Question the AGW Whackos Refuse to Answer
Claudius Denk
> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
substantiates your response to this first question.
And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time has
come for you to shit or get off the pot.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor denky here has to deny decades of research that has verified what has
been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are all as
mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
Claudius Denk
Answer the questions you evasive twit.
f-newguy
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6fa80661-a296-4c6f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
===================
Why should he? To give you another chance to squawk and bluster? You *are*
a waste of time.
Ouroboros_Rex
Sure, not a problem. Let's see who's the evasive twit. lol
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF
See those big gaps labeled CO2? That's heat energy being held back from
escaping the atmosphere. Just one of literally thousands upon thousands of
data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
But now it's your turn, denky. Show us the experimantal data that
substantiates your theory that increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT affect
atmospheric temperature.
Come on, any bona fide data from any reputable experimenter will do. lol
tick tock
Ouroboros_Rex
I answered him, with exactly what he requested - now let's watch him
dance. lol
Tunderbar
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Simple. To shut us up and prove your agw theory once and for all. But
you can't prove it. can ya?
Roger Coppock
> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
> substantiates your response to this first question.
This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
answered . . .
Please see the tread, "Denky/McGinn uses an old creationist ploy."
Tom Gardner
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:g5l5mj$77i$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
I noticed you dodge the question with unsubstantiated assumptions...the best
you can do.
Roger Coppock
It is the height of ignorance to ask for a proof.
One does not "prove" things in physical science
like one does in Mathematics.
Ouroboros_Rex
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor tommy, perhaps you should have read the entire thread before posting
another of your endless lies. lol
f-newguy
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb62ce37-9605-4765...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
==========================
Simple. To shut us up and prove your agw theory once and for all. But
you can't prove it. can ya?
==========================
As if *anything* would shut you nitwits up. That is the whole point: you
will deny anything you are presented. You will keep moving the goalposts
farther and farther away with each advance of science.
Roger Coppock
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If newbe's like you and Lone Ranger immediately
see through the fossil fools, THEY HAVE LOST!
f-newguy
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:90f83d4e-e76b-4297...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 10:57 am, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> As if *anything* would shut you nitwits up. That is the whole
>> point: you will deny anything you are presented. You will
>> keep moving the goalposts farther and farther away with
>> each advance of science.
> If newbe's like you and Lone Ranger immediately
> see through the fossil fools, THEY HAVE LOST!
I've seen it all before. It is an old evolution deniers' trick warmed over.
Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, then every time one is
found they wail "Yeah, but where is the transition between this new one and
the next one? Or the one before it?" So every time a missing link is
found, two more are created.
If you play the AGW deniers' game, they will keep it up until they are
demanding that every GHG molecule in the atmosphere be catalogued. They
don't really want proof. They want it all to go away. But it won't, will
it? I enjoy reminding them of that.
Ouroboros_Rex
A pleasure to have you around. =)
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 8:56 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
> >>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
> >>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>
> >>> And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
> >>> knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time
> >>> has come for you to shit or get off the pot.
>
> >> Poor denky here has to deny decades of research that has verified
> >> what has been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are
> >> all as mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
>
> > Answer the questions you evasive twit.
>
> Sure, not a problem. Let's see who's the evasive twit. lol
>
> http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF
>
> See those big gaps labeled CO2? That's heat energy being held back from
> escaping the atmosphere.
No. I think you're delusional. Why not spell it out for us.
> Just one of literally thousands upon thousands of
> data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
Obvious propaganda.
>
> But now it's your turn, denky. Show us the experimantal data that
> substantiates your theory that increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT affect
> atmospheric temperature.
>
> Come on, any bona fide data from any reputable experimenter will do. lol
>
> tick tock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claudius Denk
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
Faint, duck, dodge, weave.
Claudius Denk
The fact is you have no peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 has any effect
at all on atmospheric temperatures. All you whackos have and all you
have ever had is propaganda.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor desperate denky now has to resort to the most transparent outright
lies. lol
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor desperate denky - he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies... lol
Ouroboros_Rex
Desperate denky's projecting again. lol
Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:33 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 8:56 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>>>>> And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
>>>>> knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time
>>>>> has come for you to shit or get off the pot.
>>
>>>> Poor denky here has to deny decades of research that has verified
>>>> what has been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are
>>>> all as mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
>>
>>> Answer the questions you evasive twit.
