Another pin pricks the phony global warming balloon...

[Lord Valve]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/

BUSTED! It is to laugh...


Fuck off, creeps.

[The Repair Guy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

"In April 2009, despite having no formal education
in the field of climate science,[6] Morano founded
and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com,
a website sponsored by the Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow

"The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
(CFACT) is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization founded in 1985 that
advocates for free-market solutions to
environmental issues,[2][3] but has increasingly
turned to climate denial."

The Repair Guy

[Lord Valve]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:19:36 AM UTC-6, The Repair Guy wrote:

SO FUCKING WHAT??

Are the articles cited accurate? YOU certainly
wouldn't know, as you have LESS knowledge than
the people who wrote those articles. The only
shot you've got is to try to impeach the site
owner and then link to Wikipedia, a *known*
source of leftwing bullshit.

Shut up.

[The Repair Guy]

Lord Valve <ghost....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:19:36 AM UTC-6, The Repair Guy wrote:
>> Lord Valve <FuckYo...@ss.commie> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/
>> >
>> >BUSTED! It is to laugh...
>> >Fuck off, creeps.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
>>
>> "In April 2009, despite having no formal education
>> in the field of climate science,[6] Morano founded
>> and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com,
>> a website sponsored by the Committee for a
>> Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
>>
>> "The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
>> (CFACT) is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3)
>> nonprofit organization founded in 1985 that
>> advocates for free-market solutions to
>> environmental issues,[2][3] but has increasingly
>> turned to climate denial."
>>
>> The Repair Guy
>
>SO FUCKING WHAT??

So it's the same tactic you use, chumley -
ignore the article, attack the source as fake.

>Are the articles cited accurate? YOU certainly
>wouldn't know, as you have LESS knowledge
>than the people who wrote those articles.

Claiming your opinion as fact... why doesn't
that surprise me...

>The only shot you've got is to try to impeach the
>site owner

Which is the same tactic you invariably use.

>and then link to Wikipedia, a *known*
>source of leftwing bullshit.

So name an unbiased source. I'll wait.

Watch the documentary "Merchants of Doubt".
Morano talks quite a bit about his strategy,
about climatedepot.com, etc. It's not real
inspirational, except maybe from a con man's
perspective.

>Shut up.

Maybe right after you do. Deal?

The Repair Guy

[Defiant]

Objectively, I do believe the earth is warming to some
extent. How much is natural cyclical variation and how
much is caused by human activity is the question. The
problem is that the left-wing climate zealots have been
manipulating the data for so long to prove they are "right"
that said data is completely useless for actually determining
the real amount and rate of temp rise, cause and effect,
etc. In their zeal for social change they have shot
their own foots off. Now, nobody believes *ANY* of the
data, nor do they believe any published "results" based
on the data because it's all crap.

Congrats on another fail, leftards. And don't forget to...

Fuck off, losers.

[rplea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:12:32 PM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:19:36 AM UTC-6, The Repair Guy wrote:

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
> >
> > "In April 2009, despite having no formal education
> > in the field of climate science,[6] Morano founded
> > and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com,
> > a website sponsored by the Committee for a
> > Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
> >
> > "The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
> > (CFACT) is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3)
> > nonprofit organization founded in 1985 that
> > advocates for free-market solutions to
> > environmental issues,[2][3] but has increasingly
> > turned to climate denial."
> >
> > The Repair Guy
>
> SO FUCKING WHAT??
>
> Are the articles cited accurate?

No, they're laughable. More links to climatedepot, and links to an entity called joannenova.com.au run by a person who appears to be even less knowledgable about the various sciences that enter into the discussion than Morani does.

> YOU certainly wouldn't know, as you have LESS knowledge than
> the people who wrote those articles.

I do. I have more knowledge than those propagandists. You don't like that, but you know damned well that it's true. If you're going to turn this into an argument about knowledge, expertise, and credentials, you're on the losing end of that one. So sad!

[Lord Valve]

What's sad is true believers like you who can't
tolerate challenges to their religion. Wake UP,
you bewildered piss-pot:

THE
DATA
IS
COOKED!

These AGW fools have been busted for lying
so many times it's gone beyond hilarious to
downright scary, as wars may likely be fought
over the climate change con-game. Fucking
GRIFTERS is what they - and YOU - are. And
fortunately, more and more people are becoming
hip to your shady game. You don't give a shit
abut "the environment," you're just trying to
get paid. In the process, you intend to usurp
the power of this nation and subvert it to your
globalist agenda.

