Al Gore is a disgrace
Bill Habr
politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell, how does anyone
expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore confusing science
with his politics?
Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses language that lead to
vernacular misconceptions.
Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or Gore's agenda is met
with political framing of the argument.
Al Gore STFU!!
Ouroboros_Rex
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tV8Hj.20536$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Lip-flapping and hand-waving, all to distract from the fact that Gore has
a better grasp of GW than 99% of his detractors. lol
Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?
there is no debate there is no science.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
message news:47ed2abe$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Science is not particularly about debate, no. Science is about
hypotheses and proofs. If something is being "debated" instead of verified,
usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to check
someone else's work.
AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it, so the
denialists are generally stuck with editorials and politics, where they can
lie about the experiments.
Ouroboros_Rex
Can't be, the ozone thing was verified. =)
Bawana
> "Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?" <boobooililili...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
> messagenews:47ed2abe$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> >> "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>news:tV8Hj.20536$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> >>> A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than
> >>> Gore. Gore is a
> >>> politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell,
> >>> how does anyone
> >>> expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore
> >>> confusing science
> >>> with his politics?
>
> >>> Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses
> >>> language that lead to
> >>> vernacular misconceptions.
>
> >>> Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or
> >>> Gore's agenda is met
> >>> with political framing of the argument.
>
> >>> Al Gore STFU!!
>
> >> Lip-flapping and hand-waving, all to distract from the fact that Gore
> >> has a better grasp of GW than 99% of his detractors. lol
> > Ozone man says the debate is over. Science is always about debate. If
> > there is no debate there is no science.
>
> Science is not particularly about debate, no. Science is about
> hypotheses and proofs. If something is being "debated" instead of verified,
> usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to check
> someone else's work.
>
> AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it,
What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
been, liar?
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Poetic Justice
Bill Habr
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message news:fsj8t1$8j1$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
If he does then why does it dumb down the science?
Bill Habr
Bad science does not explain global warming and that is what Gore used, bad science. Gore
is as bad as the creationists.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12006c48-f2e2-438c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
As usual, the denialist simply lies.
Ouroboros_Rex
Cite, please.
Ouroboros_Rex
I believe you were the guy in here telling us there was no such thing as
an average global temperature? lol
Ouroboros_Rex
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote in message
news:_cbHj.11009$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Causes, yep.
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/ozndplt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmosphere/topics/ozone/Ozone_Causes.html
Bill Habr
Bill Habr
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message news:fsjj6d$cef$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Read "An Inconvenient Truth" and then pick up a physics book
Poetic Justice
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yep.
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than
>Gore.
Sadly they can't. Mostly because AmeriKKKan high school students are
dumber than dirt.
V-for-Vendicar
"Blattus Slafaly in message news:47ed2abe$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Ozone man says the debate is over. Science is always about debate. If
> there is no debate there is no science.
Really 1+1 = 2... Where is the debate?
Electons have a postive charge.... Where is the debate?
Sound is a wave... Where is the debate?
A flowing current crates a magnetic field... Where is the debat.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Bawana
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Blattus Slafaly in messagenews:47ed2abe$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > Ozone man says the debate is over. Science is always about debate. If
> > there is no debate there is no science.
>
> Really 1+1 = 2... Where is the debate?
>
> Electons have a postive charge.... Where is the debate?
>
> Sound is a wave... Where is the debate?
>
> A flowing current crates a magnetic field... Where is the debat.
VD scuttle nutts is a shit eating
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN...Where is the
debate?
James
Prove it then. LOL That's probably the biggest lie you've told yet. I guess
next is that's it's all because of CO2 and it's been proven too. ROTFLMAO
PeterBP
And these are challenged.... how?
(hint, read above)
> If something is being "debated" instead of verified,
> usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to check
> someone else's work.
Read up on the controversy of cosmic expansion since about the times of
the general theory of relativity. There has been LOTS of debate in the
subject and the generally accepted view on what the universe was
actually doing has changed back and forth a number of times since then.
Same goes for evoltionary theory, economics, what have you...
>
> AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it, so the
> denialists are generally stuck with editorials and politics, where they can
> lie about the experiments.
Quibble here, but you've being vague - experiments continually verify
*GW*. The currecntly accepted explanation for this GW is increased CO2
and CH4 (et al) content in the atmosphere, most of which comes from
humanity.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
V-for-Vendicar
Where have you been living for the last 25 years, Shit Stick?
Planet MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN??
PeterBP
No, but as others have also said, he was occasionally too simplistic and
glossed over a number of details.
> Gore
> is as bad as the creationists.
No, he is far closer to truth than the bible-swingers, but that doesnt
mean I or anybody else has to like him.
PeterBP
Not experiments per se, but the paleoclimatic records gives some good
hints in that regard. (The same way stars show us nuclear fusion in
action before we have any sustained-running fusion reactors working on
this planet).
