US admits that polar bears are at risk
lkgeo1
Globe and Mail - 3 hours ago
US President George W. Bush's administration moved away from its
steadfast refusal to recognize the effects of global warming yesterday,
proposing to protect polar bears, whose habitat is threatened by the
rapid melting of Arctic sea ice.
Plight of the polar bear forces Bush to recognise climate threat Times
Online
Polar bear fears may spark warming rethink Melbourne Herald Sun
birdog
"lkgeo1" <lkg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167311592....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jesus! We can't even agree on how many polar bears we have. Why don't
someone just count the damn things. Don't tell me someone already has???
kdt...@yahoo.com
kT wrote:
> birdog wrote:
>
> > "lkgeo1" <lkg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167311592....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> US admits that polar bears are at risk
> >> Globe and Mail - 3 hours ago
> >> US President George W. Bush's administration moved away from its
> >> steadfast refusal to recognize the effects of global warming yesterday,
> >> proposing to protect polar bears, whose habitat is threatened by the
> >> rapid melting of Arctic sea ice.
> >> Plight of the polar bear forces Bush to recognise climate threat Times
> >> Online
> >> Polar bear fears may spark warming rethink Melbourne Herald Sun
> >>
> >
> > Jesus!
>
>
> > We can't even agree on how many polar bears we have. Why don't
> > someone just count the damn things. Don't tell me someone already has???
>
> the polar bear population has been radically increasing, is that more
> and more polar bears are showing up in the few towns they have up there,
> scavenging for food.
>
Often changing environmental conditions may spell the decline of
certain species of animals. Dinosaurs went a long time ago. It is very
difficult to attribute this to Americans enjoyment of a robust economy.
Lifes a bitch.
In the future world. There will be very little need for the theoretical
scientists who wish to interrupt the economy of real live people
according to their invalid science.
Their extinction may become a very real thing
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
lkgeo1
kdt...@yahoo.com
lkgeo1 wrote:
> Soilent Green Are PEOPLE.................
And freaky little Phobiacs like you have their diserotic fantasies. It
is very clear that it is your fascination with control of other people
that is the underlying basis for your movement to illegalize carbon
dioxide. You certainly have no interest in actual science or physics.
Then you can appoint your Joseph Stalin. Perhaps you that commune in
your self involved fantasy of communal insanity with yourselfs
collectively in control, should remember that to Stalin, the Bolsheviks
of the revolution became his primary opposition which he killed one by
one. He even hunted Trotsky down in Mexico.
According to AGW philosophy, it's worth the genocide of several million
or even billions of people to stop global warming and save the polar
bears. At the present time, the US sends billions of dollars abroad,
for food in famined areas and such. If you bring a halt to the US
economy, our ability to do this could be severly diminished. How many
humans will die that simply depend upon this charity from our healthy
and robust economy which the AGW CO2Phobiacs seek to destroy or to
harness under their collective extortion.
Your pandering to liberals or leftists is a lie. You are elitists and
genocidists and care nothing about the polar bears or humans.
Corporate Shill Catcher
from eating too much Exxon Crap.
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/c43045134d2432b5/9cd8dc2697dcd8f0?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fc43045134d2432b5%2F7d6cd710e5a47a5a%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D8%26hl%3Den%26#doc_7d6cd710e5a47a5a
> lkgeo1 wrote:
> > Soilent Green Are PEOPLE.................
>
> And freaky little Phobiacs like you have their diserotic fantasies. It
> is very clear that it is your fascination with control of other people
> that is the underlying basis for your movement to illegalize carbon
> dioxide.
> Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies. Copraphagy is the solution.
kdt...@yahoo.com
Corporate Shill Catcher wrote:
> Re: US admits that Kent Death-Rag Copraphagic is at risk from obesity
> from eating too much Exxon Crap.
Well then go ride your bycycle straight to hell little frustrated
wienie. Exxon sells us gasoline which burns very well in our cars. It
is a valuable commondity. They make a lot of money selling us this gas.
This is called free market enterprise. This gasoline may have a
byproduct of carbon dioxide, but this gas is not pollution. Carbon
dioxide has absolutely no effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Only paranoid and dishonest little wienies like you think there's
something wrong here. Maybe what we need is your little whiny wienie
self, to cut off our supply of gasoline that we use to live our life.
Or make it more expensive.
You are guilty of fraud. Exxon is not.
All of the scientists that testify or allow themselves to be referenced
in any court or hearing in the United States will be prosecuted for the
crimes for which they are guilty and which they can be proved to be
guilty.
So go ahead and spam. Go ahead and whine. Go ahead and get back to your
normal routine of false accusation wienie.
And this years award for mental masturbation ,,,,goes to,,,,well what
do you know,,,,,,WIENIE FROM HELL
Congratulations Wienie
In the annals of wasted and useless mental effort and propagation of
stupid meaningless shit, you are supreme
Get a freaking job
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
kdt...@yahoo.com
Corporate Shill Catcher
from eating too much Exxon Crap.
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Lifes a bitch.
> Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
Well then go ride your bycycle straight to hell little frustrated
Wienie. Exxon sells us gasoline which burns very well in our cars. It
is a valuable commodity. They make a lot of money selling us this
gasoline. This is called free market enterprise. This gasoline may have
a byproduct of carbon dioxide, but this gas is natural to the
environment and is not pollution. Carbon dioxide has absolutely no
effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Only paranoid and dishonest little wienies like you think there's
something wrong here. Maybe what we need is you little whiny wienies in
charge? Then our profound socialist rulers can cut off our supply of
gasoline that we use to live our life. Or make it more expensive. You
are guilty of fraud. Exxon is not.
All of the scientists that testify or allow themselves to be referenced
in any court or hearing in the United States will be prosecuted for the
crimes for which they are guilty and which they can be proved to be
guilty.
So go ahead and spam. Go ahead and whine. Go ahead and get back to your
normal routine of false accusation wienie. Go ahead and propound your
fraudulent theory that CO2 causes global warming which can be directly
disproved by real science and physics.
And this years award for mental masturbation ,,,,goes to,,,,well what
do you know,,,,,,WIENIE FROM HELL (formerly Weather From Hell, CO2
Storms, Serial KIll, @racketeersRUS)
Congratulations Wienie In the annals of wasted and useless mental
effort and propagation of
stupid meaningless shit, you are supreme
Get a freaking job
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
Corporate Shill Catcher
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> They make a lot of money selling us this...
> Deatherage
But, but, but, you said selling energy is a bad thing -- oh, I get it,
ONLY competitors to Exxon's energy are bad. Exxon' poop-toothpaste is
your mouth's delight. So tell me, is licking Sheik's of Arabique
sphinctors all that you ever dreamed it would be?
kdt...@yahoo.com
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> kT wrote:
> > birdog wrote:
> >
> > > "lkgeo1" <lkg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1167311592....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> US admits that polar bears are at risk
> > >> Globe and Mail - 3 hours ago
> > >> US President George W. Bush's administration moved away from its
> > >> steadfast refusal to recognize the effects of global warming yesterday,
> > >> proposing to protect polar bears, whose habitat is threatened by the
> > >> rapid melting of Arctic sea ice.
> > >> Plight of the polar bear forces Bush to recognise climate threat Times
> > >> Online
> > >> Polar bear fears may spark warming rethink Melbourne Herald Sun
> > >>
> > >
> > > Jesus!
> >
> > Invoking Jesus is generally not considered a viable scientific method.
> >
> > > We can't even agree on how many polar bears we have. Why don't
> > > someone just count the damn things. Don't tell me someone already has???
> >
> > Roughly 25,000 and falling rapidly. The basis behind recent claims that
> > the polar bear population has been radically increasing, is that more
> > and more polar bears are showing up in the few towns they have up there,
> > scavenging for food.
> >
>
Often changing environmental conditions may spell the decline of
certain species of animals. Dinosaurs went a long time ago. It is very
difficult to attribute this to American's enjoyment of a robust
kdt...@yahoo.com
Corporate Shill Catcher
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In the future world. There will be very little need for the theoretical
> scientists who wish to interrupt the economy of real live people
> according to their invalid science.
> Their extinction may become a very real thing
>
> Deatherage
Kent Death-Rag will starve to death when Exxon has no products to sell
in an All-H2-PV world. First Exxon will starve, then cease pooping, and
Kent Death-Rag will get nothing more from his main dietary source of
"truthiness".
