On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:41:00 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:03:25 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>> >> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
>> >> >> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
>> >> >> gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
>> >> >> temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
>> >> >> exists, and . . .
>> >> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>> >> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water
>> >> > dissolves MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>> >> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
>> >> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2
>> >> levels in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>> > What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
>> > millisecond?
>> > Oh, I see.
>> So, you're confusing reaction rates with the equilibrium constant.
>> They let you teach this stuff, huh? Poor victims.
>> >> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
>> >> concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> A new equilibrium isn't established instantly, Marvin. It takes time. > Sometimes a short time (say in s beaker), sometimes a very long time
> (say in the oceans).
> Do you think it happens instantaneously? Is that it?
Where did I say instantly? Where did you get this stupid "millisecond" canard? My Gawd, if that's the best you can do for a rebuttal, maybe you should give up being an advocate for your religion. This is so silly it amounts to a lie. I mean, damn, I've been saying that atmospheric CO2 levels lag mean global temperature by 800 years (due to deep ocean currents, mostly). Why the hell are you LYING that I said it happens in milliseconds?
I've never said it was even AT equilibrium, only that it would move TOWARDS it. There are parts of the ocean that are carbon sinks and parts of the ocean that are carbon sources. It just so happens that where the CURRENT CO2 data is taken, Mount Loa in Hawaii, is atop a live volcano on that lush green tropical island and is situated where the ocean giving up CO2.
The other end of the carbon graph is from a very old glacier that has hardly any life and is on a frozen continent and surrounded by a frigid ocean which is a carbon SINK.
BUT if you change the temperature of the oceans, you WILL change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is getting old, and you're being silly. Can't graph, making up lies that I said it happens in a millisecond... I mean, are you trying to make the AGW people look ignorant and dishonest?
> The other end of the carbon graph is from a very old glacier that has
> hardly any life and is on a frozen continent and surrounded by a frigid
> ocean which is a carbon SINK.
Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a >> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant. >> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
>> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
>> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
>> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
>"20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
>based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
>Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
>written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
Yes, perhaps some 40,000 are doing specific work on the problems, their potential mitigations, and short/long terem consequences. I like to include the people involved in the ancilitory effort that does the data collection from fielding hardware and software to performing the maintenance and monitoring. Ya have an engineering team work on the ocean buoys; they're involved in the science effort at their levels.
Temp and salinity hardware and the communications software is all part
of the liberal conspiracy to hand the world to the United Nations, all
because Marvin The Moron is smarter than actual scientists.
bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 6/6/2012 3:12 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:5 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> "20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
>> based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
>> Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
>> written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
>Well, shit. That settles it. We've had the democratic vote and it's now >"established science" that Marvin faked the data GISS published and is >lying about chemistry.
Huh, strange, someone "forgot" to mention that voting is part of the
Scientific Method that scientists use to describe directly observed
phenomena.
How about either you or Marvin go update that Wikipedia article to rectal(sic)fy that unfortunate oversight? Or is "Conservipedia" the
only people remaining who will let you update their Wiki? <smirk>
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Jun 6, 11:29=A0am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
>>> concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
>> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
>> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
>> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
>> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
>20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
"Einstein refuses to debate me! That means he's afraid 'cause he
knows I'm right!"
It's amusing how many letters Albert Einstein got from lunatic loons
like you that couldn't join the actual scientific research, publications,
symposiums, and debates because they were abject ignorant morons who
none-the-less demanded their intellectual superiors were some how wrong.
"erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 6, 3:14=A0pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 11:29=A0am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
>>> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
>>> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
>>> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
>>> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
>>> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
>> 20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
>> What does this tell you?
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
Have you ever tried to inform a Mormon cultist that horses were
*not* extant in North America when their loon cult leader Joseph
Smith claimed they were? I have. All science, all evidence shows
that these cult morons are wrong and there is *zero* reason for
their intellectual superiors to spend any time feeding their cult-
based lunacy.
> Have you ever tried to inform a Mormon cultist that horses were
> *not* extant in North America when their loon cult leader Joseph
> Smith claimed they were? I have. All science, all evidence shows
> that these cult morons are wrong and there is *zero* reason for
> their intellectual superiors to spend any time feeding their cult-
> based lunacy.