PeterBP
Well said.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Quibble here, but you've being vague - experiments continually verify
> *GW*. The currecntly accepted explanation for this GW is increased CO2
> and CH4 (et al) content in the atmosphere, most of which comes from
> humanity.
Most CH4 comes from cow farts, termites, rotting vegitation and volcanic
gases.
Bob Kolker
V-for-Vendicar
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> been, liar?
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
National Academies Press
Commission on Physical Sceinces, mathematics and Appliations - 1989...
Page 48, section 6.
Heterogenous Chemical Processes in Ozone Depletion
Mario J Molina - Jet Propulaion Labratory - NASA.
SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment, SOLVE
A NASA DC-8, ER-2 and High Altitude Balloon Mission
http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/
PeterBP
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:tV8Hj.20536$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> >A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than
> >Gore. Gore is a
> > politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell, how
> > does anyone
> > expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore
> > confusing science
> > with his politics?
> >
> > Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses language
> > that lead to
> > vernacular misconceptions.
> >
> > Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or
> > Gore's agenda is met
> > with political framing of the argument.
> >
> >
> > Al Gore STFU!!
>
> Lip-flapping and hand-waving, all to distract from the fact that Gore has
> a better grasp of GW than 99% of his detractors. lol
If he was challenged on specifics of GW theory on any given day, how
much do you think he could explain in a scientifically correct manner?
Face it, the man is a salesman who happen to have found a popular
product.
V-for-Vendicar
>> As usual, the denialist simply lies
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Yep.
Thanx for the confirmation...
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> If he does then why does it dumb down the science?
Perhaps because it's because over 80% of the U.S. population think the Sun
rotates around the earth..
MMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSS
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Read "An Inconvenient Truth" and then pick up a physics book
Having written a couple of physics texts I don't see any problem with
Gore's public presentation.
V-for-Vendicar
"Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
gained a reputation in the science community for being concerned,
knowledgeable, and articulate on matters of science and technology.
Researchers of various disciplines interviewed by The Scientist attest
to this, saying they are impressed that Gore is well versed in
scientific areas as diverse as space science, supercomputing, and
biotechnology." - New Scientist V6 #17.
---
:I think his <Al Gore's> credentials, in terms of science, are probably
better than those of anybody else in the Congress," - Robert Park,
American Physical Society (APS) / professor of physics University of
Maryland, College Park.
---
"I have interacted with him <Al Gore> a number of times, at many
conferences. And he is surely the most knowledgeable major politician in
terms of his actual scientific knowledge." - F. Sherwood Rowland,
tmospheric chemist at the University of California, Irvine / president
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
---
"On key issues such as the space station, Al Gore actually knows what
he's talking about. He's not just mouthing words that some staff person
wrote for him." - John Pike, space policy project director for the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington, D.C.
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Bad science does not explain global warming and that is what Gore used,
> bad science.
Gore's science was right on the mark.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Nope
Well you should have been here. Your denialist friends were ranting that
nonsense for well over 4 months.
The Globe can't be warming they yammered. Temperature doesn't exist and
is too complicated to understand.
There Just ain't no such thing as temperature....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAH...
V-for-Vendicar
>> > Ozone man says the debate is over. Science is always about debate. If
>> > there is no debate there is no science.
>>
>> Really 1+1 = 2... Where is the debate?
>>
>> Electons have a postive charge.... Where is the debate?
>>
>> Sound is a wave... Where is the debate?
>>
>> A flowing current crates a magnetic field... Where is the debat.
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> VD scuttle nutts is a shit eating
"Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
V-for-Vendicar
>> AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it, so the
>> denialists are generally stuck with editorials and politics, where they
>> can lie about the experiments.
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> Prove it then. LOL That's probably the biggest lie you've told yet. I
> guess next is that's it's all because of CO2 and it's been proven too.
> ROTFLMAO
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNN
2 references were provided - google 1.5 seconds.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... You just can't get more of a Lying Idiot than James.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> > messagenews:47ed2abe$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> > > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> > >> "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter, only a few weeks ago it was reported that those temperature
sensors planted in the ocean to demonstrate GW, actually indicate that
the oceans are growing colder, not warmer. Real physical scientists
correctly predicted this finding, but it came a a big shock to the GW
enthusiasts.
I'm still waiting for the GW theorists to try and rationalize it away,
with their usual amount of arm waving and hysterical blather.
The deal here is, as real scientists actually know but the GW fanatics
don't know, is that the earth is slowly cooling, as it the geosphere
surrounding it. It has been previously pointed out that any
contribution made by man is nominal at best, and most likely
insignificant. Guys, the sky is not falling, it's simply nature at
work.
In point of fact, most scientists, with expertise in the subject,
suggest that we are headed for another Ice Age, and ocean temperature
measurment dT/dt appears to confirm this.