It takes a team of surgeons to remove Death-Rag's lips from the
buttocks of the Sheiks of Arabique. Death-Rag only loves imported
energy and hates American-Made.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You are a stupid shit. Because you don't post your name you think you
can make all your dumb statements. Your name here (corporate shill
catcher) implies that that you are guilty of intimidation towards the
honest scientists that may work for the US corporations that must hire
legal and scientific defense against the bogus lawsuits of CO2 caused
global warming. You use violence and imply violence with your every
post. You think this open intimidation by you will go unoticed as you
make your false hatred rants against the Petroleum Industry for their
crimes. You hate Exxon so much? For what? They just sell us gasoline
which produces CO2 which has no effect on the temperature of the
atmosphere. It is you who doesn't care about the welfare of common
people and wishes to sanction our use of energy and strangle us with
your indirect genocide. It is only a personal thing that you have for
Exxon. You care about no one else but your self infatuated WIENIE self
and have clearly demonstrated that here. Your have no motive here
except intimidation.
You have already informed me that my geographical region will be cut
off from it's sustenance with your implementation of laws and will be
left to die with no welfare. You are a believer in this genocide and
probably in direct genocide also. TO save the world from a 1/2 deg
temperature change? You have no valid science, so you must resort to
disinformation, character assasination and intimidation.
And then you get back on and try to talk your bogus physics from your
masked identity which feels like it will never be held resposible for
it's lies and attempts to override the truth and directly intmidate
honest people who may be your opposition. And all the other AGW's
accept you as their little mascot and are complicit in your crimes and
intimidation, and your very clearly stated plans for genocide that will
be the result of the governmental control you and your conspirators
will place on the free American democracy.
Hey Wienie From Hell. There may be a rope that fits my neck for the
complicity in the use of gasoline which you say is mass murder. You are
just not enough of a man to string it on.
And this years award for mental masturbation goes to,,,,,Wienie From
Hell
john fernbach
-- Ring Lardner
------------------------------------------
.
kdt...@yahoo.com
john fernbach wrote:
> "'Shut up!' he explained."
Hey dicksuck fernbach. Have you heard the news? The solar constant is
1370Wm-2. At the equator at solar noon 1000Wm-2 is recieved in a solar
collector. Your theory that you are going to ride straight to hell,
says that the earth should be at 255K except that grenhouse gases trap
energy to increase this 33C. This is a 63% increase in radiated energy
per sq meter. The surface of the moon is at 250C in the sunlight.
1000Wm-2 equates to 90C. 370Wm-2 are absorbed by the atmosphere and do
not reach the surface. 1% of the solar constant is absorbed in the UV
frequencies in the stratosphere.
If you can't right here rectify this basic data with a proper
thermodynamic application, you are totally floating up shit creek
without a paddle, for your intent to affect peoples lives and economies
according to direct fraud and extortion. Well, you can always point to
a consensus among climatological scientists as your only scientific
basis. hahahahahahaha
hahahahahahaahahha
Will this save you and your dicksuck co-conspirators from the gallows?
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
Corporate Shill Catcher
Smoke that Crackpipe, Death-Rag. Garble on like a frothing maniac. Go
Death-Rag!!!
john fernbach
I guess I'll go away and cry -- not.
Kdthrge - what you write about the solar constant and all is very
interesting, and some of the details I'm not familiar with. So thanks
for your rant. However, I think you're throwing out a lot of
irrelevant verbiage to distract people from the obvious trends in CO2
concentrations (steadily upwards since 1957) and in global average
temperatures (generally upwards since 1979, with anomalies that can
easily be explained by volcanic action and discharges of highly
reflective SO2 droplets in aerosol form.)
The empirical evidence indicates that the world is heating up, and that
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are to blame, Kd. Which
means that you're basically full of it, I think.
But I must say that it's better for you to fight against the truth with
irrelevant distractions than for you to utter death threats against
your debating opponents. As both you and "Corporate Shill Catcher"
seem to be doing to each other.
Seriously, it's just total totalitarian crap for "Corporate Shill
Catcher" to threaten the GW denialists with the death sentence for
daring to disagree with him about a scientific point. And it's utter
totalitarian crap for you to reply with death threats against climate
scientists who dare to state the obvious about CO2 and climate trends.
So - keep the sexual insults and the bogus scientific arguments coming,
kd. I don't happen to suck dick, actually - but I'll assume that when
you pin that label on me, it must be intended as a complement.
In any case, let's keep to the ways American politics at its best is
supposed to resolve basic disputes -- with truth, lies, emotional
appeals and sometimes irrelevant rhetoric, not with violence and the
suppression of basic freedoms.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You sure state a lot of what you think. Obviously you have no ability
to comprehend thermodynamics or you would see that what I state as the
energy of the sun and energy reaching the ground, completely
invalidates the theory that you have,(and aren't quite sure what it is
or where you got it from but are reasonalby sure that the reasonably
smart theoreticians that you got it from are reasonably intelligent and
therfore must be accurate with the theory that you are betting YOUR
life on.)
Look, I know your resources are limited as far as physics and such, but
grenhouse theory begins as you should know with the premise that the
earth should be at 255K. The presence of the grenhouse gases, retains
heat and increase temperature by 33C. This is 63% increase in energy
per sq meter. Just this is impossible. The 1000Wm-2 proves two things,
370 Watts are absorbed by the atmosphere. And the temperature
calcualtion from AGW is wrong. !000Wm-2 equates to 90C. This is the
quantiy of energy from the sun. To give you an idea of how invalid the
thermodynamic calculations of AGW are, the moon is 250C in sunlight.
Now refer to all the scientists that you know believe in your theory,
that CO2 and grenhouse gases are increasing the temperature of the
earth. I was taught proper astrophysics 25 years ago by a German
astrophysicist of the highest credentials. Your repeated little
philosopical rendition of global warming and heat and temperature and
all that kind of scientific stuff that you really don't understand but
therefore presume I am just trying to distract by throwing out psuedo
science stuff, is invalid and can be proved to be so.
I only refer to violence to make you assholes understand that what you
are doing is violent. To impose laws on the US for this bogus theory
will result in violence to peoples lives. If you succeed there will be
much violence that will not be my making or choice. You should be aware
and prepared for this. But I can see that even your pretense socialist
position is a front for your deliberate and conscious fraud. Good
fucking luck, assholes.
Otherwise, I would be very content to see CO2Phobiacs like you that
pursue your course of fraud and extortion, sitting in a civilized
prison cell for the rest of your life. So get back to the propaganda
drawing board. The little Nazi, Hoogle thinks you got a cute ass. When
you little fascists pricks get into power by your propaganda,
intimidation and fraud, y'all two can get together for a good one on
one fascist buddy, butt fuck.
RayLopez KiddiePorn@Nambla.org
Death-Rag!!!
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
john fernbach
Can you restate your argument in a little clearer English, please?
I'm not a stupid person, but I'm not a professional scientist either,
and it's been 30 years since I studied much physics. I think you are,
in fact, trying to dazzle me and other people with "pseudo-scientific"
arguments, but I can't tell for sure. If you could explain your
thermodynamic and astrophysical theories in more detail, in plain terms
that every educated English speaker can understand, we may be able to
judge what you say better.
I have to admit up front, though, that I don't trust you, Kd. You've
given no one in here much reason to trust you.
So far, in the past week, I've seen you accuse me of being a "social
Darwinist," which happens to be false, and of advocating "genocide,"
which also is false. You've also written that I suck dicks, which is
false again, and irrelevant.
And now you're throwing in some completely irrelevant bullshit about
Hoggle supposedly being interested in my ass - which might be true,
might be false, but doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with CO2
emissions and climate, and is therefore just a stupid distraction from
what we're both talking about.
Like "Corporate Shill Catcher" on my side of the debate, you're also
threatening your debating opponents with punishment, which is
contemptible. Whether he does it or you do it, this is
quasi-totalitarian crap, and it doesn't have fuck all to do with the
science of climate.
So I don't much trust your claims about thermodynamics. I suspect
you're just using technical terms to confuse and intimidate people --
kind of like writing, "BECAUSE of the Pythagorean Theorem, AGM is
impossible," or "BECAUSE of Boyle's Law, or Einstein's Theory of
Specific Relativity, THEREFORE climate change is impossible." The kind
of bogus argument I've seen Ray Lopez make on several occasions.