>>
>> Sure, not a problem. Let's see who's the evasive twit. lol
>>
>> http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF
>>
>> See those big gaps labeled CO2? That's heat energy being held back
>> from escaping the atmosphere.
>
> No. I think you're delusional. Why not spell it out for us.
>
>
>> Just one of literally thousands upon thousands of
>> data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
>
> Obvious propaganda.
(Faint, duck, dodge, weave. And where's your evidence CO2 does not affect
temps? lol)
Tom Gardner
Your opinions are noted...and dismissed.
Ouroboros_Rex
In other words, after being caught in yet another lie, you have nothing.
Continue sobbing.
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:56 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>>
>>>> And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
>>>> knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time
>>>> has come for you to shit or get off the pot.
>>>
>>> Poor denky here has to deny decades of research that has verified
>>> what has been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are
>>> all as mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
>>
>> Answer the questions you evasive twit.
>
> Sure, not a problem. Let's see who's the evasive twit. lol
>
> http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF
>
> See those big gaps labeled CO2? That's heat energy being held back
> from escaping the atmosphere. Just one of literally thousands upon
> thousands of data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
>
> But now it's your turn, denky. Show us the experimantal data that
> substantiates your theory that increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT
> affect atmospheric temperature.
>
> Come on, any bona fide data from any reputable experimenter will do.
> lol
> tick tock
Lyin' tommy is obviously also too chicken to take the challenge. ;)
Whata Fool
>> As if *anything* would shut you nitwits up. ?That is the whole point: you
>> will deny anything you are presented. ?You will keep moving the goalposts
>> farther and farther away with each advance of science.
>
>If newbe's like you and Lone Ranger immediately
>see through the fossil fools, THEY HAVE LOST!
Apparently the pink shirts saw you weren't being too effective
with the propaganda so they sent the lowest scoring girls on the college
entrance exams to reinforce you.
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
> on atmospheric temperatures?
We have answered your question at least once a week on average for the
last 3 years.
Are you having comprehension problems? Shit Sucker.
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Answer the questions you evasive twit.
We have answered your question at least once a week for the last three
V for Vendicar
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
>. To shut us up and prove your agw theory once and for all. But
> you can't prove it. can ya?
Ya, trivial. CO2 absorbs heat radiation emitted from the ground and
therfore heats up itself. It radiates that heat outward in every direction
with 50% of it going back down toward the earth.
Hence the surface of the earth warms.
Now what else do you need proof of?
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> The fact is you have no peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 has any effect
> at all on atmospheric temperatures
Other than the several hundred peer reviewed references we have provided
you over the last 3 years that show exactly that?
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Faint, duck, dodge, weave.
Yes, Denk, that is what you and your denialist Shit Suckers are guilty of.
V for Vendicar
>> Just one of literally thousands upon thousands of
>> data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Obvious propaganda.
It's just part of the 400 year old KKKonspiracy of science to KKKeep you
KKKonservatives Stupid.
V for Vendicar
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> I noticed you dodge the question with unsubstantiated assumptions...the
> best you can do.
Providing the spectra of CO2 is all that is required. In fact it is <MORE>
than is required.
Poor Tom. Still completely ignorant of basic science.
V for Vendicar
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Your opinions are noted...and dismissed.
A fine example of a KKKonservative mind doing everything it can to keep
itself ignorant.
James
The easy out for scientists but not for us in the vernacular. Try again
oh un-scientific one.
James
"f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote in message
news:AoSdnW4zmPtAouPV...@supernews.com...
The old creationist routine is always a crowd pleaser.
James
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:kgufk.18263$Ec.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
James
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:cnufk.18267$Ec.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
>> I noticed you dodge the question with unsubstantiated
>> assumptions...the best you can do.
>
> Providing the spectra of CO2 is all that is required. In fact it is
> <MORE> than is required.
ROTFLMAO
Rich
> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
>> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
>> substantiates your response to this first question.
>
> answered . . .
Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
responses especially informative.
Cheers,
Rich
> Please see the tread, "Denky/McGinn uses an old creationist ploy."
kT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics
Hey, look at what's at the top of the (admittedly alphabetical) list!