Oh my, I forgot about the calving of the Arctic and Antarctic
glaciers. That deserves some mention as well. Glaciers calve when
their flow brings them to the ocean. This a a regular event, and the
rate of calving is largely dependent on the rate of snow falling on
the glacier surface. It has absolutely no connection with global
warming. The calving forms what we call icebergs, and these are
carefully tracked because of the hazard that they present to marine
navigation (remember the Titanic?). For the past 10 years, the
frequency of iceberg has remained nominally constant, falling off
slightly in some recent years. Again, GW has absolutely no
relationship to the calving of glacier flows, and only a total idiot
would attempt to connect the two subjects.
These are verifiable facts, not simply my opinions.
Harry C.
James
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:F%CHj.43760$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
ROTFLMAO
VD = blithering idiot
no debate
Bawana
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
> but the paleoclimatic records gives some good
> hints in that regard.
For the short attention spam tard:
What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
been, liar?
> (The same way stars show us nuclear fusion in
> action before we have any sustained-running fusion reactors working on
> this planet).
Blithering idiocy.
> regards , Peter B. P.http://macplanet.dk
> Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
Got nothing.
Bawana
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote
That example falls under: zero. Zip. Nada. None.
the question was :What successful experiments- altering the global
V-for-Vendicar
"PeterBP" <a...@me.com> wrote
> Well said.
Really 1+1 = 2... Where is the debate?
Electons have a postive charge.... Where is the debate?
Sound is a wave... Where is the debate?
A flowing current crates a magnetic field... Where is the debat.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote
> Most CH4 comes from cow farts
Actually virtually <NO> methane comes from cow farts, as hydrogen is
virtually never produced by digestion in the stomach or intestine.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Peter, only a few weeks ago it was reported that those temperature
> sensors planted in the ocean to demonstrate GW, actually indicate that
> the oceans are growing colder, not warmer. Real physical scientists
> correctly predicted this finding, but it came a a big shock to the GW
> enthusiasts.
It's called La-Nina....
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> VD = blithering idiot
> no debate
"Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
James
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
>
> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
>> VD = blithering idiot
>> no debate
>
> "Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
> gained a reputation in the science community for being concerned,
> knowledgeable, and articulate on matters of science and technology.
> Researchers of various disciplines interviewed by The Scientist attest
> to this, saying they are impressed that Gore is well versed in
> scientific areas as diverse as space science, supercomputing, and
> biotechnology." - New Scientist V6 #17.
ROTFLMAO
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
Lloyd
Dog.com> wrote:> > messagenews:47ed2a5a$0$4937$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >> Bill Habr wrote:
> >>> A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than
> >>> Gore. Gore is a
> >>> politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell,
> >>> how does anyone
> >>> expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore
> >>> confusing science
> >>> with his politics?
>
> >>> Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses
> >>> language that lead to
> >>> vernacular misconceptions.
>
> >>> Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or
> >>> Gore's agenda is met
> >>> with political framing of the argument.
>
> >>> Al Gore STFU!!
>
>
> > Can't be, the ozone thing was verified. =)
>
> The cause of the hole @ the antarctic was verified?
Absolutely. Nobel Prize awarded and all.
Lloyd
They measure at 1 depth.
>Real physical scientists
> correctly predicted this finding, but it came a a big shock to the GW
> enthusiasts.
>
> I'm still waiting for the GW theorists to try and rationalize it away,
> with their usual amount of arm waving and hysterical blather.
>
The article itself suggested some possibilities. Did you read the
article?
> The deal here is, as real scientists actually know but the GW fanatics
> don't know, is that the earth is slowly cooling,
Lie. The hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.
>as it the geosphere
> surrounding it. It has been previously pointed out that any
> contribution made by man is nominal at best, and most likely
> insignificant. Guys, the sky is not falling, it's simply nature at
> work.
>
> In point of fact, most scientists, with expertise in the subject,
> suggest that we are headed for another Ice Age, and ocean temperature
> measurment dT/dt appears to confirm this.
>
Total lie. Look at what "most scientists" say -- in the scientific
literature, on the IPCC, in scientific groups and agencies. None of
them say this.
> Oh my, I forgot about the calving of the Arctic and Antarctic
> glaciers. That deserves some mention as well. Glaciers calve when
> their flow brings them to the ocean. This a a regular event, and the
> rate of calving is largely dependent on the rate of snow falling on
> the glacier surface. It has absolutely no connection with global
> warming. The calving forms what we call icebergs, and these are
> carefully tracked because of the hazard that they present to marine
> navigation (remember the Titanic?). For the past 10 years, the
> frequency of iceberg has remained nominally constant, falling off
> slightly in some recent years. Again, GW has absolutely no
> relationship to the calving of glacier flows, and only a total idiot
> would attempt to connect the two subjects.
>
> These are verifiable facts, not simply my opinions.