However, if there's any truth or logic in your argument about AGW and
the solar constant and thermodynamics and all, I'd like to understand
it. So try to explain it again, please.
If there's any validity in what you say, I hope all Green radicals, all
AGW researchers and all members of this group can learn from it, so
that we have a better grasp of scientific realities. If what you say
is nonsense, well, we can all benefit from understanding your bad
reasoning.
In any case - educate us, O Wise One, and explain again how the laws of
thermodynamics supposedly invalidate what the IPCC, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the World Meteorological Association and the
Hadley Centre in Britain (among other scientific authorities) all say
is happening with the climate.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Only the truth is revolutionary." -- Antonio Gramsci, The Prison
Notebooks
"Seek truth from facts." -- Mao Zhe Dong, The Little Red Book
----------------------
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167939339.4...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
| dicksuck - omigod. He called me "dicksuck."
Sounds accurate.
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168013065.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168013065.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
|
| Can you restate your argument in a little clearer English, please?
|
| I'm not a stupid person, but I'm not a professional scientist either,
That's an oxymoron, isn't it?
| and it's been 30 years since I studied much physics. I think you are,
| in fact,
Never trust anyone that says "in fact", a lie is sure to follow.
trying to dazzle me and other people with "pseudo-scientific"
| arguments, but I can't tell for sure. If you could explain your
| thermodynamic and astrophysical theories in more detail, in plain terms
| that every educated English speaker can understand, we may be able to
| judge what you say better.
|
| I have to admit up front, though, that I don't trust you, Kd. You've
| given no one in here much reason to trust you.
That is in fact a lie, in fact. You are no one, I am someone.
|
| So far, in the past week, I've seen you accuse me of being a "social
| Darwinist," which happens to be false
In fact it happens to be a fact, in fact.
hanson
Andro "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote in
news:X0ynh.315949$qd7.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote to Kent D in message
news:1168013065.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
| Can you restate your [KD] argument in a little clearer English, please?
| I'm not a stupid person, but I'm not a professional scientist either,
>
That's an oxymoron, isn't it?
>
In Grandpa F's case it doesn't matter because mild mannered
and well-meaning as he is Fernbach is an OX and a MORON
because he got infected by the green bible that commands
him to believe that for the green shit that he advocates...
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
Thanks for the laughs, guys
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy
hate green money grubbers because their POOR compared to BROWN
MONEYGRUBBERS.
Eat the Exxon Shit, Hanson. Shove handfuls down your gullet.
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:nGynh.70$8B5.11@trnddc08...
He's got the right name. "Bach" means "little" in Welsh,
so "fernbach" is "little green leaf".
|
john fernbach
Now what about Kd's argument on thermodynamics and climate change or
non-climate change -- written in English prose that the average
educated person can evaluate for credibility?
It's always fun to read your stuff on little green shit balls and
stuff, Hanson.
But now -- could KD please answer the question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
john fernbach
way or another. Maybe you hit the "send" key before you meant to,
because I don't find anything. But it's been a long day, and maybe I'm
misreading you.
In any case, could you or KD or Ray Lopez or Bawana -- one of you
folks -- please answer my question about KD's theory of thermodynamics
and the solar constant supposedly negating the findings of the IPCC,
the World Meterological Organization and the US National Academy of
Sciences?
I don't think KD really has any logic to back up this claim, myself. I
suspect that kd is just using big technical terms to mystify people.
But who knows? KD may have a great scientific breakthrough for us, if
he or she can explain it in clear English that the average educated
English speaker can understand.
So let's have the thermodynamics/solar constant theory again --
clearly, and with feeling.
And this time without all the totally irrelevant insults and threats,
which just garbage up this debate and discussion site.
-----------------------------------------
john fernbach
Whatever.
The label is false, but it clearly doesn't matter when we're talking
about the frigging climate.
And if you're into non-standard sexual practices yourself, Sorcerer -
hey, if it works for you, go for it. I don't see that my sexual habits
or yours are of any possible relevance to anyone -- especially since
I'm getting old, as Hanson loves to point out.
All that irrelevant bullshit aside, though -- what about kd explaining
in clearer English the logic behind his claims concerning
"thermodynamics," the "solar constant" and the supposed bankruptcy of
the IPCC's position on anthropogenic
climate change?
Or if kd can't explain this in words that the rest of us can
understand, Sorcerer, can you?
Do us a favor, and give it a try.
Whether your readers are aging socialists or vibrant young GOP interns
in Mark Foley's office, we could all benefit from understanding why it
is that Kd thinks the laws of thermodynamics negate the commonly held
position on greenhouse gases and global climate.
kdt...@yahoo.com
If you are not conciously promoting genocide, then you are quite
ignorant of the reality of the impostition of laws defining CO2 illegal
and are, as Hansen says, a level 3 greenie that thinks he's interested
in the environment and welfare of people but only serves this corrupt
movement.
Because I cannot communicate with you the dire need to see this threat
to our civilization of this false imposition of controls on CO2, I am
reaching the conclusion that you are level 1 greenie, or concious of
the invalidity of grenhouse theory and still using it for fascist and
agrandizzement purposes.
A 25% reduction in US emmisions would thwart our economy. Everything in
an economy is interrelated. The real threat of the controls on CO2, is
the impostition on the production of electricity. It is impossible to
build or change over to no CO2 electrical generation. In England,
instead of building new plants, it is cheaper to just buy the CO2
credits. This does not reduce emmisions unless it drives the price of
electricity up to where people cannot afford it. This would kill the
poor people, the elderly and the middle class in the US. At some point,
deliberate reduction in CO2 emmisions become indirect genocide.
This is fully tolerated by the proponents of imposing controls on CO2.
In the meantime, the truth is that CO2 has no effect on the temperature
of the atmosphere. There is no valid physics to this claim and no
establishement by science for cause and effect.
If you are not in bed with the corrupt element that only seeks to
further their own perverted mentality for control and genocide, you
should see their existence and the truth about this topic. Even their
constant attack on Exxon demonstrates their insanity. Fossil fuels
produce CO2. Exxon has no means to change this. To pursue this assault
upon the petroleum industry is only to try to put them out of business.
Who cares what profits Exxon may make. The fact is we operate our lives
on petroluem. To cut off our supply is to kill us. It is the American
people who buy the cars and the petroluem, put the key in the ignition
and start the motor. This attack is actually aimied at us.
AND IT IS MERELY INSANITY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT DIRCECT SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.
THIS BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THOSE THAT WISH TO BE IN CONTROL OF
REMODELING OUR ECONOMY AND LIVES ACCORDING TO THEIR SUPERSTITION
Red Tide Algae Blooms, Another Global Warming Result
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> AND IT IS MERELY INSANITY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT DIRCECT SCIENTIFIC
> EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.
> THIS BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THOSE THAT WISH TO BE IN CONTROL OF
> REMODELING OUR ECONOMY AND LIVES ACCORDING TO THEIR SUPERSTITION
>
> Deatherage
The evidence is in. The debate is over. You lost. Get used to it.
Any delay in Exxon cleaning up their messes will be capital crimes.
Saddam thought he was too big to ever be called to account, and Wall
Street is still scratching it's head trying to figure out how Schilling
got 24 years in prison from compliant puppet Bush administration
Department of Justice.
Quit wasting time Exxon and get your filthy ass on the job of cleaning
up your messes, even if it takes every single cent the Rockefeller clan
owns.
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168042068....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer -- I'm trying to find exactly what you added to this post, one
| way or another. Maybe you hit the "send" key before you meant to,
| because I don't find anything. But it's been a long day, and maybe I'm
| misreading you.
Misread this:
http://www.roperld.com/graphics/LIAInsolation.jpg
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168042492.3...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167939339.4...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
| > | dicksuck - omigod. He called me "dicksuck."
| >
| >
| > Sounds accurate.
|
| Whatever.
|
| The label is false,
Fuck off, shithead.
hanson
again?... AHAHAHA... Lion Kuntz aka Loin Cunts aka "Awe Shit"
aka "Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy" <Weasle_...@h2-pv.us>
w/i news:1168030333.8...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
& cranked himself enormously when he posted this profound tripe
to make enviromentalists look even more stupid then they already
are.... ahahahaha... ahahahaha... "Awe Shit" you done a fine job!