No, but a lot of us skeptics have tried to show global warming true believers that the VERY government data that they have used to "prove" there IS global warming, shows NO global warming for the past decade. And they all say the data they were just using as "proof" is now fake! So why, I ask, should their intellectual superiors waste time trying to break through that kind of cult-based ignorance? I'm sure it's not possible anyway.
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 11:29 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> > >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> > >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> > You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> > golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> > subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> > wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
> 20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
> What does this tell you?
It tells us the science is settled and has been for a long time.
"erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 11:29 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> > > >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> > > >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> > > You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> > > golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> > > subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> > > wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
> > 20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
> > What does this tell you?
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
> > L. Rice) wrote:
> > "20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
> > based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
> > Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
> > written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
> Well, shit. That settles it. We've had the democratic vote and it's now
> "established science" that Marvin faked the data GISS published and is
> lying about chemistry.
> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
> have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
> your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
> hypothesis is wrong. Period."
> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:41:00 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 8:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:03:25 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
> >> >> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> >> >> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
> >> >> >> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
> >> >> >> gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
> >> >> >> temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
> >> >> >> exists, and . . .
> >> >> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
> >> >> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water
> >> >> > dissolves MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
> >> >> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
> >> >> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2
> >> >> levels in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
> >> > What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
> >> > millisecond?
> >> > Oh, I see.
> >> So, you're confusing reaction rates with the equilibrium constant.
> >> They let you teach this stuff, huh? Poor victims.
> >> >> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> >> >> concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> > A new equilibrium isn't established instantly, Marvin. It takes time.
> > Sometimes a short time (say in s beaker), sometimes a very long time
> > (say in the oceans).
> > Do you think it happens instantaneously? Is that it?
> Where did I say instantly? Where did you get this stupid "millisecond"
> canard? My Gawd, if that's the best you can do for a rebuttal, maybe you
> should give up being an advocate for your religion. This is so silly it
> amounts to a lie. I mean, damn, I've been saying that atmospheric CO2
> levels lag mean global temperature by 800 years (due to deep ocean
> currents, mostly). Why the hell are you LYING that I said it happens in
> milliseconds?
> I've never said it was even AT equilibrium, only that it would move
> TOWARDS it. There are parts of the ocean that are carbon sinks and parts
> of the ocean that are carbon sources. It just so happens that where the
> CURRENT CO2 data is taken, Mount Loa in Hawaii, is atop a live volcano on
> that lush green tropical island and is situated where the ocean giving up
> CO2.
> The other end of the carbon graph is from a very old glacier that has
> hardly any life and is on a frozen continent and surrounded by a frigid
> ocean which is a carbon SINK.
> BUT if you change the temperature of the oceans, you WILL change the
> amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> This is getting old, and you're being silly. Can't graph, making up lies
> that I said it happens in a millisecond... I mean, are you trying to make
> the AGW people look ignorant and dishonest?
You said "I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels in the atmosphere
is only a function of temperature."
That's totally false.
First, CO2 levels depend on the amount of CO2. You seem to think any
additional CO2 immediately dissolves in the oceans. If so, why is the
level up 40%? Second, the temperature dependence is correct, but only
after equilibrium is established. That's the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation
-- Kp is a function of T. But it's a dependence -- T doesn't dictate
the amount. G-H just shows how the amount (Kp) will change as the T
changes.
> > Have you ever tried to inform a Mormon cultist that horses were
> > *not* extant in North America when their loon cult leader Joseph
> > Smith claimed they were? I have. All science, all evidence shows
> > that these cult morons are wrong and there is *zero* reason for
> > their intellectual superiors to spend any time feeding their cult-
> > based lunacy.
> No, but a lot of us skeptics have tried to show global warming true
> believers that the VERY government data that they have used to "prove"
> there IS global warming, shows NO global warming for the past decade.
> And they all say the data they were just using as "proof" is now fake!
> So why, I ask, should their intellectual superiors waste time trying to
> break through that kind of cult-based ignorance? I'm sure it's not
> possible anyway.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html "And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the
1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the
1970s. 2010 tied for the hottest year on record. The 12-month running
average global temperature broke the record three times in 2010,
according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data.
Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still
coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc.
Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not
magically stopped warming. Those who argue otherwise are confusing
short-term noise with long-term global warming."
bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 6/6/2012 11:26 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> Have you ever tried to inform a Mormon cultist that horses were
>> *not* extant in North America when their loon cult leader Joseph
>> Smith claimed they were? I have. All science, all evidence shows
>> that these cult morons are wrong and there is *zero* reason for
>> their intellectual superiors to spend any time feeding their cult-
>> based lunacy.
>No, but a lot of us skeptics have tried to show global warming true >believers that the VERY government data that they have used to "prove" >there IS global warming, shows NO global warming for the past decade.
You have no idea what Rush Limbaugh is talking about.
Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not magically stopped warming.
Those who argue otherwise are confusing
short-term noise with long-term global warming
In article <VdGdncfzbspyPVLSnZ2dnUVZ_qedn...@posted.sonicnet>,
Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>All scientists are idiots to you right wing brainless cult morons. The
>fact that *you* don't understand science means everyone else is an idiot,.
>huh, rightard?
Always remember: Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make
it wrong.
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:26:58 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:41:00 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jun 5, 8:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:03:25 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>> >> >> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
>> >> >> >> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
>> >> >> >> gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
>> >> >> >> temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
>> >> >> >> exists, and . . .
>> >> >> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>> >> >> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water
>> >> >> > dissolves MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>> >> >> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only
>> >> >> a function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that
>> >> >> CO2 levels in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>> >> > What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
>> >> > millisecond?
>> >> > Oh, I see.
>> >> So, you're confusing reaction rates with the equilibrium constant.
>> >> They let you teach this stuff, huh? Poor victims.
>> >> >> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish
>> >> >> a concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium
>> >> >> constant.
>> > A new equilibrium isn't established instantly, Marvin. It takes
>> > time. Sometimes a short time (say in s beaker), sometimes a very long
>> > time (say in the oceans).
>> > Do you think it happens instantaneously? Is that it?
>> Where did I say instantly? Where did you get this stupid "millisecond"
>> canard? My Gawd, if that's the best you can do for a rebuttal, maybe
>> you should give up being an advocate for your religion. This is so
>> silly it amounts to a lie. I mean, damn, I've been saying that
>> atmospheric CO2 levels lag mean global temperature by 800 years (due to
>> deep ocean currents, mostly). Why the hell are you LYING that I said it
>> happens in milliseconds?
>> I've never said it was even AT equilibrium, only that it would move
>> TOWARDS it. There are parts of the ocean that are carbon sinks and
>> parts of the ocean that are carbon sources. It just so happens that
>> where the CURRENT CO2 data is taken, Mount Loa in Hawaii, is atop a
>> live volcano on that lush green tropical island and is situated where
>> the ocean giving up CO2.
>> The other end of the carbon graph is from a very old glacier that has
>> hardly any life and is on a frozen continent and surrounded by a frigid
>> ocean which is a carbon SINK.
>> BUT if you change the temperature of the oceans, you WILL change the
>> amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>> This is getting old, and you're being silly. Can't graph, making up
>> lies that I said it happens in a millisecond... I mean, are you trying
>> to make the AGW people look ignorant and dishonest?
> You said "I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels in the atmosphere
> is only a function of temperature."
> That's totally false.
No, it is not.
What is the equilibrium constant for CO2 in the ocean with carbonate rocks?
Well, there is so much Calcium ion in the ocean that it is pretty much unity for the products and reactants... and you don't include solids in an equilibrium constant... Ergo... K_eq = [CO2_ocean], where [CO2] is the concentration of carbon dioxide, and that is ONLY a function of sea temperature
Now, what is the equilibrium constant for the CO2 in the air and oceans?
K_eq = [CO2_atm]/[CO2_ocean] But [CO2_ocean] is FIXED by temperature alone, so not only is this ratio fixed by temperature, but the AMOUNTS are fixed by
> First, CO2 levels depend on the amount of CO2. You seem to think any
> additional CO2 immediately dissolves in the oceans. If so, why is the
> level up 40%? Second, the temperature dependence is correct, but only
> after equilibrium is established. That's the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation
> -- Kp is a function of T. But it's a dependence -- T doesn't dictate
> the amount. G-H just shows how the amount (Kp) will change as the T
> changes.
Why is it "up" 40%? Mount Loa data only goes back to about 1980, and the Mount Loa data is only up 11%. You're probably comparing it to ice core data or something, and I've explained many times that using data from a tropical island where CO2 is being emitted by colder ocean water warming to CO2 trapped in glaciers on a frozen continent that is surrounded by cold ocean waters that are a CO2 sink is bogus.
CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere has been around a VERY long time. Your candard about milliseconds is absurd, and at any rate, the temperature will SET the point to where the reaction is progressing.
Keep in mind that we KNOW that about 100 GtC are exchanged between atmosphere and ocean each year, and that rate will increase if it is out of balance. We know that we're only adding about 5 GtC a year. We're talking about a small perturbation to the system.
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:23:46 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:31 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 6/6/2012 3:12 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L.
>> > Rice) wrote:
>> > "20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
>> > based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report Four,
>> > for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers written by
>> > over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
>> Well, shit. That settles it. We've had the democratic vote and it's now
>> "established science" that Marvin faked the data GISS published and is
>> lying about chemistry.
>> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title
>> you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many
>> papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
>> hypothesis is wrong. Period."
>> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:40:31 AM UTC+10, Marvin the Martian wrote:
...
> Why is it "up" 40%? Mount Loa data only goes back to about 1980, and the > Mount Loa data is only up 11%. You're probably comparing it to ice core > data or something, and I've explained many times that using data from a
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
--
Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate. They aren't
interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're
interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say
anything to try to bring this about. [O]nce you've shown that what
they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend
a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart.
-- Mark Hoofnagle, http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
"R Kym Horsell" <kymhors...@gmail.com> posted one of his AGW "life skills" lessons, which he does not heed
but he wrote:
[O]nce you've shown that what they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart.
hanson wrote:
Well Horsey, why then are you defending that AGW crap?
Here, for your benefit, are such "deceptive, or prima-facie absurd" statements, straight out of the Green Bible, from your own AGW FUD masters, who state:
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change
= provides equality in the world."
= -- Christine Stewart, Canada Enviro Minister.
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
= we will be doing the right thing".
= -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion
. UN-gift.
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public
= by making things bigger and more dangerous
= than they really are."
-- Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni,
. Halifax.
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then
= make it up on the spot... for the mass-media today...
= the truth is irrelevant."
-- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to
. Strategy.
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ...
= it only matters what people believe is true".
= -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace
9 "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 then hit the big time as a global
. warmer)
Listen, why is it that those hysterical AGWarmers aka
_Always Green Whores_ do NOT understand that
________________________________________
|| Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
_ Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
_ Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
|| Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing filthier then an Environmentalist.
__EPA stands for "Evil, Perverted Activism__:
______ De-fund EPA -- DEFUND EPA _____
_____ News Flash -- 1-May-2012 _______
Al Armendariz, the EPA bureaucrat who was out to
_CRUCIFY_ companies that paid his fat salary has
_crucified_ himself now, according to the rules of
EPA with its totally __Evil, Perverted Activism__:
______ De-fund EPA -- DEFUND EPA _____
<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
> Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked
> and compare that with "unfaked" data?
Dr. Hansen faked his data so well, it matches observation 30 years
later. LOL!
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:21:25 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> >> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
> > Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked and
> > compare that with "unfaked" data?
> Goddamnit!! That's been done about 10 times already. You've been IGNORING > IT.
How about you actuall answer the question? Be the first on the
planet to do that.
> Look at the GISS data and look at your 'observable' on your graph.
What data is faked?
> The GISS data is already CRAP,
How do you "know" that?
> but it doesn't support Hansen's conclusion in that graph.
<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/12 7:21 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> > On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> >>> >> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
> >> > Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked and
> >> > compare that with "unfaked" data?
> > Goddamnit!! That's been done about 10 times already. You've been IGNORING
> > IT.
> Not to the satisfaction of anybody but some climate science deniers.
As noted previously, I would *LOVE* to see evidence that shows any
climatologist has faked her or his data, or in any way falsified
here or his data.
Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley
><sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
>> Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked
>> and compare that with "unfaked" data?
>Dr. Hansen faked his data so well, it matches observation 30 years
>later. LOL!
ROFL! Somebody alert the James Randi Foundation, that qualifies.
> Desertphile<Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley
>> <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>>> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
>>> Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked
>>> and compare that with "unfaked" data?
>> Dr. Hansen faked his data so well, it matches observation 30 years
>> later. LOL!
> ROFL! Somebody alert the James Randi Foundation, that qualifies.
Perfect example, Mr, intellectual superiority. I'm sure Hansen will be the judge of who proves his data fake, just as professional liar "the amazing Randi" is the judge of his fake million dollar "contest".
I'm not surprised that a professional liar is your hero.