>
> Harry C.
Learn the basic science.
Tom M
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:a1673548-d15a-4a79...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You mean learn the basic dogma.
What type green weenie are you?
Poetic Justice
The Nobel prize has me worried that you or they are lying.
So now I'll have to review the info and research it.
Had you said just absolutely i would tend to trust you.
That Nobel crap is a den of liars and thieves.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Lie. The hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.
Depends on which temperature metric you use.
GISS says that `05 was hottest. HADCRUT and both of the
satt groups say 1998 was significantly hotter than any year
since then. Insisting on the one temp metric out of four that
makes this claim would seem to be confirmation bias.
In any case, it would appear that pretty much the entire
"bump" between the mid 1990s and now is heavily affected
by the La Nina / El Nino cycle. That is to say, there is a
huge natural signal on top of whatever the effect of the A
part of greenhouse is. That natural signal may be in the
general range of 0.6C or so. For example, from Jan. `07
to Jan. `08, global temps dropped round about 0.6C, as
reported by both GISS and HADCRUT. This would appear
to be due to changing over from El Nino to La Nina.
That is to say, the measured differences over those years
don't seem to be particularly climatologically significant.
Not that "global warming has taken a break" or anything
like that. But that whatever size it has is pretty difficult
to resolve in the natural signal.
Socks
z
> A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than Gore. Gore is a
> politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell, how does anyone
> expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore confusing science
> with his politics?
>
> Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses language that lead to
> vernacular misconceptions.
>
> Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or Gore's agenda is met
> with political framing of the argument.
>
> Al Gore STFU!!
"Panels don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/155110/4814
I propose a climate related corollary to Godwin's law:
"As an online discussion of climate change grows longer, the
probability of a derogatory mention of Al Gore by someone who doesn't
believe in AGW instantaneously goes to one."
z
<boobooililili...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Ozone man says the debate is over. Science is always about debate. If
> there is no debate there is no science.
Yeah. Go debate conservation of momentum.
Bill Habr
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:6921fd23-e3a4-4ed0...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Poetic Justice
PeterBP
> PeterBP wrote:
> >
> > Quibble here, but you've being vague - experiments continually verify
> > *GW*. The currecntly accepted explanation for this GW is increased CO2
> > and CH4 (et al) content in the atmosphere, most of which comes from
> > humanity.
>
> Most CH4 comes from cow farts, termites, rotting vegitation and volcanic
> gases.
>
> Bob Kolker
Well, most cows live by the grace of humanity today...
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
PeterBP
> On Mar 29, 11:00 pm, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> > Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Science is not particularly about debate, no. Science is about
> > > > hypotheses and proofs. If something is being "debated" instead of verif
ied,
> > > > usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to chec
k
> > > > someone else's work.
> >
> > > > AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it,
> >
> > > What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> > > been, liar?
> > > None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
> >
> > Not experiments per se,
>
> None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
>
> > but the paleoclimatic records gives some good
> > hints in that regard.
>
> For the short attention spam tard:
> What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> been, liar?
Read what I wrote again.
>
> > (The same way stars show us nuclear fusion in
> > action before we have any sustained-running fusion reactors working on
> > this planet).
>
> Blithering idiocy.
What, you're a fusion-skeptic, as well?
>
> > regards , Peter B. P.http://macplanet.dk
> > Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
>
> Got nothing.
For brains?
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
PeterBP
Hey, the greens hate me, but I still say gw is a fact.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
PeterBP
That's interesting. Where can I read more?
>
> I'm still waiting for the GW theorists to try and rationalize it away,
> with their usual amount of arm waving and hysterical blather.
>
> The deal here is, as real scientists actually know but the GW fanatics
> don't know, is that the earth is slowly cooling, as it the geosphere
> surrounding it. It has been previously pointed out that any
> contribution made by man is nominal at best, and most likely
> insignificant. Guys, the sky is not falling, it's simply nature at
> work.
I think it would be wise to differentiate between GW scientists and AGW
doom-caller fanatics.
> In point of fact, most scientists, with expertise in the subject,
> suggest that we are headed for another Ice Age, and ocean temperature
> measurment dT/dt appears to confirm this.
Sure, but on how long? Two millenia? I don't need to clear my calendar,
then.
>
> Oh my, I forgot about the calving of the Arctic and Antarctic
> glaciers. That deserves some mention as well. Glaciers calve when
> their flow brings them to the ocean. This a a regular event, and the
> rate of calving is largely dependent on the rate of snow falling on
> the glacier surface. It has absolutely no connection with global
> warming. The calving forms what we call icebergs, and these are
> carefully tracked because of the hazard that they present to marine
> navigation (remember the Titanic?). For the past 10 years, the
> frequency of iceberg has remained nominally constant, falling off
> slightly in some recent years. Again, GW has absolutely no
> relationship to the calving of glacier flows, and only a total idiot
> would attempt to connect the two subjects.