>
*************************
" 'Awe Shit' aka Lion Kuntz wrote"
> Coprophagic HoHoLion Ho Hanson Eats Exxon's Brown Turds
> by the Bucketfull, hate green money grubbers because their
> POOR compared to BROWN MONEYGRUBBERS.
> Eat the Exxon Shit, Hanson. Shove handfuls down your gullet.
>
>
[hanson]
... But what do you penniless green grubs have to offer?
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... well, well, well... AHAHAHA...
"MONEYGRUBBERS"... Sounds like you are mighty jealous!
So, listen "Awe Shit", consider though these lines here below
which made these 3 "MONEYGRUBBERS" enough $$$$$
for each one of them to become big time Millionaires:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
How come it worked for them while you are on welfare as a
class 3 enviro? How come, Lion, that ** Money talks but your
Green Bullshit walks ** ? Here is the solution to that riddle:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
A lot of class 1 & 2 enviros are calling themselves no
longer "environmentalists" but *"conservationists"* now,
such as foundations, corporats, lawyers, celebs & RICH fat
cats who are conserving those lands for future generations:
Their OWN descendants only, of course, while all the little
green idiots do the hard and dirty work for them & pay!
> ------
PS: In this very thread here, rational enviros refer to you,
"Awe Shit", as a "little green shit ball"... ahahahaha..
check out who it was that so honored you from within your
own ranks. === Thanks for the laughs, "Awe Shit"... and
make some money now... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
hanson
> Hanson - Thanks for the putdowns. Always a treat, really.
>
Awe, Grandpa Fernbach, awe... The specific nomens which
you perceive as putdowns are merely expressions that come
with the green territory.... ahahahaha...They are simply and
only "environmental"... ahahaha... Take them as a treat, John!
[John]
> Now what about Kd's argument on thermodynamics and
> climate change or non-climate change -- written in English
> prose that the average educated person can evaluate for
> credibility?
>
[hanson]
... credibility? John, this is the Usenet where people come
(... all of them being self-anointed & self-appointed...)
to vent/show their illusions as to how the world will/must be
once they are in charge.... ahahahaha... and they truly believe
that they make and contribute to science here and influence
national and global politics and policies... But, to me, all this
is so fucking HILARIOUS, exactly like the bumpersticker says:
**** Hire the handicapped -- They are fun to watch *****
>
[John]
> It's always fun to read your stuff on little green shit balls and
> stuff, Hanson.
>
[hanson]
John, let me bestow onto you an unmitigated compliment,
a big one. If the enviros would be and behave like you do
then most if not all green goals would have been accomplished
by now. I am grateful that a few greenies like you are around.
But I didn't make this world that created those pinko-green
psychos like Scott Nudds at news.cogeco.ca & Lion Kuntz
at h2-pv.us who in all likelihood are (paid) shills for by Big Oil,
and/or Far Right Think Tanks with their sole goal to make
environmentalism look more shrill, vicious and stupid than
it alreadt is.
Think about it, John: Their type of posting causes any normal
green-leaning person to abandon the enviro ship, thinking that:
** It is preferable to keep the present situation then to go with
** a psychopathic mentality in charge as is exemplified from
** Al Gore on down to the damaged green goods like Kuntz
** Pretzel or Nudds, who advocates political, genocidal cleansing.
It is THESE types of agent provocateurs that will drive the
nation ever more to the (religious) Right. Bad Scene, John!
>
[John to KENT DEATHRIDGE]
[Andro about Fernbach]
>> He's got the right name. "Bach" means "little" in Welsh,
>> so "fernbach" is "little green leaf".
>>
[hanson]
Interesting, Andro. Conversely, in some Continental/German
languages "Fern" has several meanings: a) the plant Fern,
b) Far away & c) Firn = Far Ice, Glacial Ice. "Bach" means
Little/Small River. So, there are all kind of combos which
undeniably make Fernbach carry some mean green baggage.
... ahahahaha..... What say you, professor Fernbach?
While we are on a genealogical trip here. Much of the British
Isles and Western & Central Europe (besides the Gauls, Slavs
& the Latinos) are Celtic/Nordic. Where did the ancestors or
predecessors of the Scandinavians immigrate from and when?
Red Tide Algae Blooms, Another Global Warming Result
hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... Awe... Hey "Awe Shit", is your welfare check late
Hanson Gloats How Exxons Brown Shit Tastes so much better than
greenpeace crap. Yum Yum Yum, Hanson Gobble those Brown Turds, You
Exxon Bumboy.
john fernbach
the US economy if we ever get serious about reducing American CO2
emissions.
And that fear obviously needs to be addressed by the Greens and the AGW
crowd, both for political reasons and for moral ones. You raise an
important question that needs to be faced - whether CO2 controls can be
implemented without severely destructive side effects, and if so, just
how this is to be done.
For now, though, could you please reply to my question a few posts
back?
You keep claiming that AGW science is totally wrong, that various
factors having to do with (a) thermodynamics and (b) the solar constant
somehow "prove" that greenhouse-generated climate change as the IPCC
has been describing it is simply impossible, absurd, and totally wrong.
That's another extremely important question you're interjecting into
the debate here, but the way you've presented it so far, I just don't
understand what you mean by it.
Again - for those of us who haven't studied physics recently, could you
outline your argument about thermodynamics & the solar constant etc. a
little more clearly?
That would help both your friends and your debating opponents
understand what you're saying better, so that we can see whether it
actually makes sense or not.
Personally, I think you're just flim-flamming us here, just throwing in
some impressive-sounding technical words (e.g. "thermodynamics") to
cover up a bogus argument.
But hey, I could be wrong -- and if you have some real scientific logic
to back up what you claim, I'd really like to understand it.
I think everyone in this debate and discussion group actually ought to
read and understand your argument, if it's really as fatal to the
IPCC's position on AGW as you say it is.
So please, Big Guy - repeat it for us, and in plain English that
everyone with some university education can understand.
If what you're saying is true, it's enormously important. Obviously.
But of course, we'd be damned fools if we just took your word for it,
because of being unclear exactly which thermodynamic laws etc. you're
talking about.
---------------
john fernbach
This is a beautiful chart that you've provided a link to.
Now, could you please indicate to me and other people in here -- if
anyone is reading this -- what it means to you?
You no doubt believe this chart proves something or indicates something
important about the relationship between CO2 emissions, CO2
concentrations and global climate trends. Can you spell out what it
is, and why we should read the chart as you do?
_______________
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
john fernbach wrote:
> ... You raise an
> important question that needs to be faced -
No he doesn't. The evidence is in. The debate is over, 70,000 without
power in Kansas and Nebraska right now freezing their balls off,
340,000 cattle at risk. This Death-Rag is only good for flushing, not
discussing with or "debating".
> That's another extremely important question you're interjecting into
> the debate here,
There's NO DEBATE. He has interjected nothing but crap and been
"thumped" every time he tried. We don't like mass murderers for oil in
this group. He's not important and you are not important. Wake up to
reality.
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> Again - for those of us who haven't studied physics recently, could you
Could you fucking teach a course on usenet? Yeah, sure. Look jerk --
You flunked science once, never read enough since school to improve a
bit, and you expect university professors to teach an illiterate like
you without pay?
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> That would help both your friends and your debating
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
> But hey, I could be wrong -- and if you have some real scientific logic
> to back up what you claim
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> I think everyone in this debate a
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
> If what you're saying is true, it's enormously important.
No it's not important, not enormously or otherwise. It's a pile of shit
straight out of Exxon's Ass.
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
john fernbach wrote:
> ... You raise an
> important question that needs to be faced -
No he doesn't. The evidence is in. The debate is over, 70,000 without
power in Kansas and Nebraska right now freezing their balls off,
340,000 cattle at risk. This Death-Rag is only good for flushing, not
discussing with or "debating".
> That's another extremely important question you're interjecting into
> the debate here,
There's NO DEBATE. He has interjected nothing but crap and been
"thumped" every time he tried. We don't like mass murderers for oil in
this group. He's not important and you are not important. Wake up to
reality.