The classics
Abraham, Ralph & Marsden, Jerrold E. (2008), Foundations of mechanics: a
mathematical exposition of classical mechanics with an introduction to
the qualitative theory of dynamical systems (2nd ed.), Providence,
[RI.]: AMS Chelsea Pub., ISBN 9780821844380
That one was interesting, let me tell you. Here is another good test :
http://books.google.com/books?id=2zypV5EbKuIC
Enjoy!
Whata Fool
>
>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>One does not "prove" things in physical science
><like one does in Mathematics.
>
>The easy out for scientists but not for us in the vernacular. Try again
>oh un-scientific one.
I'll help Roger on this, there are proofs in mathematics,
but in science, there can be facts, but in place of proofs, it
is possible to "rule out" different aspects of a theoretical premise.
It is not possible to rule out CO2 absorbing and re-emitting
Infra-Red radiation.
But compared to water vapor and other climate and weather processes
in nature, CO2 amounts to next to zilch.
Whata Fool
Not around here, there is nothing more boring than a pessimistic
atheist preaching nothingness and doom, trying to destroy hope and faith
in anything but despair and gloom.
Any "scientist" that ever falls into the idiotic temptation
to preach atheism is a fool, almost every person on Earth has some
faith in something, and will resent being told there is no future
but nothingness, a big blank, with nothing worth caring about or
striving for.
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:a49t74h0ghea272rb...@4ax.com...
Why did the planet cool down when CO2 was cut almost in half in the late
Ordovician, exactly opposite of what you claim should have happened?
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
Well, what do you know? Fool is a creationist, too! Or maybe he's one of
those half-assed creationists, an Intelligent Design putz.
Which is it, Fool?
f-newguy
"Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:wJOdnc6V5P8FOePV...@comcast.com...
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
>>> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
>>> substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>> answered . . .
>
> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
> responses especially informative.
>
It is just you. Reasoned responses to kooks are a waste of keystrokes.
Kooks are here to be mocked.
Poetic Justice
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
>>> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
>>> substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>> answered . . .
>
> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
> responses especially informative.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich
It clearly displays and informs us that "his elevator don't go all the
way to the top floor."
Whata Fool
What happened to all the CO2? Is the geologic record precise
enough to say the Earth cooled after the CO2 vanished mysteriously, or
could the Earth have cooled and 900 years later the CO2 was absorbed
by the ocean.
This seems to be another question the AGW Whackos refuse to answer.
Claudius Denk
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
It's regrettable you are unable to provide us direct access to your
imagination.
Whata Fool
It sounds like I am one of the majority who has a faith,
most of those who understand evolution leave the question of conflict
open to interpretation and are not activists expressing condemnation.
Did you read what I wrote above? Condemnation of any
religion can only hurt the person doing the condemning, it shows
stupidity more than anything else.
Next maybe we can expect you to start using an overabundance
of capital "k"s in words like another goofball flake resident here.
Claudius Denk
> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
> > on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
> > substantiates your response to this first question.
>
> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
> answered . . .
One can only wonder why you are so reluctant to discuss it. One would
think you'd be eager to discuss the scientific details on something
that is, in your mind, so important to the safety and security of the
human race. Why the secrecy? You can tell me. I promise. I won't
tell anybody else. And nobody is going to read this thread anyways.
Can you reveal any details at all? Does it involve raw data? Does it
involve experiments? Assuming so, can you tell us where these
experiments took place. Can you tell us who performed these
experiment. Can you tell us anything about the specific hypotheses/
conjectures that were being tested for? Can you provide any details
at all?
> Please see the tread, "Denky/McGinn uses an old creationist ploy."
Yes!
> > And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
> > knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time has
> > come for you to shit or get off the pot.
Let's not dilly-dally around, Roger. Answer the questions. And don't
take all day about it.
Whata Fool
>
>"Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
>news:wJOdnc6V5P8FOePV...@comcast.com...
>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
>>>> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
>>>> substantiates your response to this first question.
>>>
>>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>>> answered . . .
>>
>> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
>> responses especially informative.
>>
>
>It is just you.
No, Pat, any response other than a civil discussion of errors
or omissions is an insolence, and in a moderated group would be
returned to the sender.
> Reasoned responses to kooks are a waste of keystrokes.
>Kooks are here to be mocked.
Roger is one of the more sane kooks, he does provide some
good temperature data, but misapplies that data in a biased way.