>
> These are verifiable facts, not simply my opinions.
>
> Harry C.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Bill Habr
Al Gore is a politician whose knowledge of the science of AGW is that of a 3rd grader.
Bawana
> Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 11:00 pm, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> > > Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Science is not particularly about debate, no. Science is about
> > > > > hypotheses and proofs. If something is being "debated" instead of verif
> ied,
> > > > > usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to chec
> k
> > > > > someone else's work.
>
> > > > > AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it,
>
> > > > What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> > > > been, liar?
> > > > None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
>
> > > Not experiments per se,
>
> > None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
>
> > > but the paleoclimatic records gives some good
> > > hints in that regard.
>
> > For the short attention spam tard:
> > What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> > been, liar?
>
> Read what I wrote again.
I did. Same conclusion;
You got nothing.
> > > (The same way stars show us nuclear fusion in
> > > action before we have any sustained-running fusion reactors working on
> > > this planet).
>
> > Blithering idiocy.
>
> What, you're a fusion-skeptic, as well?
More blithering idiocy...
> > > regards , Peter B. P.http://macplanet.dk
> > > Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
>
> > Got nothing.
>
> For brains?
You got shit for brains.
Care to try again?
What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
been, liar?
So far you have got- None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> > Peter, only a few weeks ago it was reported that those temperature
> > sensors planted in the ocean to demonstrate GW, actually indicate that
> > the oceans are growing colder, not warmer. Real physical scientists
> > correctly predicted this finding, but it came a a big shock to the GW
> > enthusiasts.
>
> That's interesting. Where can I read more?
Google up the Argo array. It's been in the news quite
a bit recently.
Essentially the array is 3000 robot sensors that can dive
to some depth in the ocean, float along on ocean currents
for a while,k then rise to the surface and transmit their data.
They've been doing this since about 2002. The result so far
is that ocean temps have not done much of any significance
in that time.
Socks
Tom M
"PeterBP" <a...@me.com> wrote in message
news:1ieorgj.1plcz1t1mco7fzN%a...@me.com...
> Tom M <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:a1673548-d15a-4a79...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 30, 12:14 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 29, 11:00 pm, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh my, I forgot about the calving of the Arctic and Antarctic
>> >> glaciers. That deserves some mention as well. Glaciers calve when
>> >> their flow brings them to the ocean. This a a regular event, and the
>> >> rate of calving is largely dependent on the rate of snow falling on
>> >> the glacier surface. It has absolutely no connection with global
>> >> warming. The calving forms what we call icebergs, and these are
>> >> carefully tracked because of the hazard that they present to marine
>> >> navigation (remember the Titanic?). For the past 10 years, the
>> >> frequency of iceberg has remained nominally constant, falling off
>> >> slightly in some recent years. Again, GW has absolutely no
>> >> relationship to the calving of glacier flows, and only a total idiot
>> >> would attempt to connect the two subjects.
>> >>
>> >> These are verifiable facts, not simply my opinions.
>> >>
>> >> Harry C.
>> >
>> > Learn the basic science.
>>
>>
>> You mean learn the basic dogma.
>>
>> What type green weenie are you?
>
> Hey, the greens hate me, but I still say gw is a fact.
>
Sounds like a plan.
V-for-Vendicar
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote Nothing...
"Far more than other lawmakers, Gore during his career in Washington has
gained a reputation in the science community for being concerned,
knowledgeable, and articulate on matters of science and technology.
Researchers of various disciplines interviewed by The Scientist attest
to this, saying they are impressed that Gore is well versed in
scientific areas as diverse as space science, supercomputing, and
biotechnology." - New Scientist V6 #17.
---
V-for-Vendicar
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote
> That Nobel crap is a den of liars and thieves.
Absolutely. They are colluding with the Queen of England and the Russian
Mafia to expand their drug smuggling empire.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> You mean learn the basic dogma.
You have found a good excuse for not thinking. As a result you will
remain an ignorant fool for the rest of your life.
Death will be your only release from ignorance.
V-for-Vendicar
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> Sure, let's destroy the first world economy because Peter says it's a
> fact.
Listen to the Chicken Little KKKonservative KKKoward.
The sky will fal... The sky will fall...
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
I've noticed that the more shit stinks, the more KKKonservatives gobble it
up.
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Al Gore is a politician whose knowledge of the science of AGW is that of a
> 3rd grader.
V-for-Vendicar
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Essentially the array is 3000 robot sensors that can dive
> to some depth in the ocean, float along on ocean currents
> for a while,k then rise to the surface and transmit their data.
> They've been doing this since about 2002. The result so far
> is that ocean temps have not done much of any significance
> in that time.
Neither have atmospheric temperatures. But then it's only 6 years, and
over that period noise hides the warming signal.