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> Again - for those of us who haven't studied physics recently, could you
Could you fucking teach a course on usenet? Yeah, sure. Look jerk --
You flunked science once, never read enough since school to improve a
bit, and you expect university professors to teach an illiterate like
you without pay?
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> That would help both your friends and your debating
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
> But hey, I could be wrong -- and if you have some real scientific logic
> to back up what you claim
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
>
> I think everyone in this debate a
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
> If what you're saying is true, it's enormously important.
No it's not important, not enormously or otherwise. It's a pile of shit
john fernbach
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> Fuck off, shithead.
Oh, you silver-tongued charmer, you.
Sorcerer, seriously, I don't really want to trade insults with you.
It's pointless, really. So let's not. I don't have anything against
you personally, and I don't take your insults to heart, either. You
haven't hurt me in any important way by calling me a dicksuck and a
shithead; we'll both survive this.
What's more important than the names we call each other, though, is the
goddamned climate and what CO2 emissions are doing to it -- if
anything, of course.
To repeat my question from before, could you or "kd rage" or someone
else on your side please tlry to explain to me and other readers kd's
amazing claim that the laws of thermodynamics and the nature of the
"solar constant" somehow make AGW as described by the IPCC pretty much
impossible?
If kd's scientific logic is good, of course, it's incredibly important
to the whole global warming debate.
If it's bogus or flawed, on the other hand -- well, then it's bogus or
flawed.
So I'd really like to understand kd's logic better than I do. Could
you or kd or Ray Lopez or someone please explain it again for us, and
in English that every educated person can understand?
-------
Ray Lopez Licks Exxon Butt
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
john fernbach wrote:
> goddamned climate and what CO2 emissions are doing to it -- if
> anything, of course.
The Evidence is in, the debate is over. 60,000 Kansans freezing their
balls off because there's no electricity to run their thermostats even
if they have gas or oil heat. #rd snowstorm coming in and 340,000
cattle will freeze and starve to death because there's 4 feet of snow
covering the grass at their feet.
This was absolutely explained and predicted months ago based on
transport of tropical heat to the arctic.
You can't predict shit so shut you damned piehole.
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
> If kd's scientific logic is good, of course, it's incredibly important
> to the whole global warming debate.
There is NO DEBATE Fernbach. Take your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Tag-team
congame back to the park urinals you spend so much time on your knees
hanging around.
There is nothing incredibly important coming out of Death-Rag's mouth
except a pipeline of shit that leads straight from Exxon's Butt,
keeping a phoney "debate" going as a felony crime fraud violation of
the RICO statute.
The repeated use of "important" "debate" is straight out of the Tobacco
playbook.
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168081070....@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer - Thanks.
|
| This is a beautiful chart that you've provided a link to.
|
| Now, could you please indicate to me and other people in here -- if
| anyone is reading this -- what it means to you?
|
| You no doubt believe this chart proves something or indicates something
| important about the relationship between CO2 emissions, CO2
| concentrations and global climate trends. Can you spell out what it
| is, and why we should read the chart as you do?
It says "Summer Insolation and Temperature Calculated from Deuterium
In Vostok Ice Cores." It doesn't mention CO2.
Where you get your wild fantasy about CO2 only you know, but it
seems to me that if human beings are responsible for the present
norm of the last 11,000 years since the retreat of the Nothern Ice Cap,
they should be held responsible the peak 130,000 years ago as well.
Maybe Adam and Eve were cruising around Eden in 4x4s and SUVs
and it pissed Gawd off, huh?
I'll tell you this, though.
When the world wide flood came 11,000 years ago as the ice cap melted,
the only people it bothered were coastal dwellers. The water is still there and
if sea levels rise another 100 feet, GOOD!
Cleaning out the shit that is London, New York, Sydney, Los Angeles,
Hong Kong is good and we can quit thinking we can do a damned
thing about it. I'm less than a mile from the coast myself, but I'm
160 feet above high tide. That's a slope of 1:33, a drop of
1 inch a yard, not steep enough for a toboggan ride.
Losing a few miles of coastline gradually is not the major catastrophe
you pretend it to be, certainly not a tsunami, earthquake, hurricane or
volcano which are sudden events, the last of which outclasses all
atmospheric emissions we puny humans are capable of. We've got
plenty of time to build an ark and save all the animals. The worst
Saddam Hussein could manage was setting the oil fields alight whereas
the Mt. St. Helens eruption blew half a mountain away, and that
was puny compared to Krakatoa in 1883.
The absolute number of volcanoes that exists depends on your definition: active only, active, dormant plus extinct volcanoes? And even if we decide on a definition, nobody has really counted all of the volcanoes, especially the tens on thousands on the sea floor. The best guess is 1511 volcanoes have erupted in the last 10,000 years and should be considered active. This number is from the new Smithsonian Institution book, "Volcanoes of the World: Second Edition" compiled by Tom Simkin and Lee Siebert.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp8/question63.html
CO2 isn't about global warming, it's about money and power. Oil.
I've given you raw scientific data. Since you can't think for yourself
I've explained it to you. Now please yourself, pay more taxes but
leave me the fuck out of your psychotic panic mode. Go tell it
to the Chinese and Indians, see if you can stop them, I'll be dead.
john fernbach
but at least you're putting forth real arguments for your side, as you
see your side.
That's the only way that anybody in this news group is going to learn
anything, is if we exchange real arguments with each other, and if
people on both sides pay some attention to what's said. I still don't
agree with you -- as indicated below. But I appreciate your sharing
your ideas and thoughts honestly with other people in here.
----------------
Sorcerer wrote:
> "john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1168081070....@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | Sorcerer - Thanks.
> |
> | This is a beautiful chart that you've provided a link to.
> |
> | Now, could you please indicate to me and other people in here -- if
> | anyone is reading this -- what it means to you?
> |
> | You no doubt believe this chart proves something or indicates something
> | important about the relationship between CO2 emissions, CO2
> | concentrations and global climate trends. Can you spell out what it
> | is, and why we should read the chart as you do?
>
>
> It says "Summer Insolation and Temperature Calculated from Deuterium
> In Vostok Ice Cores." It doesn't mention CO2.
> Where you get your wild fantasy about CO2 only you know, but it
> seems to me that if human beings are responsible for the present
> norm of the last 11,000 years since the retreat of the Nothern Ice Cap,
> they should be held responsible the peak 130,000 years ago as well.
You're assuming here that "changes in global climate" can have only one
cause, and
I think almost all the scientists agree that this is wrong.
Most AGW researchers seem to agree that a number of non-human factors
led to wide swings in the earth's average temperature before -- some
involving the buildup of greenhouse gases like CO2 or methane, some
not.
Basically what causes the earth and the lower atmosphere to heat up is
some change in the amount of solar energy that the planetary system
absorbs from the sun. And this change can be brought about in several
ways:
1. A change in the intensity of solar radiation caused by sunspot
cycles or other kinds of variation in the sun's energy emissions.
2. A change in how near or far the earth is to the sun. Or a change in
the position of the north pole vis a vis the sun during the northern
winters and northern summers. This can affect how much winter snow
melts during the warmer months: If a little more snow falls each year
than melts the following summer, the theory goes, we get a gradual
buildup of snow and ice in the Arctic regions that eventually triggers
a new ice age.
The so-called "Milankovitch cycles," involving how circular or oval the
Earth's orbit is, and whether the North Pole is facing towards the sun
or away from the sun at "perihelion," when the earth comes closest to
the sun , and the angle of the earth's rotational axis vis a vis its
orbit, are three big factors that are supposed to affect how much solar
radiation the Arctic gets at critical periods of the year.
Like the coming and going of sunspots and like natural changes in the
intensity of solar radiation as it comes to us through space, the
"Milankovitch cycles" are not thought to have anything at all to do
with human activity, or anything at all to do with greenhouse gas
levels in the atmosphere.
I don't remember for sure, but I think the warming period of 130,000
years ago is generally believed to have been triggered by the
Milankovitch cycles, not by anything caused by human activity.
Similarly, some AGW researchers believe that at least some of the rise
in temperatures that occurred in the early 1900s was caused by natural
changes in solar intensity.
But that doesn't mean that either the Milankovitch cycles or any change
in solar intensity is necessarily causing the more rapid rise in
temperatures that we've seen since about 1980. THAT "global warming,"
in the view of the IPCC consensus document and other sources, is almost
certainly the result of human activities.