Be aware that a hundred million of us intend to
kill you for it if it begins to look like you may
be successful. We're serious as a heart attack -
and your ultimate downfall will be that you don't
believe we'll stop you.

Bad move, ex-lax.


Fuck off, deluded creeps!

[Lord Valve]

http://ipatriot.com/latest-liberal-lies-climate-change-advocate-hypocrisy/

[rplea...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:45:55 AM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:

> What's sad is true believers like you who can't
> tolerate challenges to their religion. Wake UP,
> you bewildered piss-pot:
>
> THE
> DATA
> IS
> COOKED!

Ummm, nope. You're out of your league, bubba. You don't have a clue, and you're so tightly wrapped in that bubble of yours that you never will.

>
> These AGW fools have been busted for lying
> so many times it's gone beyond hilarious to
> downright scary, as wars may likely be fought
> over the climate change con-game.

In your dreams. When every other nation accepts the science, and most people in the US do as well, who's going to be fighting such wars? You and your fellow keyboard warriors? It is to laugh.

> Fucking
> GRIFTERS is what they - and YOU - are. And
> fortunately, more and more people are becoming
> hip to your shady game.

See above. You're wrong - more and more people are accepting the science.

> You don't give a shit
> abut "the environment," you're just trying to
> get paid.

I'm retired, fool. I have no financial dog in this whatsoever.

If you want to follow the money, take a look at who is paying for the agitprop that has you sucked in.

> In the process, you intend to usurp
> the power of this nation and subvert it to your
> globalist agenda.

Oh, so fucking dramatic!
The power of this nation is in the hands of the people, as ol' Abe Lincoln said. See above for where they stand.

>
> Be aware that a hundred million of us intend to
> kill you for it if it begins to look like you may
> be successful. We're serious as a heart attack -
> and your ultimate downfall will be that you don't
> believe we'll stop you.

Aren't you the guy who has claimed on multiple occasions that you've never made a death threat on this newsgroup? Well, there ya go with another one. Not only that, you're going to recruit a hundred million fellow keyboard warriors to help you complete the task.

Tsk, tsk. I'm surprised you didn't work the phrase "fire and fury like the world has never seen" into your rant. I'd be about as credible as the other guy who used it.

You've become a full-blown conspiracy theorist like poor Benj. I'm sure Alex Jones will welcome you with open arms. What's next, trutherism? Poor lad.
>
> ex-lax.

Yeah, that might help you. Maybe going back to taking those Vicodins, too. One way or another, you're badly in need of a chill.

HTH

[benj]

On 8/10/2017 11:38 PM, rplea...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:45:55 AM UTC-4, Lord Valve wrote:
>
>> What's sad is true believers like you who can't
>> tolerate challenges to their religion. Wake UP,
>> you bewildered piss-pot:
>>
>> THE
>> DATA
>> IS
>> COOKED!
>
> Ummm, nope. You're out of your league, bubba. You don't have a clue, and you're so tightly wrapped in that bubble of yours that you never will.

Sorry rp, but I'm a scientist and you are not. The data is cooked and
the media lie their asses off. That's all anyone with any intelligence
needs to know.

>> These AGW fools have been busted for lying
>> so many times it's gone beyond hilarious to
>> downright scary, as wars may likely be fought
>> over the climate change con-game.
>
> In your dreams. When every other nation accepts the science, and most people in the US do as well, who's going to be fighting such wars? You and your fellow keyboard warriors? It is to laugh.

You mean when all the fraudsters world-wide all sing from the same hymn
book that is "proof" that they are all telling the truth? How dumb are
you? In the Yoo Kay a COURT OF LAW found Algore's propaganda film filled
with lies. How much more proof do you want?

>> Fucking
>> GRIFTERS is what they - and YOU - are. And
>> fortunately, more and more people are becoming
>> hip to your shady game.
>
> See above. You're wrong - more and more people are accepting the science.

What you want is more and more people accepting your lies without
checking the science. Science shows CO2 story is total fabrication.

>> You don't give a shit
>> abut "the environment," you're just trying to
>> get paid.
>
> I'm retired, fool. I have no financial dog in this whatsoever.

So that means you don't drive anymore, don't use electricity or any of
the products of modern civilization that require energy to make. In
other words you are living on other people's money so you don't care how
much of it is stolen from you by a fake tax?