2002 14.56 ****************************
2003 14.55 ****************************
2004 14.49 *************************
2005 14.63 ********************************
2006 14.54 ***************************
2007 14,57 *****************************
Tom M
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're so boring.
Tom M
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
BBBBBBBB OOOOOOOO RRRRRRRRR IIIIIIIII NNNNNNNN GGGGGGGG
z
Dog.com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that, the more shit stinks, the more people notice it.-
we're all well aware of your hobbies.
z
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's true. they can't discuss AGW without insulting Al Gore.
z
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
yes, but he had the nerve to run against Bush the Great, so he's Evil.
Poetic Justice
> On Mar 31, 3:26 pm, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 12:20 pm, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> A high school kid should be better able to explain global warming than Gore. Gore is a
>>>> politician and his BS books and he BS slide show are a disgrace. Hell, how does anyone
>>>> expect Tob Bolger or anyone to understand global warming with HRH Gore confusing
>> science
>>>> with his politics?
>>>> Science should use language as precisely as possible, Gore's uses language that lead
>> to
>>>> vernacular misconceptions.
>>>> Any criticism of any aspect of anything to do with global warming or Gore's agenda is
>>> met
>>>> with political framing of the argument.
>>>> Al Gore STFU!!
>>> "Panels don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore"
>>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/155110/4814
>>> I propose a climate related corollary to Godwin's law:
>>> "As an online discussion of climate change grows longer, the
>>> probability of a derogatory mention of Al Gore by someone who doesn't
>>> believe in AGW instantaneously goes to one."
>> Al Gore is a politician whose knowledge of the science of AGW is that of a 3rd grader.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's true. they can't discuss AGW without insulting Al Gore.
Because AGW is Al Gore and Gore is AGW.... he is the Christ. The father
son and Holy Ghost. AGW is your belief and isn't real, Al Gore is
probably real. We can't see AGW we can see Gore. Gore is also the crazy
Uncle of AGW. He won't shut up. Gore is the Village idiot of AGW.
Gore is everything about AGW rolled up into one pile of.....
Bill Habr
It is me who started this thread and if I wanted everyone to become a denier I would have
them read Gore's book or watch his slide show or listen to his rantings.
Gore is an inconvenient stoopnagle to those who understand anthropogenic global warming.
z
>
> - Show quoted text -
well, that's the thing; if you can't understand the message enough to
punch holes in it, then you have to discredit the messenger. if they
can just make enough noise to scare Al gore away, then global warming
will never come.
z
Dog.com> wrote:
> Because AGW is Al Gore and Gore is AGW.... he is the Christ. The father
> son and Holy Ghost. AGW is your belief and isn't real, Al Gore is
> probably real. We can't see AGW we can see Gore. Gore is also the crazy
> Uncle of AGW. He won't shut up. Gore is the Village idiot of AGW.
>
> Gore is everything about AGW rolled up into one pile of.....-
I think that encapsulates the argument against AGW pretty well.
Bill Habr
Fact: The atmosphere does not trap heat.
Fact: The atmosphere does not trap energy.
Fact: Energy absorbed by the earth is not reradiated (and certainly not reradiated at a
different wavelength).
Fact: The earth's atmosphere is a source of energy for the earth.
Fact: One of the reasons the atmosphere is a source of energy for the earth is because of
the behavior of certain gases but it is the explanation of why those gases behave they
way they do that Gore has wrong.
This is all very, very, very basic science, if Gore can't get the basics right then why
not say so? There are enough a** kissers out there and they don't belong in science.
hanson
<Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> aka VD Scotty who
bragged that he **never** drove and much less ever owned an
automobile cranked himself grievously and then he Scuttled his
Nutts as he w/i news:wthIj.48964$612....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Essentially the array is 3000 robot sensors that can dive
>> to some depth in the ocean, float along on ocean currents
>> for a while,k then rise to the surface and transmit their data.
>> They've been doing this since about 2002. The result so far
>> is that ocean temps have not done much of any significance
>> in that time.
>
> Neither have atmospheric temperatures. But then it's only 6
> years, and over that period noise hides the warming signal.
>
> 2002 14.56 ****************************
> 2003 14.55 ****************************
> 2004 14.49 *************************
> 2005 14.63 ********************************
> 2006 14.54 ***************************
> 2007 14,57 *****************************
>
Now what is that "warning signal" that does hide in a
0.14° or 1% wide sliver in this spread?... ahahaha..
It's your commie-doomsday paranoia, VD Scotty!
>
Get the facts of the hidden silver by Gore & Clinton instead.
Fat Al is in competition with the Clintons to make MONEY,
to see which one can milk the peasantry better and faster.
Fat Al is trying to prove to Bill that he, Al, doesn't need
the presidency to make more easy money then Bill does.
Get with it, VD Scotty, you gullible, fanatical mooch.