Today was a beautiful clear air July 16th, after starting
out with fog, it was nice all day, but by 8 PM the temperature
had dropped from 91 down to 80, no breeze, but it was delightful
outside, a little stuffy in a closed up house.
I expect more 90 degree days in the next 2 months, but
so far there has been less than the average over the last 80 years.
Note that it doesn't have to get warmer for Roger to pull
out some GW warming, as long as the nights are not as cold, the days
can be cooler and it still looks like warming.
This will be the last response to a fruitcake.
f-newguy
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5db5ac01-ab31-48e7...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 3:06 pm, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> > The fact is you have no peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 has any effect
> > at all on atmospheric temperatures
>
> Other than the several hundred peer reviewed references we have provided
> you over the last 3 years that show exactly that?
====================
It's regrettable you are unable to provide us direct access to your
imagination.
===================
You sound more like a 'bot every day, Claude.
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
You're the one who can't answer the question. Why didn't the loss of so
much CO2 stop the cooling? Your "theory" says it should have.
f-newguy
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:eeot74dslkvq5dss4...@4ax.com...
> Must be Al Gorski, the seer.
> Otherwise you only have uncertain ice cores, which are proven to show
> smeared
> data or wrong data now.
Ice cores from the Ordovician? LOL
> In opposite to this, you AGWs deny CO2 hard fact measurements since 1800
> that
> show a much more higher concentration than today.
Cite?
> You are so backwards.
Heh. Sure, Pete.
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
>>news:wJOdnc6V5P8FOePV...@comcast.com...
>>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
>>>>> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
>>>>> substantiates your response to this first question.
>>>>
>>>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>>>> answered . . .
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
>>> responses especially informative.
>>>
>>
>>It is just you.
>
>
> No, Pat, any response other than a civil discussion of errors
> or omissions is an insolence, and in a moderated group would be
> returned to the sender.
Pat?
>> Reasoned responses to kooks are a waste of keystrokes.
>>Kooks are here to be mocked.
>
>
> Roger is one of the more sane kooks, he does provide some
> good temperature data, but misapplies that data in a biased way.
>
>
> Today was a beautiful clear air July 16th, after starting
> out with fog, it was nice all day, but by 8 PM the temperature
> had dropped from 91 down to 80, no breeze, but it was delightful
> outside, a little stuffy in a closed up house.
>
>
> I expect more 90 degree days in the next 2 months, but
> so far there has been less than the average over the last 80 years.
>
> Note that it doesn't have to get warmer for Roger to pull
> out some GW warming, as long as the nights are not as cold, the days
> can be cooler and it still looks like warming.
>
>
> This will be the last response to a fruitcake.
Gonna run away from your Ordovician blunder, I see.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Must be Al Gorski, the seer.
> Otherwise you only have uncertain ice cores, which are proven to show
> smeared data or wrong data now.
> 1800 that show a much more higher concentration than today.
As usual, Peter Muehlbauer has nothing but lies. lol
Ouroboros_Rex
Ouroboros_Rex
Can't refute a single word, eh? lol
You really are a nothing.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>> answered . . .
>
> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
> responses especially informative.
ROFLMAO
Ouroboros_Rex
> "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:wJOdnc6V5P8FOePV...@comcast.com...
>>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental
>>>>> data that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>>>
>>>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>>>> answered . . .
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just me Roger, but I don't find your "kook-a-doodle-doo"
>>> responses especially informative.
>>>
>>
>> It is just you.
>
>
> No, Pat, any response other than a civil discussion of errors
> or omissions is an insolence,
Then maybe you should quit making that your stock in trade. lol
Ouroboros_Rex
Another idiot who can't read email headers speaks! lol
Ouroboros_Rex
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>> answered . . .
>>
>
translation: drooooool
Ouroboros_Rex
> On Jul 16, 10:34 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>> answered . . .
>
> One can only wonder why you are so reluctant to discuss it.
Answered two days ago, ridiculous fraudboy.
Birdog
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:g5nn2m$vgp$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Interpretation: No, I cannot! Damn it man, AGW is religion, not science,
and thus is to be acepted on faith! This logic shit has no place in
religion!
Ouroboros_Rex
Failed to read the rest of the thread, did you, idiot? lol
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder why it is that only whackos are able to see this evidence?
Perplexing.
John M.
> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have effects
> on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
> substantiates your response to this first question.
>
> knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time has
> come for you to shit or get off the pot.