3. As you've probably seen in here countless times, the earth's
overall "albedo" or reflectiveness is another factor that the AGW
researchers agree is important in determining average temperatures.
When the reflectiveness of any part of the planet is high, it bounces
more of the sun's incoming light right back into space. When
reflectiveness is low, which mostly means when the Earth's surface is
fairly dark, more incoming solar energy is going to be absorbed --
heating up the land etc., just the way that dark upholstery in your car
will cause it to resemble a sauna if you park it for a couple of hours
in the sunshine with the windows rolled up.
Concern about albedo is one reason why some AGW researchers are afraid
of a "runaway" greenhouse effect if all the Arctic sea ice melts over
the next few decades. The reasoning is that open sea water, being
dark, should absorb more light energy than the white surface of ice and
snow - therefore, the "albedo effect" caused by Arctic ice melting
should lead to more warming, which could lead to more ice melting,
which could lead to more warming -- etc.
4. The albedo or reflectiveness of clouds is another factor that the
AGW people are expecting to influence the climate. One of the big
names in AGW denialism, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is predicting that any
slight warming that higher CO2 triggers in the world, over the next
century, will cause the formation of greater cloud cover, and that this
cloud cover will then reflect more solar energy back into space and act
as a brake on a warming climate. Because of the albedo effect of
certain kinds of clouds that AGW will produce in large numbers, Lindzen
seems to be saying, we don't have to worry much about the dreaded
"greenhouse effect," because through the albedo situation it will
largely correct itself.
People on my side, the AGW alarmist side, are saying that if the wrong
kinds of clouds form, the albedo effect will be cancelled or
overwhelmed by the tendency of these clouds to cause more trapping of
heat in the lower atmosphere. And there's an unresolved dispute
between Lindzen and the AGW majority, it seems, over whether continued
greenhouse gas emissions are going to cause the formation of more
"good" clouds or more "bad" ones. But in any case, both sides agree
that cloud albedo is important, and that it's probably NOT "only"
influenced by human actions.
5. The amount of METHANE in the atmosphere is another factor that some
AGW researchers are saying had a huge effect on the climate at certain
times in the distant past. Methane is a much stronger "greenhouse" gas
than CO2, and besides being emitted in cow farts, it's also produced
when organic matter rots under oxygen-poor conditions. Currently there
are huge amounts of methane trapped underneath the frozen surface of
the Arctic tundra, under the "permafrost" of Siberia and Alaska, and
there are also huge quantities of methane trapped in frozen deposits in
the deep oceans called "clathrates."
If you read some of the recent AGW writers -- say, Tim Flannery's book
"The Climate Makers," or William Stevens' book "The Change in the
Climate" -- you'll see that some researchers are speculating that one
of the greatest mass extinction events of all time, the one that wiped
out all kinds of prehistoric critters back at the end of the Permian
Period, was probably caused by a massive eruption of methane into the
atmosphere, probably in association with other factors that caused the
clathrates to dissolve back then.
Again, nobody in the AGW crowd is blaming "Adam and Eve" or Fred
Flinstone or the famous East African hominid "Lucy" and her family for
the big methane release and extinction crisis hundreds of millions of
years ago. For one thing, humans weren't around then. All of the sane
AGW writers you look at are going to agree that other factors produced
the big methane release.
However, some of these same people are enormously alarmed at the
possibility that human activity could well trigger ANOTHER huge release
of methane from clathrates in our time.
If CO2 levels in the air get to be high enough, they reason, this will
cause more CO2 to dissolve in the oceans, making them somewhat more
acidic, and the extra acidity in the water may then start to cause the
breakdown of the clathrates. Then -- look out!
6. Finally we get to "anthropogenic" global warming -- the effect of
"greenhouse gases" like CO2 and methane and nitrous oxide, as these are
generated by human activity, are likely to have on the ability of the
earth's atmosphere to keep in infrared heat waves.
The reasoning here is pretty simple: certain gases like CO2, methane,
water vapor, nitrous oxide, and the CFC "freon" that used to be used in
refrigerators all have the weird property of being transparent to
light, to electromagnetic energy, in the visible range of the spectrum
-- ie. when it's at a certain range of wavelengths. These same
"greenhouse" gases, though, have the property of being opaque to
electromagnetic energy at much longer wavelengths -- for example, when
it's in the infrared range of the spectrum.
Light from the sun reaches the earth as visible electromagnetic energy
-- well, that, and ultraviolet rays, basically. But when solar energy
hits the Earth's surface and warms it up, the surface then releases
electromagnetic energy in the form of heat waves -- infrared radiation.
Okay - so energy from the sun is coming into the planetary system, and
the greenhouse gases let it through. But then these gases block
infrared radiation from carrying some of that energy back out into
space -- and you get a net heating effect in the lower atmosphere, the
famous "greenhouse effect."
The AGW consensus is that concentrations of greenhouse gases therefore
-- just like all the other factors mentioned above -- DO affect the
Earth's retention of energy from the sun, which is the basic factor
driving climate change. And the higher the greenhouse gas
concentrations become, the more "global warming" we should see.
Here's your "human" factor in climate change -- well, emissions of
greenhouse gases, mostly associated with the burning of fossil fuels in
the 2-3 centuries that have passed since the Industrial Revolution
started, and also human-caused deforestation around the world. Some
scientists -- Tim Flannery in "The Weather Makers," as I recall -- do
think that humans have contributed to climate change since around
12,000 years ago, through deforesting the earth and converting large
parts of it to agriculture. But the big issue is whether this existing
human-induced cause of higher temperatures is now being grossly
accelerated by human consumption of fossil fuels, which is causing
carbon buried under the earth's surface for hundreds of millions of
years to be dug up again and re-injected into the big carbon cycling
system that circulates CO2 through the atmosphere, the oceans, living
plants and animals, etc.
> Maybe Adam and Eve were cruising around Eden in 4x4s and SUVs
> and it pissed Gawd off, huh?
Maybe Adam and Eve, or their equivalents, did begin to have a
significant effect on the climate around 10,000 - 8,000 years ago, when
settled agriculture first started to be practiced in the Fertile
Crescent. Obviously SUVs were not really popular at the time --
Biblical scholars agree that at the worst, Cain and Abel drove Volvos.
:-)
But to the extent that early humans contributed to the cutting down of
forests and their replacement by settled agriculture, they may have had
a real effect on climate change.
Rice-growing rather than the cultivation of other crops would probably
be the kind of early agriculture that would be most productive of
global warming, if I'm reading the latest AGW literature correctly.
That's because when rice fields are flooded, they give off lots of
methane from the rotting of submerged vegetation. The increased
cultivation of rice in "paddy" fields around the world, then, could be
one factor that has caused some "anthropogenic" or human-driven global
warming since prehistoric times.
> I'll tell you this, though.
> When the world wide flood came 11,000 years ago as the ice cap melted,
> the only people it bothered were coastal dwellers. The water is still there and
> if sea levels rise another 100 feet, GOOD!
> Cleaning out the shit that is London, New York, Sydney, Los Angeles,
> Hong Kong is good and we can quit thinking we can do a damned
> thing about it.
No offense to you, but I have huge moral objections to this kind of
bloody-minded thinking.
Various AGW denialists in this news group -- kd rage, for one -- have
accused AGW researchers of being "genocidal," of being willing to see
millions of people die in the Third World as a consequence of cutting
back on world fossil fuel consumption. But the thinking you're putting
forward here is just as "genocidal," if you're cheerful about seeing
rising sea levels "clean out the shit" -- that is, the human beings --
now living in the major coastal cities.
I'm less than a mile from the coast myself, but I'm
> 160 feet above high tide. That's a slope of 1:33, a drop of
> 1 inch a yard, not steep enough for a toboggan ride.
I'm glad you're protected, but there are hundreds of millions of people
around the world who are not living 160 feet above high tide. If
you're feeling smug about your own property and your own life being
secure, even though other people are going to be turned into
environmental refugees or actually drowned -- well, that's very human,
very natural, I guess.
"Who cares about them, so long as I'm safe." But it is genocidal
thinking. Not too attractive, either.
Al Smith
> anything, is if we exchange real arguments with each other, and if
> people on both sides pay some attention to what's said. I still don't
> agree with you -- as indicated below. But I appreciate your sharing
> your ideas and thoughts honestly with other people in here.
