted.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> the truth!-
There is no consistency to theory of effects of anthropogenic CO2 and
any temperature statistics. That is why the high priests of your
psuedo religion, Jones, Trenberth etc, find the URGENT need to falsify
their statistics.
The only catastrophe facing algore, is that his predictions form the
early 90's according to CO2 emissions and supposed effects that would
become strikingly evident by 2015, is that the time is running out and
he is to be reveale to be the idiot and doomsayer that he is.
Besides his schemes of making great profit from his doomsday scenario.
The whole world could do without the intellectual pollution from all
of you idiots who think you have some special insight to future
climate without any empirical or scientific data.
Could you please keep your mental masturbation to yourself, and quit
threatening our normal use of carbon fuels which produce lots and lots
of CO2 which is natural to the environment and the actual food for
plants and thus the basis of the food chain?
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Jan 18, 4:51 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 11:27 am, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> Don't pay any mind to deathrage. He's a cent or two short of a dollar.-
So asshole, explain why you idiots are so against methane emissions?
Cows eat grass and make methane. If they did not eat this grass, this
grass would decay and make methane anyway.
Cows are ablsolute carbon neutral, yet you idiots are all in a rage to
tax cows and all livestock.
FUCKING IDIOTS
This is also true of landfills. All the organic matter would also be
decomposed into methane and then CO2. Only carbon pumped out of the
earth is not carbon neutral.
Also methane offsets are absolutely stupid. Methane only exists for
10-12 years in the atmosphere. And then is converted naturally to CO2
and water. Selling offests for 'flaring' methane is sheer idiocy.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Jan 18, 4:51 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 11:27 am, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> Don't pay any mind to deathrage. He's a cent or two short of a dollar.-
So asshole, explain why you idiots are so against methane emissions?
Cows eat grass and make methane. If they did not eat this grass, this
grass would decay and make methane anyway.
Cows are ablsolute carbon neutral, yet you idiots are all in a rage to
tax cows and all livestock.
FUCKING IDIOTS
This is also true of landfills. All the organic matter would also be
decomposed into methane and then CO2. Only carbon pumped out of the
earth is not carbon neutral and old growth forest.
kdt...@earthlink.net
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> On Jan 18, 8:56 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 18, 4:51 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 18, 11:27 am, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/f3616705017a9244/f5eb44493153a856?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff3616705017a9244%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_f5eb44493153a856
>
>
>> Don't pay any mind to deathrage. He's a cent or two short of a dollar.-
>
> So asshole, explain why you idiots are so against methane emissions?
>
> Cows eat grass and make methane. If they did not eat this grass, this
> grass would decay and make methane anyway.
>
> Cows are ablsolute carbon neutral, yet you idiots are all in a rage to
> tax cows and all livestock.
>
Funny they never take into account the millions of Bison that were here
and are no longer here. The millions of live stock produce just how
much more methane?
> FUCKING IDIOTS
>
> This is also true of landfills. All the organic matter would also be
> decomposed into methane and then CO2. Only carbon pumped out of the
> earth is not carbon neutral and old growth forest.
>
> Also methane offsets are absolutely stupid. Methane only exists for
> 10-12 years in the atmosphere. And then is converted naturally to CO2
> and water. Selling offests for 'flaring' methane is sheer idiocy.
>
> KD
--