Hey c-babe. Got a short memory, eh? I answered your question AND gave
you the references at least twice. So you won't be able to call me
anything other than 'Sir' from now on.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
Well, okay, sir whacko. Unfortunately your responses had nothing to
do with the question being asked.
Maybe you should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things,
like facts.
Lloyd
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> > "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> >news:a49t74h0ghea272rb...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> > >>One does not "prove" things in physical science
> > >><like one does in Mathematics.
>
> > >>The easy out for scientists but not for us in the vernacular. Try again
> > >>oh un-scientific one.
>
> > > I'll help Roger on this, there are proofs in mathematics,
> > > but in science, there can be facts, but in place of proofs, it
> > > is possible to "rule out" different aspects of a theoretical premise.
>
> > > It is not possible to rule out CO2 absorbing and re-emitting
> > > Infra-Red radiation.
>
> > > But compared to water vapor and other climate and weather processes
> > > in nature, CO2 amounts to next to zilch.
>
> > Why did the planet cool down when CO2 was cut almost in half in the late
> > Ordovician,
>
> Must be Al Gorski, the seer.
> Otherwise you only have uncertain ice cores, which are proven to show smeared
> data or wrong data now.
Proven? Then cite the scientific journal article.
> In opposite to this, you AGWs deny CO2 hard fact measurements since 1800 that
> show a much more higher concentration than today.
When? Not in human history.
> You are so backwards.
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of coursed it's a religion. They have their "True Believers" Dr.
David Suzuki (one of the High Priests of Global Warming along with his
buddies Al Gore and Maurice Strong) wrote one of their holy books..
"The Sacred Balance"
They worship the goddess Gaia ("Mother Earth" We had a bunch of
them get together near here for a tree hugging fest. And some of them
set up an altar and held a pagan ceremony sacrificing to Gaia and
handing out pamphlets about how we are guilty for Global Warming,
insulting the goddess Gaia lol (It wasn't just a Gaia thing.. there
were other pagans holding their ceremonies too.. worhshipping "The
Goddess", not cecessarily Gaia, so it was in general a pagan fest not
just Global Warming pagans.
Best regards, Cato
Whata Fool
>
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>> What happened to all the CO2? Is the geologic record precise
>> enough to say the Earth cooled after the CO2 vanished mysteriously, or
>> could the Earth have cooled and 900 years later the CO2 was absorbed
>> by the ocean.
>>
>> This seems to be another question the AGW Whackos refuse to answer.
>
>You're the one who can't answer the question. Why didn't the loss of so
>much CO2 stop the cooling? Your "theory" says it should have.
You are confused, the only way CO2 can have much of an effect
is if it were in concentrations comparable to water vapor, and it isn't,
and won't ever be, there isn't enough carbon for that.
If your fanatical response to every message contrary to Gore
worship is a result of fear, then relax, everything will be ok.
Rather than pooh-pooh the idea of faith, finding something
you can have faith in, we hate to see you in fear of the sky falling.
There is not an exact relationship between CO2 and any other
events or situations, I don't know what the CO2 concentration was
for the last 20,000 years. but there obviously has been major warming
going on over the entire period, but it has apparently stopped, the
temperatures have actually been very stable over the last 200 years,
and we should all pray it stays that way.
I don't attend church, but I do have some faith, and consider
hoping and praying an important part of keeping a beneficial outlook
on things.
Don't worry, the sky is not falling.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor desperate denky, he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies... lol
Of course, he had no problem seeing it - then lying and running - when it
was first posted:
Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:33 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 8:56 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data
>>>>> that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>>>>> And hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had 20 years and who
>>>>> knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The time
>>>>> has come for you to shit or get off the pot.
>>
>>>> Poor denky here has to deny decades of research that has verified
>>>> what has been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are
>>>> all as mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
>>
>>> Answer the questions you evasive twit.
>>
>> Sure, not a problem. Let's see who's the evasive twit. lol
>>
>> http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF
>>
>> See those big gaps labeled CO2? That's heat energy being held back
>> from escaping the atmosphere.
>
> No. I think you're delusional. Why not spell it out for us.
>
>
>> Just one of literally thousands upon thousands of
>> data supporting the AGW hypothesis.