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Poetic Justice
Tom M
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
>
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Most CH4 comes from cow farts
>
> Actually virtually <NO> methane comes from cow farts, as hydrogen is
> virtually never produced by digestion in the stomach or intestine.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
It would seem that you are the MORON.
Question, when you pray at the GW alter, does your high priest AlGore offer
Lewinskys?
There must be some reason that accounts for your blind ignorance.
V-for-Vendicar
>> Actually virtually <NO> methane comes from cow farts, as hydrogen is
>> virtually never produced by digestion in the stomach or intestine.
>>
>> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> It would seem that you are the MORON.
>
> http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
The link above makes no mention of "cow farts."
MMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
Ron Shepard
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
>
> The link above makes no mention of "cow farts."
Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
in livestock". Also, there is a picture of a cow.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
V-for-Vendicar
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
>> The link above makes no mention of "cow farts."
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote
> Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
> in livestock".
Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen as
microbial fermentation takes place.
You do know what rumen is don't you Ron?
The fermentation of Rumen does not and can not produce farting as it occurrs
at the other end of the animal.
V-for-Vendicar
V-for-Vendicar
Ron Shepard
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > "V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> > http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
> >> The link above makes no mention of "cow farts."
>
>
> "Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote
> > Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
> > in livestock".
>
> Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen as
> microbial fermentation takes place.
No, "enteric" is in the intestine, "rumen" is in the stomach.
> You do know what rumen is don't you Ron?
Apparently.
> The fermentation of Rumen does not and can not produce farting as it occurrs
> at the other end of the animal.
That is not what the link you referenced says. It says "enteric".
It is true that the link does not mention "cow farts", but the link
does use a polite term for them.
Have you ever stood behind a cow? If so, you would know what is and
is not possible regarding cow farts. And it is not just cows that
have methane in their farts, human farts also contain methane, as
any teenager with a match will demonstrate.
For a good introduction to the science involved with greenhouse
gasses, and CO2 in particular, see
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tom M
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-D240...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Ron, you will not get anywhere with this Canadian idiot. He probably never
saw a cow in his lifetime. I wonder if the Secret Service would have an
interest in him for his threat to the President?
TM
tadchem
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > "V-for-Vendicar" <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
> >> The link above makes no mention of "cow farts."
>
>
> > Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
> > in livestock".
>
> Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen as
> microbial fermentation takes place.
Dead wrong, city boy! "Enteric" refers to the intestines:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=enteric&ls=a
The rumen is the first stomach of a ruminant (go figure that out):
http://www.onelook.com/?w=rumen&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a
There is a bit of alimentary canal and some sphincter control in
between:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Ruminant_Digestion.html
> You do know what rumen is don't you Ron?
>
> The fermentation of Rumen
...is not "enteric"...
> does not and can not produce farting as it occurrs
> at the other end of the animal.
Are you a vegan?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
V-for-Vendicar
>> SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment, SOLVE
>> A NASA DC-8, ER-2 and High Altitude Balloon Mission
>>
>> http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> That example falls under: zero. Zip. Nada. None.
I guess you are too stupid to begin to comprehend it.....
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
>> > Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
>> > in livestock".
V for Vendicar wrote:
>> Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen
>> as
>> microbial fermentation takes place.
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote|
> Dead wrong, city boy! "Enteric" refers to the intestines:
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=enteric&ls=a
>
> The rumen is the first stomach of a ruminant (go figure that out):
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=rumen&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a
>
> There is a bit of alimentary canal and some sphincter control in
> between:
> http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Ruminant_Digestion.html
You are as stupid as the Cow you first dated Country boy.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/1990_00_factsheet/fs7_e.cfm
During the digestive process of herbivores, carbohydrates are broken down by
micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream,
where methane is produced as a by-product. This process results in methane
in the rumen, which is released by <<eructation and exhalation>>. Some
methane is released later in the digestive process by flatulation. The
animals that generate the most methane are ruminant animals such as cattle.
V-for-Vendicar
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> Ron, you will not get anywhere with this Canadian idiot.
Tom is about as bright as a dead light bulb.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/1990_00_factsheet/fs7_e.cfm
During the digestive process of herbivores, carbohydrates are broken down by
micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream,
where methane is produced as a by-product. This process results in methane
in the rumen, which is released by eructation and exhalation. Some methane
is released later in the digestive process by flatulation. The animals that
generate the most methane are ruminant animals such as cattle.
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> He probably never saw a cow in his lifetime.
Send me a pic of your wife and we will check.
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> I wonder if the Secret Service would have an interest in him for his
> threat to the President?
Impeach Bush
Arrest Bush
Torture Bush
Try Bush
Torture Bush
Convict Bush
Torture Bush
Execute Bush
Hang the body from a White House tree to rot and then move on to the other
NeoCon traitors, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle and the other
Traitors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/mark-penn-resigns-from-cl_n_95323.html
V-for-Vendicar
>> Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen
>> as
>> microbial fermentation takes place.
>
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote
> No, "enteric" is in the intestine, "rumen" is in the stomach.
>
>> You do know what rumen is don't you Ron?
>
> Apparently.
>
>> The fermentation of Rumen does not and can not produce farting as it
>> occurrs
>> at the other end of the animal.
Learn some Biology.....
tadchem
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> > Look at the second sentence where they mention "enteric fermentation
> >> > in livestock".
> V for Vendicar wrote:
> >> Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen
> >> as
> >> microbial fermentation takes place.
>
>
> > Dead wrong, city boy! "Enteric" refers to the intestines:
> >http://www.onelook.com/?w=enteric&ls=a
>
> > The rumen is the first stomach of a ruminant (go figure that out):
> >http://www.onelook.com/?w=rumen&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a
>
> > There is a bit of alimentary canal and some sphincter control in
> > between:
> >http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Ruminant_Digestion.html
>
> You are as stupid as the Cow you first dated Country boy.
>
> MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
> http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/1990_00_factsheet/fs7_e.cfm
> During the digestive process of herbivores, carbohydrates are broken down by
> micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream,
> where methane is produced as a by-product. This process results in methane
> in the rumen, which is released by <<eructation and exhalation>>. Some
> methane is released later in the digestive process by flatulation. The
> animals that generate the most methane are ruminant animals such as cattle.
FULL QUOTE:
"Enteric Fermentation
Emissions associated with enteric fermentation of animals accounted
for 17.7 Mt in 2000, or nearly 30% of the total emissions within the
Agriculture sector. Since 1990, emissions have increased 11%, mainly
due to increased beef production.
What is enteric fermentation?
During the digestive process of herbivores, carbohydrates are broken
down by micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the
bloodstream, where methane is produced as a by-product. This process
results in methane in the rumen, which is released by eructation and
exhalation. Some methane is released later in the digestive process by
flatulation. The animals that generate the most methane are ruminant
animals such as cattle."
OK. I'm being lectured on the origins of greenhouse gases by someone
whose source of information is a socialist-driven activist "government
agency" that can't distinguish a belch from a fart. I hope your
country's ambassadors are better educated; state dinners could be a
political embarrassment otherwise.
What is more frightening is they don't seem to know the difference
between a stomach and a bowel. Come to the US next time you need
surgery.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
PeterBP
> On Mar 31, 3:25 pm, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> > Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 29, 11:00 pm, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> > > > Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Science is not particularly about debate, no. Science is about
> > > > > > hypotheses and proofs. If something is being "debated" instead of v
erif
> > ied,
> > > > > > usually someone is trying to avoid running their own experiments to
chec
> > k
> > > > > > someone else's work.
> >
> > > > > > AGW is a case in point - experiments continually verify it,
> >
> > > > > What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> > > > > been, liar?
> > > > > None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
> >
> > > > Not experiments per se,
> >
> > > None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
> >
> > > > but the paleoclimatic records gives some good
> > > > hints in that regard.
> >
> > > For the short attention spam tard:
> > > What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> > > been, liar?
> >
> > Read what I wrote again.
>
> I did. Same conclusion;
> You got nothing.
Mirror time, pal.
>
> > > > (The same way stars show us nuclear fusion in
> > > > action before we have any sustained-running fusion reactors working on
> > > > this planet).
> >
> > > Blithering idiocy.
> >
> > What, you're a fusion-skeptic, as well?
>
> More blithering idiocy...
I'll take it as a 'yes'.
>
>
> > > > regards , Peter B. P.http://macplanet.dk
> > > > Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
> >
> > > Got nothing.
> >
> > For brains?
>
> You got shit for brains.
Woohoo, I'm sure that took at least an IQ of about 45 to come up with
that retort!
> Care to try again?
> What successful experiments- altering the global climate- have there
> been, liar?
> So far you have got- None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Running the same groove. No brain, no arguments - bawana in a nutshell.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
PeterBP
> What is more frightening is they don't seem to know the difference
> between a stomach and a bowel. Come to the US next time you need
> surgery.
No, what is scary is that you can't tell his brains from his bowels.
Then again, that thing is generally true for most of the hysterically
vocal usenet population.
V-for-Vendicar
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote
> What is enteric fermentation?
>
> During the digestive process of herbivores, carbohydrates are broken
> down by micro-organisms into simple molecules for absorption into the
> bloodstream, where methane is produced as a by-product. This process
> results in methane in the rumen, which is released by eructation and
> exhalation. Some methane is released later in the digestive process by
> flatulation. The animals that generate the most methane are ruminant
> animals such as cattle."
Correct.
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote
> OK. I'm being lectured on the origins of greenhouse gases by someone
> whose source of information is a socialist-driven activist "government
> agency"
Correct again.