Or we could just all agree that global warming is not man-made, is
not necessarily a bad thing, and in any case is not something we
can change, so we should keep our money and not waste it on the
global warming hype industry.
Sorcerer
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:e9Snh.126843$hn.48409@edtnps82...
Amen to that.
sarom...@gmail.com
>
> Hey dicksuck fernbach. Have you heard the news? The solar constant is
> 1370Wm-2. At the equator at solar noon 1000Wm-2 is recieved in a solar
> collector. Your theory that you are going to ride straight to hell,
> says that the earth should be at 255K except that grenhouse gases trap
> energy to increase this 33C. This is a 63% increase in radiated energy
> per sq meter. The surface of the moon is at 250C in the sunlight.
> 1000Wm-2 equates to 90C. 370Wm-2 are absorbed by the atmosphere and do
> not reach the surface. 1% of the solar constant is absorbed in the UV
> frequencies in the stratosphere.
>
> If you can't right here rectify this basic data with a proper
> thermodynamic application, you are totally floating up shit creek
> without a paddle, for your intent to affect peoples lives and economies
> according to direct fraud and extortion. Well, you can always point to
> a consensus among climatological scientists as your only scientific
> basis. hahahahahahaha
> hahahahahahaahahha
>
> Will this save you and your dicksuck co-conspirators from the gallows?
>
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
>
>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > .
What have we here? I guess it's a real "dicksuck fernbach" citing
irrelevant information published by an Exxon front group called the
National Center for Public Policy, and he doesn't even understand the
significance of what he is citing. It's priceless.
The solar constant argument is essentially worthless since German and
Norwegian scientists, Solanski et al, have already reported in 2004 in
Nature, vol. 431, p. 1084 that, combining physics-based models for each
of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with the
level of solar activity, "that solar variability is unlikely to have
been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three
decades."
IOW, solar variation can not be demonstrated as relevant to current
global warming trends. More importantly, you're really awful at faking
a scientific understanding of something that is obviously so far over
your head you couldn't get to it in an elevator.
The Ghost In The Machine
<cos...@lifeform.org>
wrote
on Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:50:54 -0600
<VcSnh.1027$UZ....@newsfe03.lga>:
> debt, constructed out of obsolete infrastructure, and populated with
> what has to be the dumbest fucks on the planet, but it wouldn't be true.
>
> You know, I think I'm going to have to go with the science on this one.
>
Global warming is a complicated subject. I frankly don't
know if the science is right; learned men, after all,
at one point decreed the Earth was flat. (Admittedly,
this was before the Renaissance.) Of course, that doesn't
mean it's wrong, either; a legitimate scientific answer is
"I don't know".
There are a number of factors relating to global
temperature, manmade CO2 being one of them. Other factors,
however, include insolation, sunspots, the power of
the Moon (which is admittedly very miniscule compared
to insolation), the amount of cloud cover, ice cover,
and plant cover around the Earth, and the issue that the
ocean might very well be a gigantic heat sink.
Personally, I think we'd better convert to a non-CO2-based
economy as fast as necessary but not screw ourselves in
the process. The fastest way to stop CO2 output (AFAICT),
after all, is to crash the economy and kill everyone in
sight using sniper rifles.
This is obviously not the most humane of solutions,
especially since even after death the human body generates
"greenhouse gases" during decomposition, from the bacteria,
maggots, etc. eating the corpses.
Kyoto was problematic mostly because developing countries
(such as China) were exempt from its provisions -- and
yet, as far as I know regarding future predictions, the
developing countries will be the worst offenders. Bush,
problematic president that he is, got that one right; it's
about the only one he *has* gotten right. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
hanson
news:1168081070....@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer - Thanks.
| This is a beautiful chart that you've provided a link to.
| Now, could you please indicate to me and other people in here --
| if anyone is reading this -- what it means to you?
| You no doubt believe this chart proves something or indicates
| something important about the relationship between CO2
| emissions, CO2 concentrations and global climate trends.
| Can you spell out what it is, and why we should read the chart
| as you do?
[Andro]
It says "Summer Insolation and Temperature Calculated from
Deuterium In Vostok Ice Cores." *** It doesn't mention CO2.***
Where you get your wild fantasy about CO2 only you know, but it
seems to me that if human beings are responsible for the present
norm of the last 11,000 years since the retreat of the Nothern Ice Cap,
they should be held responsible the peak 130,000 years ago as well.
Maybe Adam and Eve were cruising around Eden in 4x4s and SUVs
and it pissed Gawd off, huh?
I'll tell you this, though.
When the world wide flood came 11,000 years ago as the ice cap
melted, the only people it bothered were coastal dwellers. The
water is still there and if sea levels rise another 100 feet, GOOD!
>
[hanson]
... but to your delight IPCC's own report revised that now to only
a 30cm rise in sea levels in 100 years **(BIG FUCKING DEAL!)**
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.headlines/msg/eda5c4b2975e5266
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm
>
[Andro cont.]
Cleaning out the shit that is London, New York, Sydney, Los Angeles,
Hong Kong is good and we can quit thinking we can do a damned
thing about it. I'm less than a mile from the coast myself, but I'm
160 feet above high tide. That's a slope of 1:33, a drop of
1 inch a yard, not steep enough for a toboggan ride.
Losing a few miles of coastline gradually is not the major catastrophe
you pretend it to be, certainly not a tsunami, earthquake, hurricane or
volcano which are sudden events, the last of which outclasses all
atmospheric emissions we puny humans are capable of. We've got
plenty of time to build an ark and save all the animals. The worst
Saddam Hussein could manage was setting the oil fields alight
whereas the Mt. St. Helens eruption blew half a mountain away,
and that was puny compared to Krakatoa in 1883.
The absolute number of volcanoes that exists depends on your
definition: active only, active, dormant plus extinct volcanoes?
And even if we decide on a definition, nobody has really counted
all of the volcanoes, especially the tens on thousands on the sea
floor. The best guess is 1511 volcanoes have erupted in the last
10,000 years and should be considered active. This number is
from the new Smithsonian Institution book, "Volcanoes of the
World: Second Edition" compiled by Tom Simkin and Lee Siebert.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp8/question63.html
****** CO2 isn't about global warming, ******
****** it's about money and power. Oil. ******
hanson
>> That's the only way that anybody in this news group
>> is going to learn anything, is if we exchange real
>> arguments with each other, and if people on both sides
>> pay some attention to what's said. I still don't agree with
>> you -- as indicated below. But I appreciate your sharing
>> your ideas and thoughts honestly with other people in here.
>
> Or we could just all agree that global warming is not
> man-made, is not necessarily a bad thing, and in any
> case is not something we can change, so we should
> keep our money and not waste it on the global warming
> hype industry.
>
Agree?... ahahahaha... why agree?... That will take all the fun
out of the game. The worst in here are the best. Like posters
masquerading as loud, vile and genocidal pinko green shits
such as "Scott Nudds" aka "Vendickarse DickArian" aka
"news.cogeco.ca" <BushIsATraitor at hotmail.com>" or the
"Palace Troll" Lion Kuntz aka "Loin Cunts" aka "Awe Shit"
and a few others. All of them are PLANTS, agents provocateur
paid by Big Biz, Oil Conglomerates and RIGHT WING
think tanks!. Their task is to make environmentalists look
even more stupid that they really are. And they are successful.
The have forced the enviros to relabel themselves as
*conservationists* and they are instrumental with their pinko
green shit behavior to move the nation ever further to the
(religious) EXTREME FAR RIGHT. --- Can't you see the
handwriting on the wall, Al Smith?.... ahahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
"Awe Shit" aka "Red Tide Algae Blooms, Another Global Warming
Result" aka <Global....@ARMY.com> wrote in message
news:1168074068....@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> hanson wrote:
>> ahahahaha... Awe... Hey "Awe Shit", is your welfare check late
>
> Hanson Gloats How Exxons Brown Shit Tastes so much better
> than greenpeace crap. Yum Yum Yum, Hanson Gobble those
> Brown Turds, You Exxon Bumboy.
>
Your policy is flawed. No gloating, "Awe Shit". .