>
> Obvious propaganda.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor desperate denky - he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies.... lol
Ouroboros_Rex
> On Jul 17, 11:50 am, "Birdog" <ho...@aol.net> wrote:
>> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:g5nn2m$vgp$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>> On Jul 16, 10:34 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 16, 8:52 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
>>>>>> effects on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental
>>>>>> data that substantiates your response to this first question.
>>
>>>>> This dumb question has been answered and answered and answered and
>>>>> answered . . .
>>
>>>> One can only wonder why you are so reluctant to discuss it.
>>
>>> Answered two days ago, ridiculous fraudboy.
>>
>> Interpretation: No, I cannot! Damn it man, AGW is religion, not
>> science, and thus is to be acepted on faith! This logic shit has no
>> place in religion!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Of coursed it's a religion.
With satellites, just like the fundies! lol
They have their "True Believers" Dr.
> David Suzuki (one of the High Priests of Global Warming along with his
> buddies Al Gore and Maurice Strong) wrote one of their holy books..
> "The Sacred Balance"
> They worship the goddess Gaia ("Mother Earth" We had a bunch of
> them get together near here for a tree hugging fest. And some of them
> set up an altar and held a pagan ceremony sacrificing to Gaia and
> handing out pamphlets about how we are guilty for Global Warming,
> insulting the goddess Gaia lol (It wasn't just a Gaia thing.. there
> were other pagans holding their ceremonies too.. worhshipping "The
> Goddess", not cecessarily Gaia, so it was in general a pagan fest not
> just Global Warming pagans.
>
> Best regards, Cato
You boys live a very rich fantasy life. Pagan global warming rituals now!
How exciting!
I suggest you seek help.
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -
We live a rich fantasy life?? We aren't the ones that subscribe to
that pagan religion. Don't you think that the people that believe in
that pagan Gaia religion and hold those ceremonies are the ones living
in a fantasy world???
Make sure to buy Dr. Suzukis's book "The Sacred Balance". He talks
about things like Wicca's four elements,, Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
And the goddess Gaia is mentioned several times.
He is always rambling on in his TV show "The Nature of Things"
about how we are destroying the earth and how we are heating up the
earth...
You're Global Warming buddies Al Gore, Dr. David Suzuki and Maurice
Strong are three of the Global Warming movement's high priests.
Here... you can order your own Goddess Gaia statue and set up your
own little pagan altar in your own home to worship her. Have fun with
your Global Warming Gaia believing pagan friends.
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who are the ones living in a fantasy world ??????
Here are some words from a modern day pagan who climbed high in the
Canadian government.
"........Pagans revere nature. Often you will find Pagans at the
forefront of environmental concerns, such is our love of Mother Earth.
Paganism is not just a nature religion but a natural religion, which
is as old as mankind and its traditions are still being rediscovered.
Pagans see the divine as immanent in the whole of life and the
universe in every tree, plant, animal and object, man and woman and in
the dark side of life as much as in the light. Pagans live their lives
attuned to the cycles of nature, the seasons, life and death. Pagans
regard the divine as female as well as male and therefore there is a
Goddess as well as a God. The Goddess represents all that is female
and the God represents all that is male. But because nature is seen as
female, the Goddess has a wider meaning. Often called Mother Earth, or
Gaia, she is seen as the ‘Creatrix’ and sustainer of life, the mother
of us all, which makes all the creatures on the planet our siblings.
The taking of a creature and its subsequent torture and killing is
therefore totally abhorrent to us.
Historically, many pagan cultures did kill animals as offerings to
their gods, as many cultures still do, but the meat from the animal
would be used in a celebratory meal rather than left to rot and
wasted. Modern pagans are likely to seek out organic meat for their
own celebratory meals, or will often be vegetarian. They are extremely
unlikely to be involved in a hack and slash killing of an animal.
Western Pagans have no fixed temples in which to worship (apart from
Hindus), but instead we (usually) make a circle around themselves (or
form ourselves into a circle) in a room, or in a clearing, or on a
beach, or find a naturally occurring circle, such as a grove, or use
one of the ancient stone circles........"
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment (and a Pagan herself)
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate
change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and
equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/gaia-is-pagan-global-warming-is-a-scam/
John M.
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> On Jul 16, 10:09 am, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 11:24 am, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
> > > "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > >news:6fa80661-a296-4c6f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Jul 15, 9:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Why do you believe increases in atmospheric CO2 can/will have
> > > > > effects
> > > > > on atmospheric temperatures? Show us the experimental data that
> > > > > substantiates your response to this first question.