> If you want to follow the money, take a look at who is paying for the agitprop that has you sucked in.

Who pays for support for science projects? Who pays to support
propaganda organizations that spread fraud as if it were science. Who
provides the motivation for politicians to sell out? How did Algore go
from poor to having enough cash to blast CO2 all over the world? Did his
propaganda work have anything to do with that? Of course not, right?

>> In the process, you intend to usurp
>> the power of this nation and subvert it to your
>> globalist agenda.
>
> Oh, so fucking dramatic!
> The power of this nation is in the hands of the people, as ol' Abe Lincoln said. See above for where they stand.

Just deny the globalist agenda. You can't. All those countries hoping to
score a big slice of the trillion dollar energy tax are in on it. Don't
insult our intelligence. The "Paris accords" are not between U.S. States
you fraudster.

>> Be aware that a hundred million of us intend to
>> kill you for it if it begins to look like you may
>> be successful. We're serious as a heart attack -
>> and your ultimate downfall will be that you don't
>> believe we'll stop you.
>
> Aren't you the guy who has claimed on multiple occasions that you've never made a death threat on this newsgroup? Well, there ya go with another one. Not only that, you're going to recruit a hundred million fellow keyboard warriors to help you complete the task.

Who worries about Valvo. Libs are the blind leading the blind. The only
problem with you is that you wander right into the ditch you try to take
as many who are stupid enough to follow you in there with you.

> Tsk, tsk. I'm surprised you didn't work the phrase "fire and fury like the world has never seen" into your rant. I'd be about as credible as the other guy who used it.
>
> You've become a full-blown conspiracy theorist like poor Benj. I'm sure Alex Jones will welcome you with open arms. What's next, trutherism? Poor lad.

So Mr. Big mouth know it all and spokesman for the left wing
establishment fraudsters, explain the following scientific FACT taken no
less from your own "adjusted" cooked data by Dr. Hansen the Godfather of
global warming.

http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam/40-70GISS.htm

There you have it, Mr. Big Mouth. 1940-1879, thirty YEARS of falling
climate temperatures and CO2 going up the whole time. Maybe all you
warmballers need to switch your "climate change" to the coming Ice age.
Does Ice cause forest fires (now called wildfires for some reason) like
CO2 does?

Since you know it all and are sure science is "settled" give me your
"explanation": for the above science facts. You got nothing but bluster
and lies. And we all know that you will ignore these data and pretend
you never heard them. Next time you will be calling me a conspiracy
theorist to try to cover up the real science again.


As for conspiracies How can you be "retired" and also born yesterday?
I take it you never heard of politicians getting together to commit
fraud and crimes. Certainly, there are no liberals in jail and no
Democrats Fer SURE!

> Yeah, that might help you. Maybe going back to taking those Vicodins, too. One way or another, you're badly in need of a chill.

What you need is like ALL libs is to get OFF the Vicodins and start
eating healthy again. Maybe it can stop the deterioration of your brain.

I'll wait right here for your answer to the science showing CO2 has
nothing to do with warming.

[rplea...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:11:47 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 11:38 PM, rplea...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry rp, but I'm a scientist and you are not.

Oh benj, benj, benj. Your memory is slipping. We did this dance years ago on the bass newsgroup.

Ph. D., physics. Worked in research institutions in government, private industry, and academia for nearly 50 years. Well over 160 publications in refereed scientific journal, including many that impact directly on areas related to climate change: spectroscopy, radiative transfer, atmospheric turbulence, blah blah. You can look it up.

To refresh: you tried to tell me back then that CO2 doesn't absorb 300-K blackbody radiation. I certainly hope you've looked at the blackbody radiation curve and the wavelengths of CO2 absorption bands seriously since then and have disabused yourself of that notion.

So, benj, how many papers have you written about these things? Ever do original research at the Ph. D. level?

I'll understand if it takes you a while to extract your foot from your mouth. :D

[benj]

Gosh your cred sounds just like mine. Sure you didn't copy mine?

[benj]

On 08/18/2017 10:46 PM, rplea...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry. Stupid Thunderbird with rewrap button right near send! Idiots.

Anyway where was I? I certainly don't recall any discussion of 400K
blackbody radiation. If I referenced anything, it was solar atmosphere
spectroscopy which I certainly DID study and work with those projects.