Here are the real facts for policy, again, for your benefit:
>
ahahahaha... Awe... Hey "Awe Shit", is your welfare check late
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:hQVnh.1244$Ul4.530@trnddc05...
| Excellent! GREAT!, Andro, Terrific! Kudos!
Yeah, but the real reason the Earth is warm right now is because
winter solstice (Dec 22) almost coincides with perihelion (Jan 3rd)
so the northern polar cap gets more heat and doesn't freeze as
much. Less ice, less albedo, positive feedback.
Look out this year, we've El Nino to contend with, you'll
hear 'em singing louder than ever that it's the hottest on record.
It could even start WW III, what with North Korea and Iran
eager to have a go at bomb building. The Indians and Pakistanis
are ready too.
The British Gov'ment propaganda machine, aka BBC,
is fully geared up with green shit to sound like moderates
and remain pals with the USA and Europe, being part
of the EEC but enjoying burgers and football (or bread
and NASCAR circuses, same thing).
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>> That's the only way that anybody in this news group is going to learn
>> anything, is if we exchange real arguments with each other, and if
>> people on both sides pay some attention to what's said. I still don't
>> agree with you -- as indicated below. But I appreciate your sharing
>> your ideas and thoughts honestly with other people in here.
>
>Or we could just all agree that global warming is not man-made,
No agreement. Part of it is.
>is not necessarily a bad thing,
No agreement, though I might let you hang your hat on the narrow spike
of the 'necessarily' part. Change affects existing species balances
negatively for an important period of time, it definitely affects
predictability negatively for planners, and it negatively impacts food
supplies for a time, as well. Whether it is _necesarily_ and _always_
a bad thing is another question, as I'm sure everyone can accept the
idea that there are some who will still profit in terrible disasters.
>and in any case is not something we can change,
No agreement. We can do something about it.
>so we should keep our money
To the degree you can control that on other subjects, such as paying
for wars others decide to embark on, or paying for social programs, or
paying for a judicial system, or paying for any political compromise
that allows many people to live together in some measure of peace over
the use of scarse resources. Some of us will continue to work within
political systems to gain meaningful change in behavior, though. As
we may and should.
>and not waste it on the global warming hype industry.
If such an industry actually had any meaningful size or any
significant group benefitting... which it doesn't... Your comment
here is so patently ridiculous that it beggers the imagination. Exxon
is the single largest corporate organization on the planet, with gross
revenues well exceeding most gross national products. And that is
only ONE of many such well-funded interests. No comparison is
possible.
Luckily, I can see that your position has all but been lost even here
in the US. This will, of course, only mean much louder screaming by
those few who can more clearly see they have finally lost the
political war. And 2007 promises to be the watershed year in this
regard, the turning point or beginning point of broader political
acquiescience not just in the US but around the world to climate
science fact. About time. Political change is afoot.
Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
>Sure, we could agree that America is not irreconcilably in financial
>debt, constructed out of obsolete infrastructure, and populated with
>what has to be the dumbest fucks on the planet, but it wouldn't be true.
Don't forget that the US also has 12 fairly complete carrier groups,
the most terrible potentials in nuclear and conventional forces, and
has a political system that has nearly all but gone bust from its
inability to find meaningful compromise out of any serious engagement
and respect for the opinions of differing sides. The political system
here in the US is nearly broken from almost unending divisiveness.
Keep that fully in mind as you also say the rest.
>You know, I think I'm going to have to go with the science on this one.
:)
Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
>Think how far the world could go, if we weren't using religion as an
>excuse to convert our planet's bountiful wealth, through nature, into
>weapons.
Some distance, to be sure. I keep the quote I'll cite below to remind
me about this, at times...
>>> You know, I think I'm going to have to go with the science on this one.
>
>Science tells me that religion and weapons are not viable paths to a
>higher understanding of nature and the universe. I'm just going with it.
I think science has had a measurable impact broadening and deepening
better-quality human moral memes. I hope that continues well into the
future.
Jon
--
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it,
you'd have good people doing good things and evil people
doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things,
it takes religion. [Steven Weinberg, physicist, Nobel
Laureate. Remarks made April, 1999 at a meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington, D.C.]
Lloyd Parker
And you think science is still conducted as it was 500 years ago? Sheesh!
500 years of scientific enlightment and you missed it.
>
>There are a number of factors relating to global
>temperature, manmade CO2 being one of them. Other factors,
>however, include insolation, sunspots, the power of
>the Moon (which is admittedly very miniscule compared
>to insolation), the amount of cloud cover, ice cover,
>and plant cover around the Earth, and the issue that the
>ocean might very well be a gigantic heat sink.
>
And if you'd bother to read some of the articles in the literature, you'd know
those have been investigated. What, did you think you're the first person to
think of them?
>Personally, I think we'd better convert to a non-CO2-based
>economy as fast as necessary but not screw ourselves in
>the process. The fastest way to stop CO2 output (AFAICT),
>after all, is to crash the economy and kill everyone in
>sight using sniper rifles.
>
>This is obviously not the most humane of solutions,
>especially since even after death the human body generates
>"greenhouse gases" during decomposition, from the bacteria,
>maggots, etc. eating the corpses.
>
>Kyoto was problematic mostly because developing countries
>(such as China) were exempt from its provisions -- and
>yet, as far as I know regarding future predictions, the
>developing countries will be the worst offenders. Bush,
>problematic president that he is, got that one right; it's
>about the only one he *has* gotten right. :-)
>
Why? The US produces many many times as much CO2 per capita as China or
India.
Lloyd Parker
We could also agree the earth is 6000 years old, disease is caused by evil
spirits, and 2 + 2 = 6.
Lloyd Parker
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote:
>
>"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:hQVnh.1244$Ul4.530@trnddc05...
>| Excellent! GREAT!, Andro, Terrific! Kudos!
>
>Yeah, but the real reason the Earth is warm right now is because
Why has it been warming for 120 years, doofus?
>so the northern polar cap gets more heat and doesn't freeze as
>much. Less ice, less albedo, positive feedback.
>Look out this year, we've El Nino to contend with, you'll
>hear 'em singing louder than ever that it's the hottest on record.
>It could even start WW III, what with North Korea and Iran
>eager to have a go at bomb building. The Indians and Pakistanis
>are ready too.
And this relates to GW how?
The Ghost In The Machine
<lpa...@emory.edu>
wrote
on Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:41:33 GMT
<ents8h$ose$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu>:
Don't worry; I'm not quite so naive that I think we should
do nothing. I am, however, sufficiently cynical to think
that it is very possible that we *will* do nothing.
(Especially with a certain Republican in the White House.)
There is also the faint possibility that the Democratic
majority will get so bogged down in bickering and politics
that it will backfire. In that case, the Republicans win
again -- and may win the White House as well, since the
economy's going great guns for everyone except the poor.
>
>>
>>There are a number of factors relating to global
>>temperature, manmade CO2 being one of them. Other factors,
>>however, include insolation, sunspots, the power of
>>the Moon (which is admittedly very miniscule compared
>>to insolation), the amount of cloud cover, ice cover,
>>and plant cover around the Earth, and the issue that the
>>ocean might very well be a gigantic heat sink.
>>
>
> And if you'd bother to read some of the articles in the literature, you'd know
> those have been investigated. What, did you think you're the first person to
> think of them?
Probably not. :-)
>
>>Personally, I think we'd better convert to a non-CO2-based
>>economy as fast as necessary but not screw ourselves in
>>the process. The fastest way to stop CO2 output (AFAICT),
>>after all, is to crash the economy and kill everyone in
>>sight using sniper rifles.
>>
>>This is obviously not the most humane of solutions,
>>especially since even after death the human body generates
>>"greenhouse gases" during decomposition, from the bacteria,
>>maggots, etc. eating the corpses.
>>
>>Kyoto was problematic mostly because developing countries
>>(such as China) were exempt from its provisions -- and
>>yet, as far as I know regarding future predictions, the
>>developing countries will be the worst offenders. Bush,
>>problematic president that he is, got that one right; it's
>>about the only one he *has* gotten right. :-)
>>
>
> Why? The US produces many many times as much CO2 per capita as China or
> India.
I have my doubts that China will be poor for long; they
are industrializing rapidly (and lending the US lots
of money). As for India...hard to say, but presumably
they'll be the happiest of us three come, say, 2100 --
especially if they start investing in some variant of PV
or renewable technologies now.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)