>
> > > > > knows how many billions of dollars formulate a response. The
> > > > > time has
> > > > > come for you to shit or get off the pot.
>
> > > > what has
> > > > been known for over a century. Apparently he thinks we are all as
> > > > mind-numbingly stupid as he is. lol
>
> > > Answer the questions you evasive twit.
>
> > > Why should he? To give you another chance to squawk and bluster? You
> > > *are*
> > > a waste of time.
>
> > Simple. To shut us up and prove your agw theory once and for all. But
> > you can't prove it. can ya?
>
> It is the height of ignorance to ask for a proof.
> One does not "prove" things in physical science
> <like one does in Mathematics.
>
> The easy out for scientists but not for us in the vernacular. Try again
> oh un-scientific one.
To save you reading loads of stuff that will likely go way over your
"vernacular" head, here's the important bit from the link that Thomas
Lee gave you in his reply to your post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term 'mathematical' physics is also sometimes used in a special
sense, to distinguish research aimed at studying and solving problems
inspired by physics within a mathematically rigorous framework.
Mathematical physics in this sense covers a very broad area of topics
with the common feature that they blend pure mathematics and physics.
Although related to theoretical physics, 'mathematical' physics in
this sense emphasizes the mathematical rigour of the same type as
found in mathematics. On the other hand, theoretical physics
emphasizes the links to observations and experimental physics which
often requires theoretical physicists (and mathematical physicists in
the more general sense) to use heuristic, intuitive, and approximate
arguments. Such arguments are not considered rigorous by
mathematicians. Arguably, rigorous mathematical physics is closer to
mathematics, and theoretical physics is closer to physics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M.
It's a response bot, you ninny ;-) It doesn't distinguish between
subtle human concepts like truth and untruth :-(
John M.
Please explain why?
Whata Fool
The sky is falling, the sky is falling,
Run for your life,
Or buy a life preserver.
f-newguy
"John M." <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a822022d-ec24-4b1e...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Are you kidding? I doubt he ever looks at anything anyone posts in reply to
his stupid question. If he did he wouldn't understand it anyway.
Ouroboros_Rex
RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN AWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!! lol
John M.
> "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Err... I think I knew that. It just amuses me to post things he cannot
possibly compose an honest answer to.
Ouroboros_Rex
Which, of course, proves nothing about any pagan global warming rituals.
lol
Oh yeah, windfarmer, the liar who mislabeled an article as coming from
Business Week when it came from Canada BS Press. lol
Ouroboros_Rex
Or you're lying, whichever. lol
We aren't the ones that subscribe to
> that pagan religion. Don't you think that the people that believe in
> that pagan Gaia religion and hold those ceremonies are the ones living
> in a fantasy world???
> Make sure to buy Dr. Suzukis's book "The Sacred Balance". He talks
> about things like Wicca's four elements,, Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
They're not from Wicca, know-nothing.
> And the goddess Gaia is mentioned several times.
Who gives a damn. Show us he's a pagan, if you want to prove a point, and
you'll still have nothing.
> He is always rambling on in his TV show "The Nature of Things"
> about how we are destroying the earth and how we are heating up the
> earth...
Since that's happening, that's hardly a problem for him.
> You're
I'm what? lol
Global Warming buddies Al Gore, Dr. David Suzuki and Maurice
> Strong are three of the Global Warming movement's high priests.
The usual contentless k00kspew.
> Here... you can order your own Goddess Gaia statue and set up your
> own little pagan altar in your own home to worship her. Have fun with
> your Global Warming Gaia believing pagan friends.
>
> http://www.goddessgift.net/page10.html
ROFL That's your proof Suzuki, Gore and Strong worship Gaia?
Do they let you drive a car?
Ouroboros_Rex
I know, I'm bored. =)
Ouroboros_Rex
> "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>>> What happened to all the CO2? Is the geologic record
>>> precise enough to say the Earth cooled after the CO2 vanished
>>> mysteriously, or could the Earth have cooled and 900 years later
>>> the CO2 was absorbed
>>> by the ocean.
>>>
>>> This seems to be another question the AGW Whackos refuse to
>>> answer.
>>
>> You're the one who can't answer the question. Why didn't the loss
>> of so much CO2 stop the cooling? Your "theory" says it should have.