I hope that you aren't trying to lie about the following atmospheric
absorption curves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

This is what I was probably talking about. From these it is clear that
water vapor blocks most CO2 bands except the 14 micron one which is
partially blocked except for the the wing on one side. Not only that the
band is saturated. End effect is that CO2 concentration effects are
going to be greatly reduced.


In truth this has been shown by NASA that effect of CO2 on warming is
not a major effect. Are you going to argue that it is? Are you going to
argue that CO2 causes warming when 1940-1970 CO2 concentration went up
and temperature went down? Are you going to explain how temperature has
been flat during what you warmballers call "hiatus" while CO2 has been
going up. Is that your version of causality?

Why are you trying to bring up blackbody radiation when solar
spectroscopy and atmospheric absorption are well measured (some of it by
me) Just trying to throw chaff into the wind?

So are you sold out? Who is paying for your salary and funding your
"climate" work? How much "work" do you expect to get out of the new
energy taxes?

And I certainly have published papers on CO2 spectroscopy and done
original work at the PhD. level. You? Can I believe you? Can you
believe me? this is the Internet, you know. Cripes next we'll be telling
each other we play guitar.

[rplea...@gmail.com]

Just when I was starting to think that benj was showing some semblance of knowing what he's talking about, he came up with this gem:

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:18:53 AM UTC-4, benj wrote:

> Why are you trying to bring up blackbody radiation when solar
> spectroscopy and atmospheric absorption are well measured (some of it by
> me) Just trying to throw chaff into the wind?

Ever hear of the greenhouse effect?

The portion of light from the sun that is not absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back into space at the Earth's surface. Because the Earth is much colder than the sun, "it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed." The Earth, having an average temperature around 300 K, acts similarly to a 300-K blackbody. Most of that radiated energy is then absorbed by the atmosphere, heating it in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

That 14-micron band you mentioned is the one that's primarily responsible. The peak of the blackbody curve is at around 10 microns, but there's still significant radiation out there at 14 microns. If CO2 had a band at 10 microns, we'd all be dead.

By the way, show me a link to NASA that says that "effect of CO2 on warming is not a major effect". I'm seeing a lot out of NASA to the contrary, like this one:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/99/

[benj]

On 08/19/2017 11:28 PM, rplea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Just when I was starting to think that benj was showing some
> semblance of knowing what he's talking about, he came up with this
> gem:

Blather and drool.

> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:18:53 AM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>
>> Why are you trying to bring up blackbody radiation when solar
>> spectroscopy and atmospheric absorption are well measured (some of
>> it by me) Just trying to throw chaff into the wind?
>
> Ever hear of the greenhouse effect?
>
> The portion of light from the sun that is not absorbed by the
> atmosphere or reflected back into space at the Earth's surface.
> Because the Earth is much colder than the sun, "it radiates at
> wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were
> absorbed." The Earth, having an average temperature around 300 K,
> acts similarly to a 300-K blackbody. Most of that radiated energy is
> then absorbed by the atmosphere, heating it in the process.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf

I find it interesting that the abstract at the journal of Geophysical
research suddenly disappeared to be replaced with smiling Dan Rather.
Hey, we all know that if you want to know something about science
Journalists are all experts, right?

Note that water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas. Got a plan to tax the
oceans yet? (CO effect in this paper is probably over-estimated as
well... I mean this did come from NASA)

Ever hear of atmospheric absorption? Apparently not. You seem to think
that sunlight just falls right down from space and heats the earth and
then the longer waves are reflected back freely. But it is ALSO subject
to atmospheric absorption.

I gave you those curves that show exactly what is happening and of
course you pretend they do not exist because you have an agenda to promote.

> That 14-micron band you mentioned is the one that's primarily
> responsible. The peak of the blackbody curve is at around 10
> microns, but there's still significant radiation out there at 14
> microns. If CO2 had a band at 10 microns, we'd all be dead.

Well that is right, but like all propaganda it's all fantasy. There is
no unblocked band at 10 microms (obviously CO2 lasers run at 10 microns).

> By the way, show me a link to NASA that says that "effect of CO2 on
> warming is not a major effect". I'm seeing a lot out of NASA to the
> contrary, like this one:

> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pd
> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/99/


Well, as you know, among you strategic writers, all science is
determined by how may scientists have sold out. In other words a
democratic vote and count of papers. Yeah, that's it.

And there is little doubt what with government funding of all these
"studies" that there are plenty of sold out votes. And that kiddies is
why the science is "settled".

I've heard it all before. You are simply here to try to neutralize any
actual climate facts. There is no discussion of anything with you. You
answer all facts with your prepackaged propaganda.

Waste of time. 1940-1970 where CO2 went UP and Temperature (climate)
wend DOWN. The current Hiatus. ALL (nearly 100 models including all the
dire predictions of the "godfather" of global warming Dr. Hansen ALL and
I mean ALL predicted huge temperature rises. Dr. Hansen's OWN (massaged)
data shows ALL models totally wrong with flat temperatures ensuing.
NASA paper showing CO2 a MINOR greenhouse gas. And from you? Well, I've
got my papers and you have yours, right? That makes it only a matter of
who has the most papers to point to.

Oh brother. WE don't have time for your propaganda.

[rplea...@gmail.com]

Benj inserts his foot deeper into his mouth...

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 10:38:31 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 08/19/2017 11:28 PM, rplea...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Just when I was starting to think that benj was showing some
> > semblance of knowing what he's talking about, he came up with this
> > gem:
>
> Blather and drool.
>
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:18:53 AM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> >
> >> Why are you trying to bring up blackbody radiation when solar
> >> spectroscopy and atmospheric absorption are well measured (some of
> >> it by me) Just trying to throw chaff into the wind?
> >
> > Ever hear of the greenhouse effect?
> >
> > The portion of light from the sun that is not absorbed by the
> > atmosphere or reflected back into space at the Earth's surface.
> > Because the Earth is much colder than the sun, "it radiates at
> > wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were
> > absorbed." The Earth, having an average temperature around 300 K,
> > acts similarly to a 300-K blackbody. Most of that radiated energy is
> > then absorbed by the atmosphere, heating it in the process.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>
> I find it interesting that the abstract at the journal of Geophysical
> research suddenly disappeared to be replaced with smiling Dan Rather.
> Hey, we all know that if you want to know something about science
> Journalists are all experts, right?

Well now, considering that the link you provided is a draft written in 2010 and not an actual published article, how am I to know whether the article was actually published? Or whether it was published and later retracted.

>
> Note that water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas. Got a plan to tax the
> oceans yet? (CO effect in this paper is probably over-estimated as
> well... I mean this did come from NASA)

Time for more schooling, I see. Read carefully, because you've given me SOME indication that you're capable of absorbing (no pun intended) this stuff when you actually focus and don't wander off into the conspiratorial garbage.

Yes, water vapor absorbs more of the IR radiation from the earth than CO2 does. Why then isn't water vapor responsible for global warming? Because water vapor also absorbs some of the incident solar radiation. When water vapor concentration in the atmosphere becomes too high, it forms clouds. Clouds screen the incident solar radiation (it becomes darker out), and less radiation reaches earth, ergo less conversion at the earth's surface to mid- and far-infrared. In other words, it's self-limiting. With CO2, not so much. Besides, added water vapor in the atmosphere is a short-lived phenomenon. If it gets too high, first clouds, then finally rain -> voila! Less water vapor in the atmosphere, more on the ground in liquid form. There's no such mechanism with CO2.

But water does have an effect on warming; it's just not the way you think. Check this out:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

>
> Ever hear of atmospheric absorption? Apparently not. You seem to think
> that sunlight just falls right down from space and heats the earth and
> then the longer waves are reflected back freely. But it is ALSO subject
> to atmospheric absorption.

No kidding. But absorption of incident radiation by the earth's atmosphere has fuckall to do with global warming. Especially in the upper atmosphere (where clouds don't block it), it's a relatively constant driving force. And overall, absorption by the atmosphere is smaller by more than a factor of two than absorption at the earth's surface. So sayeth NASA:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

And all that energy absorbed at the earth's surface is converted to longer-wavelength infrared.

>
>
> > That 14-micron band you mentioned is the one that's primarily
> > responsible. The peak of the blackbody curve is at around 10
> > microns, but there's still significant radiation out there at 14
> > microns. If CO2 had a band at 10 microns, we'd all be dead.
>
> Well that is right, but like all propaganda it's all fantasy. There is
> no unblocked band at 10 microms (obviously CO2 lasers run at 10 microns).

Nice try. CO2 lasers run at 10 microns, but that 10-micron optical transition doesn't involve the molecule's ground state. The CO2 molecules have to be pumped (usually electrically) to an excited state, and the lasing transition is to another excited state. CO2 molecules in equilibrium at 300 K will not absorb 10 microns. Besides, what's your point?

<political/conspiratorial babble snipped>