>
>
> You are confused, the only way CO2 can have much of an effect
> is if it were in concentrations comparable to water vapor, and it
> isn't, and won't ever be, there isn't enough carbon for that.
ROFL
" Even though all say N2 and O2 do not
radiate much IR, the entire AGW crowd to a man
will not admit that GHGs are what cool the air. "
That was you, right?
Yep.
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> "f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Gonna run away from your Ordovician blunder, I see.
>
>
> The sky is falling, the sky is falling,
>
> Run for your life,
>
>
> Or buy a life preserver.
Del Shannon had a song about you...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.hart/lyricss/shannon.html
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -
> > You're
>
> I'm what? lol
Oh... I was in a hurry and made a spelling mistake.... God... I'm
sorry.... please accept my apology...
(One of the far left and far right tactics... criticise ANY
mistake the opposition makes... )
ROFL That's your proof Suzuki, Gore and Strong worship Gaia?
They sleep in the same bed as the Gaia worshipers...if they don't
worship her... they certainly make use of Gaia and her worshipers..
they're allies fighting for the cause.
Read Suzuki's book....THE SACRED BALANCE where he talks about Gai
and the four pagan elements... Earth, Air, Fire and Water, and watch
a few episodes of his TV show... he is know for trying to brainwash
kids to push their parents in the "correct" direction.
Notice the use of the word "SACRED" in the title of his
book.
Whata Fool
I don't see what you are driving at, but if there are no typos
or brain short circuits in the above, it does show just how confused or
brainwashed the bunch of you nuts are.
William Asner had the same problem, I said GHGs, he said CO2,
is your remark above written with the assumption that CO2 is the only
GHG, or even that CO2 is a major GHG, or even that CO2 is 10 percent
of then total GHGs?
If I could just understand why you seem to use CO2 and GHGs
as if they are one and the same, when CO2 is such a small part of
the GHGs, I might even be willing to apologize for calling you nutts,
Nutts.
Ouroboros_Rex
My work here is done.
hanson
translates into "Ouroboros_Rex", the "king of tail devourers".
IOW he labels himself as the **"chief self-cocksucker"**, who is
seen here in his action: http://www.youporn.com/watch/59580
where he does his own Glo-Ball Warming.... before he wrote
in message news:g5odia$6nn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>Catoni wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 3:57 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>> Catoni wrote:
>>>> On Jul 17, 2:04 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>>>> Catoni wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 17, 11:50 am, "Birdog" <ho...@aol.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
ahahahahaha... and now you will return, full time, to what you
really like to do, aren't you, self-cocksucker ... Going back to
your pecu-*liar* penchant and aberrant proclivities, seen you
doing in http://www.youporn.com/watch/59580... ahahahaha...
>
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" wrote:
> If I could just understand why you seem to use CO2 and GHGs
> as if they are one and the same, when CO2 is such a small part of
> the GHGs, I might even be willing to apologize for calling you nutts,
> Nutts.
The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's and it is mostly GHG--CO2
to be exact. Why is it 450C there instead of freezing cold as your "theory"
would predict?
f-newguy
"f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote in message
news:F72dnQ_WX-2FQeLV...@supernews.com...
V for Vendicar
"Birdog" <ho...@aol.net> wrote
> Interpretation: No, I cannot! Damn it man, AGW is religion, not science,
> and thus is to be acepted on faith! This logic shit has no place in
> religion!
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
V for Vendicar
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Of coursed it's a religion. They have their "True Believers" Dr.
> David Suzuki (one of the High Priests of Global Warming along with his
> buddies Al Gore and Maurice Strong) wrote one of their holy books..
As scientists we are trained that measurement is the ultimate arbitor of
truth.
V for Vendicar
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca>
> We live a rich fantasy life?? We aren't the ones that subscribe to
> that pagan religion.
You are, it's the pagan religion of Denialism.
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> I wonder why it is that only whackos are able to see this evidence?
> Perplexing.
Well it's all in print, at your local college library. Why not jump on
your tricycle and peddle down to take a look for yousrelf?
We have provided you with hundreds of references, and links to the
articles.
We can only assume, they are invisible to you because either you don't
know how to use your computer, or that you refuse to read the references
that you have repeatedly demanded, and we have repeatedly provided.
DENK = LLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR