Re: Climategate II - Still more evidence of lies...

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices
> (which you might call "zero-point energy devices")

Idiot. There is no such thing as "free energy," for are there any
devices that can extract ene5rgy from the ZPF. See my videos on
the subject. Fuck, attend one of my lectures on the subject.

> all tightly
> controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an instant put an
> end to all fossil fuel consumption.

Nut.

> PERIOD. These devices EXIST.

No.

> They are REAL.

No.

> They are SIMPLE TO BUILD.

Then build one, Shit-for-brains.

> And they are SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give
> those in power their CONTROL over humanity.

They do not exist because the laws that govern the universe
prevents them from existing.

> They would see the planet totally destroyed BEFORE they would
> willingly give up their power. And that is the cold hard truth!

That is the FOX "News" usage for the word "truth."


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:46:00 -0600, Bill Ward
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:

> > On 1/15/2012 12:11 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


> > You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices

> > (which you might call "zero-point energy devices") all tightly

> > controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an instant put an

> > end to all fossil fuel consumption. PERIOD. These devices EXIST. They
> > are REAL. They are SIMPLE TO BUILD. And they are SECRET and kept that

> > way because fossil fuels give those in power their CONTROL over

> > humanity. They would see the planet totally destroyed BEFORE they would

> > willingly give up their power. And that is the cold hard truth!

> Pure bull.

How the bloody fuck would you know? You claim to believe *MAGIC*
controls Earth's climate.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:14:41 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:46:00 -0600, Bill Ward
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> > On 1/15/2012 12:11 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>> > You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy"
>> > devices (which you might call "zero-point energy devices") all
>> > tightly controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an
>> > instant put an end to all fossil fuel consumption. PERIOD. These
>> > devices EXIST. They are REAL. They are SIMPLE TO BUILD. And they are
>> > SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give those in power
>> > their CONTROL over humanity. They would see the planet totally
>> > destroyed BEFORE they would willingly give up their power. And that
>> > is the cold hard truth!
>
>> Pure bull.
>
> How the bloody fuck would you know? You claim to believe *MAGIC*
> controls Earth's climate.

I am doubtful about 'free energy'. Show me the math.

However, the objections to Cold Fusion/LENR are damned stupid; like
applying hot fusion theory to cold fusion. Hot fusion theory says no
fusion at all, so why are they applying hot fusion theory and saying the
lack of neutrons proves no fusion? And the rebuttal to the helium
produced is that it is 'common in all laboratories'. WTF? how dumb is
that!?

And if you play follow the physics, you'll begin to ask yourself why
there isn't any fusion.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:14:41 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:46:00 -0600, Bill Ward
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> > On 1/15/2012 12:11 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>> > You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy"
>> > devices (which you might call "zero-point energy devices") all
>> > tightly controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an
>> > instant put an end to all fossil fuel consumption. PERIOD. These
>> > devices EXIST. They are REAL. They are SIMPLE TO BUILD. And they are
>> > SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give those in power
>> > their CONTROL over humanity. They would see the planet totally
>> > destroyed BEFORE they would willingly give up their power. And that
>> > is the cold hard truth!
>
>> Pure bull.
>
> How the bloody fuck would you know? You claim to believe *MAGIC*
> controls Earth's climate.

Do you think you serve the AGW cause by being an arse?

[Bill Ward]

In the interest of brevity, I neglected to mention that I was referring
to the paranoid secrecy aspect. There is no doubt muon-catalyzed fusion
occurs at low temperatures, and there is somewhat dubious research
indicating there may be "heavy electron" structures which may perform the
same function.

I don't believe LENR and cyclic inertial confinement (polywell) fusion
can be ruled out at this point, but ZPE, "magnetic motors" and other
similar "free energy" schemes, IMHO, require not only a suspension of
disbelief, but a total abandonment of common sense. It's good to keep an
open mind, but letting your brains drain out is a step too far.

[Marvin the Martian]

Some of them are obvious scams, like Dark light, Bearden, and so on.

And quite a few frauds have published bullshit in the LENR field to
attract 'investors' as well. It makes it quite difficult to know which
papers are real - gotta know your physics.

On the other hand, there are things such as a methanol (see, for example,
Zubrin's book 'Energy victory') that we could easily do, but don't. We
are very carefully steered towards things that won't work, like ethanol
made from food, solar and so on.

[Bill Ward]

If it's practical, we don't need to be "steered". "Alternative energy"
is energy that isn't competitive. If it were, it would just be "energy".

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:16:59 -0600, Marvin the Martian

<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:14:41 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:46:00 -0600, Bill Ward
> > <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> >
> >> > On 1/15/2012 12:11 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy"
> >> > devices (which you might call "zero-point energy devices") all
> >> > tightly controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an
> >> > instant put an end to all fossil fuel consumption. PERIOD. These
> >> > devices EXIST. They are REAL. They are SIMPLE TO BUILD. And they are
> >> > SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give those in power
> >> > their CONTROL over humanity. They would see the planet totally
> >> > destroyed BEFORE they would willingly give up their power. And that
> >> > is the cold hard truth!
> >
> >> Pure bull.
> >
> > How the bloody fuck would you know? You claim to believe *MAGIC*
> > controls Earth's climate.

> I am doubtful about 'free energy'. Show me the math.

If FOX "News" ordered you to believe "free energy" is possible,
you would believe it without hesitation and without thought.

[AGWFacts]

The what?

[Marvin the Martian]

Not really. Methanol is cheaper than gasoline. Can you use it in your
car? That is very unlikely.

The key here is called 'market entry'. For methanol to be competitive,
you have to be able to use it. Your car can, of course, use gasoline.
Some cars can even run on gasoline or ethanol, or anything in between.
Most cars can't run on methanol; to run on methanol, the fuel system
would need a few parts swapped out.

Cheap enough for auto companies to do, but then they have to recert their
engines with the government. All we need to overcome the barrier to
methanol's market entry is to pass a law and fund it saying that all cars
sold on the interstate market must be flex fueled to run on methanol. It
would cost about a billion bucks.

As the new flex fuel cars go on the market, a demand for methanol is
created.

[Bill Ward]

I wasn't aware of that. Is that price on a energy basis, or a volume
basis? Does it include subsidies or existing motor fuel taxes? Do you
have a cite?

> Can you use it in your car? That is very unlikely.

A few years ago, the LA bus system converted a number (~100?) of city
buses to methanol. Apparently the fuel system modifications were more
problematic than they expected, because a year later, when I asked how
things were going, they said, "We don't like to talk about that". The
EPA and CARB did push the Orange County bus system into CNG, which is
apparently more successful, with no major disasters reported yet. It
should maintain a healthy price advantage, with all the

> The key here is called 'market entry'. For methanol to be competitive,
> you have to be able to use it. Your car can, of course, use gasoline.
> Some cars can even run on gasoline or ethanol, or anything in between.
> Most cars can't run on methanol; to run on methanol, the fuel system
> would need a few parts swapped out.
>
> Cheap enough for auto companies to do, but then they have to recert
> their engines with the government. All we need to overcome the barrier
> to methanol's market entry is to pass a law and fund it saying that all
> cars sold on the interstate market must be flex fueled to run on
> methanol. It would cost about a billion bucks.

Or let people burn whatever fuel they prefer, rather than the state
mandating anything but emissions. Originally, gasoline took over from
kerosene rather quickly, due more to Standard Oil's low prices rather
than any mandates.

> As the new flex fuel cars go on the market, a demand for methanol is
> created.

I'm leery of government mandates. Their good intentions pave the road...

[Bill Ward]

Sorry, omitted some text. Fixed it.

> should maintain a healthy price advantage, with all the new natural gas
> finds now being reported.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:40:20 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:16:59 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:14:41 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:46:00 -0600, Bill Ward
>> > <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On 1/15/2012 12:11 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> > You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy"
>> >> > devices (which you might call "zero-point energy devices") all
>> >> > tightly controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an
>> >> > instant put an end to all fossil fuel consumption. PERIOD. These
>> >> > devices EXIST. They are REAL. They are SIMPLE TO BUILD. And they
>> >> > are SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give those in
>> >> > power their CONTROL over humanity. They would see the planet
>> >> > totally destroyed BEFORE they would willingly give up their power.
>> >> > And that is the cold hard truth!
>> >
>> >> Pure bull.
>> >
>> > How the bloody fuck would you know? You claim to believe *MAGIC*
>> > controls Earth's climate.
>
>> I am doubtful about 'free energy'. Show me the math.
>
> If FOX "News" ordered you to believe "free energy" is possible, you
> would believe it without hesitation and without thought.

That's one reason why no one believes you; you have a total disregard for
the truth and you will make crap up to push your irrational beliefs.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:15:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian

Every physicist on the planet says I am correct; there is no such
thing as "free energy:" it is impossible. You will just have to
adjust.

[Marvin the Martian]

You wrote a bald faced lie that "If FOX "News" ordered you to believe

"free energy" is possible, you would believe it without hesitation and
without thought."

What utter bullshit. You have no regard for the truth. Now you're trying
to lie your way out of it. What I said about free energy was "I am
doubtful about 'free energy'. Show me the math." Now you're lying that I
said I believed in free energy.

[Mr A Clarke]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:qk56h7lj6gtevpqsj...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices
>> (which you might call "zero-point energy devices")

Yes, correct, but I`m not sure about a long time in existence.
There is no evidence of its use in civilization so far.

> Idiot. There is no such thing as "free energy," for are there any
> devices that can extract ene5rgy from the ZPF. See my videos on
> the subject. Fuck, attend one of my lectures on the subject.

Free energy, an idiot may or may not know about it, this term is still a
loose definition.
Many idiots have been known to utilise conventional energy.

>> all tightly
>> controlled and kept secret by LR himself that could in an instant put an
>> end to all fossil fuel consumption.

Possibly, but I haven`t come across any opposition personally yet.

> Nut.

Posssibly?

>> PERIOD. These devices EXIST.

Correct.

> No.

Yes, I`m afraid so!

>> They are REAL.

Yep!

> No.

Awe, go back to school...

>> They are SIMPLE TO BUILD.

Can be as simple or as complex as you want them to be.

> Then build one, Shit-for-brains.

Why not - indeed - I am!

>> And they are SECRET and kept that way because fossil fuels give
>> those in power their CONTROL over humanity.

If we are not carefull, free energy will give those in power everything else
material
to control humanity!!! (So I doubt they would want to keep it a secret).

> They do not exist because the laws that govern the universe
> prevents them from existing.

There is an old physics paradox... (something about making it up as we go
along)

>> They would see the planet totally destroyed BEFORE they would
>> willingly give up their power. And that is the cold hard truth!

Quite, so there are going to have to be some compromises;
because no one can take this subject seriously (in public) there will be no
public
discussion - until its too late!

> That is the FOX "News" usage for the word "truth."

After the event - as per usual.

> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
> levels
> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

My name really is Ashley Clarke!

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:36:29 -0000, "Mr A Clarke"
<aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote:

> "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> news:qk56h7lj6gtevpqsj...@4ax.com...

> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> >> You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices
> >> (which you might call "zero-point energy devices")

> Yes, correct

Idiot.

> but I`m not sure about a long time in existence.

They don't exist, idiot. It's impossible.

> There is no evidence of its use in civilization so far.

Idiot.

> > Idiot. There is no such thing as "free energy," for are there any
> > devices that can extract ene5rgy from the ZPF. See my videos on
> > the subject. Fuck, attend one of my lectures on the subject.

> Free energy, an idiot may or may not know about it, this term is still a
> loose definition.

Idiot.

> Many idiots have been known to utilise conventional energy.

There is no such thing as "conventional energy," idiot.

[Mr A Clarke]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

news:6akoh71e4lpda6d98...@4ax.com...
> Idiot.
>
Why exactly are you trying to communicate here?

[Androcles]

"Mr A Clarke" <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote in message
news:g0FTq.2892$d66...@newsfe15.iad...

His frustration at not having his bullshit believed.
Even if GW is fact, AGW can only be theory.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:03:09 -0000, "Mr A Clarke"
<aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:23:48 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:36:29 -0000, "Mr A Clarke"
> > <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote:
> >

> > > "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

> > > news:qk56h7lj6gtevpqsj...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> > > > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices
> > > >> (which you might call "zero-point energy devices")
> >
> > > Yes, correct
> >
> > Idiot.
> >
> > > but I`m not sure about a long time in existence.
> >
> > They don't exist, idiot. It's impossible.
> >
> > > There is no evidence of its use in civilization so far.
> >
> > Idiot.
> >
> > > > Idiot. There is no such thing as "free energy," for are there any
> > > > devices that can extract ene5rgy from the ZPF. See my videos on
> > > > the subject. Fuck, attend one of my lectures on the subject.
> >
> > > Free energy, an idiot may or may not know about it, this term is still a
> > > loose definition.
> >
> > Idiot.
> >
> > > Many idiots have been known to utilise conventional energy.
> >
> > There is no such thing as "conventional energy," idiot.

> Why exactly are you trying to communicate here?

See above.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"

<H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:

> "Mr A Clarke" <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote in message
> news:g0FTq.2892$d66...@newsfe15.iad...

> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:23:48 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >

> > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:36:29 -0000, "Mr A Clarke"
> > > <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

> > > > news:qk56h7lj6gtevpqsj...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > > > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:38:41 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> > > > > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> You DO know that there have long been in existence "free energy" devices
> > > > >> (which you might call "zero-point energy devices")
> > >
> > > > Yes, correct
> > >
> > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > > but I`m not sure about a long time in existence.
> > >
> > > They don't exist, idiot. It's impossible.
> > >
> > > > There is no evidence of its use in civilization so far.
> > >
> > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > > > Idiot. There is no such thing as "free energy," for are there any
> > > > > devices that can extract ene5rgy from the ZPF. See my videos on
> > > > > the subject. Fuck, attend one of my lectures on the subject.
> > >
> > > > Free energy, an idiot may or may not know about it, this term is still a
> > > > loose definition.
> > >
> > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > > Many idiots have been known to utilise conventional energy.
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as "conventional energy," idiot.
>

> Why exactly are you trying to communicate here?

> His frustration at not having his bullshit believed.

There is no such thing as "free energy," idiot.

> Even if GW is fact, AGW can only be theory.

No, AGW is not a theory.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/24/2012 5:04 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"

>> Even if GW is fact, AGW can only be theory.
>
> No, AGW is not a theory.

So. I guess you used your God-like superpowers to make a determination
that AGW was indeed a fact! No chance of that "settled science" actually
being bullshit, I'm sure!

Nothing in science is ever "settled".

Idiot.

[Androcles]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:%KGTq.7535$5E7....@newsfe04.iad...

Dunno why the imbecile replies to me, I killfiled the moron ages ago.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:01:30 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:34 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"

> > > Even if GW is fact, AGW can only be theory.
> >
> > No, AGW is not a theory.

> So. I guess you used your God-like superpowers to make a determination
> that AGW was indeed a fact!

AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW.
You have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and
others.

[Marvin the Martian]

It doesn't stick very well because it is laughably not true.

You cannot directly observe AGW. And the body of physics is not a
"theory" that explains AGW. You don't even have an AGW hypothesis that
hasn't been debunked. Real physics says the failed hypothesis must be
rejected.

[AGWSnowJob]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

news:q0r3i7ho18cssrc96...@4ax.com...

GW is an observed fact, AGW is just a leftist/warmist "hypothesis"!





Warmest Regards

B O N Z O

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:

"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species

[Bill Snyder]

What real physics says is that Marvin the Meateater's mouth
doesn't constitute debunking. Debunking takes evidence. And, as
always, Marvin the Microcephalic hasn't got any of that.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/26/2012 8:21 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> What real physics says is that Marvin the Meateater's mouth
> doesn't constitute debunking. Debunking takes evidence. And, as
> always, Marvin the Microcephalic hasn't got any of that.

Since name-calling isn't physics, clearly this post is political
propaganda and can safely be ignored for the trash it is.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/26/2012 8:05 PM, AGWSnowJob wrote:
> "AGWFacts"<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

>> AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW.
>> You have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and
>> others.

> GW is an observed fact, AGW is just a leftist/warmist "hypothesis"!

To all reasonable thinking people:

The above is the crux of the "climate change" debate. The "warmist"
promoters have tried to set up an argument for and against "global
warming". They KNOW global warming is TRUE! Hey, everybody got the memo
that the last Ice Age is over? Right? The sea level is still rising (mm
per year), glaciers continue to recede through the centuries and there
is still a very slow coasting toward warmer weather.

The the "hook" comes by making the bold connection between GW and AGW.
In other words if it can be shown global warming is true, then the
assertion is that this "proves" that man-made CO2 (the taxable evil of
choice) is the CAUSE of global warming. Invented and massaged data (like
the famous debunked "hockey stick") make the link between GW and AGW.

Hence it's all a VERY clever setup for anyone not in on the facts.
And if you don't "get it", just get out your wallet.

And the really criminal thing about all this is that all this proposed
tax money is destined to go to places like Bangladesh as "compensation"
for imaginary sea level rises while all the real, true, actual,
planet-endangering problems like ocean, air and ground pollution will
continue unsolved and without funding while men vainly attempt to
eliminate one of the gasses essential to plant life. Smart. About as
smart as the recent "renewable energy solution" of burning food.

[Bill Snyder]

Pointing out that someone has presented no evidence is always in
order in science, shit-bot. Now go suck Marvin the Meatbeater's
ass some more.

[Marvin the Martian]

Exactly, The whole "CO2 is going up, and mean global temperatures are
going up, ergo CO2 causes global temperatures to rise" is a post hoc
fallacy.

Someone satired the usage of this fallacy by saying that the declining
number of pirates and global temperatures are also related, ergo the lack
of pirates causes warming. You could even point to the increase in
pirates off Ethiopia as explaining the lack of warming in the first
decade of the 21st century.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Jan 26, 7:34 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:01:30 -0500, "BJAC...@teranews.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:34 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"
> > > <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
>

> > > > "Mr A Clarke" <aclarke2...@toucansurf.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:g0FTq.2892$d66...@newsfe15.iad...

>
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:23:48 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:36:29 -0000, "Mr A Clarke"

> > > > > > <aclarke2...@toucansurf.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:qk56h7lj6gtevpqsj...@4ax.com...

Wow, do you like to spread the BS. Physics is not a theory, and while
AGW is based on physics, there are big gapping holes that are bridged
with BS.

[Marvin the Martian]

That's why I have Snyder killfiled. He wasn't known to me for anything
other than posting childish insults. Even AGW Facts posts something with
a LITTLE merit now and then.

[Dawlish]

On Jan 27, 12:28 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

7 enquiries; none of which found what deniers wanted them to. Deniers
still all upset about it, still stamping their little feet that no-
one is listening to them and can't move on. The rest of science has.

Here, an alien asks us to believe he can talk sense. Deniers get more
and more stupid by the day.

[Bill Snyder]

You should talk, shit-bot. You've never posted a single shred of
actual evidence, as opposed to mouth. Because you have none.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7584fe9-b54c-4084...@j14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 27, 12:28 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:30:56 -0500, BJAC...@teranews.com wrote:
> > On 1/26/2012 8:21 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> >> What real physics says is that Marvin the Meateater's mouth doesn't
> >> constitute debunking. Debunking takes evidence. And, as always,
> >> Marvin the Microcephalic hasn't got any of that.
>
> > Since name-calling isn't physics, clearly this post is political
> > propaganda and can safely be ignored for the trash it is.
>
> That's why I have Snyder killfiled. He wasn't known to me for anything
> other than posting childish insults. Even AGW Facts posts something with
> a LITTLE merit now and then.

7 enquiries; none of which found what deniers wanted them to. Deniers
still all upset about it,

_________________________________________
I am guessing that if you had reasonable scientific arguments, you wouldn't
have to resort to using emotionally loaded terms like "denier". This is
normally associated with Holocaust denial; you use the word only to imply
that the people with different scientific opinions are either Nazis or Jews
or something.

Speaking of scientific arguments, you recently claimed that Global Warming
is currently occuring, and asked me for evidence that it wasn't. I asked you
to define "global warming", which means providing the scientific rule which
determines whether it is occuring or not occuring at a particular point in
time. Without such a definition, the statement "global warming is currently
occurring" is literally meaningless. No response from you. Are we to assume
that not even you know what your claim that "global warming is cureently
occuring" is supposed to mean?

You Believers would have a lot more scientific credibility (not that this is
difficult) if you actually sounded like you were basing your beliefs on
science.

I would specifically recommend the following:

1. Define the terms you use. You could start with two terms that are used
constantly, "global warming" and "extreme weather".

2. Stop using language of the Holocaust to try and discredit people who
don't agree with you. There is no connection between the slaughter of 6
million Jews in WW2 and atmospheric physics.

3. Generally, stop defining this is a political and social issue and treat
it as a scientific issue. As a scientific issue, the appropriate means of
determining the truth or otherwise is the scientific method. You should
learn it and try and use it.

HTH


Peter Webb

[AGWFacts]

Huh? All of the physcists on the planet agree with me.

> You cannot directly observe AGW.

It is directly measured, idiot.

[AGWFacts]

Physics is a theory, Shit-for-brains. It explains most of observed
reality.

> and while AGW is based on physics

... in the same sense that evolution is; and gravity; and the
charge on the electron....

> there are big gapping holes that are bridged with BS.

Huh? What "holes?" Human-caused climate change does not have
"holes," any more than gravity does, or evolution. You seem to
have confused something somewhere.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 12:28�pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:30:56 -0500, BJAC...@teranews.com wrote:
> > > On 1/26/2012 8:21 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> > >> What real physics says is that Marvin the Meateater's mouth doesn't
> > >> constitute debunking. �Debunking takes evidence. �And, as always,
> > >> Marvin the Microcephalic hasn't got any of that.

> > > Since name-calling isn't physics, clearly this post is political
> > > propaganda and can safely be ignored for the trash it is.

> > That's why I have Snyder killfiled. He wasn't known to me for anything
> > other than posting childish insults. Even AGW Facts posts something with
> > a LITTLE merit now and then.

Translation: "I hide from the truth, and I'm not ashamed to say
so!"

> 7 enquiries; none of which found what deniers wanted them to. Deniers
> still all upset about it, still stamping their little feet that no-
> one is listening to them and can't move on. The rest of science has.

That's seven official investigations; there were tens of thousands
of unofficial ones. Still zero evidence "climategate" happened.
Meanwhile, the world's ice masses continue to melt.

> Here, an alien asks us to believe he can talk sense. Deniers get more
> and more stupid by the day.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Then explain how one would directly measure the Anthropogenic part of AGW.

Is there some magic thermometer that only measures the Anthropogenic
heat and ignores the natural caused heat?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Surfer]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:27:14 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>... you recently claimed that Global Warming

>is currently occuring, and asked me for evidence that it wasn't. I asked you
>to define "global warming", which means providing the scientific rule which
>determines whether it is occuring or not occuring at a particular point in
>time.
>

Stop quibbling.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quibble

intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles

1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial
distinctions and objections.
2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.


Dr. Hansen's 1981 projections compared to observations.
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:40:13 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:28:39 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:49 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >

> > > You cannot directly observe AGW.
> >
> > It is directly measured, idiot.

> Then explain how one would directly measure the Anthropogenic part of AGW.

WoK Index lists over 130,000 peer reviewed science papers,
published in science journals, on the subject.

[Wally W.]

With so many to choose from, it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite
*one* reference and quote the relevant part where *someone* described
how they *directly measured* the Anthropogenic part of AGW.

The list of groups you removed from the follow-ups has been restored.

We wouldn't want anyone to miss your triumph in demonstrating how
someone *directly measured* the Anthropogenic part of AGW, should that
be the case.

Nor would we want it to be missed that this month's most prolific
poster in alt.global-warming was talking out of his ass, should that
be the case.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/about
Top posters
This month 623 agwfa...@ipcc.org

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:31:25 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:


> Physics is a theory, Shit-for-brains. It explains most of observed
> reality.

Physics Phys"ics, n. [See Physic.]
The science of nature, or of natural objects; that branch of
science which treats of the laws and properties of matter,
and the forces acting upon it; especially, that department of
natural science which treats of the causes (as gravitation,
heat, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.) that modify the
general properties of bodies; natural philosophy.
[1913 Webster]

Theory The"o*ry, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th['e]orie, L.
theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation,
speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See
Theater.]
4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either
physical or moral; as, Lavoisier's theory of combustion;
Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments.
[1913 Webster]

Physics is not a theory.

>> and while AGW is based on physics
>
> ... in the same sense that evolution is; and gravity; and the charge on
> the electron....
>
>> there are big gapping holes that are bridged with BS.
>
> Huh? What "holes?" Human-caused climate change does not have "holes,"
> any more than gravity does, or evolution. You seem to have confused
> something somewhere.

You are using circular logic. Again, I add.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:28:39 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> Huh? All of the physcists on the planet agree with me.

Yes. Every single one. They ALL agree with you. Not.

Are you delusional, an idiot, or a bald faced liar?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/27/2012 7:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> Exactly, The whole "CO2 is going up, and mean global temperatures are
> going up, ergo CO2 causes global temperatures to rise" is a post hoc
> fallacy.
>
> Someone satired the usage of this fallacy by saying that the declining
> number of pirates and global temperatures are also related, ergo the lack
> of pirates causes warming. You could even point to the increase in
> pirates off Ethiopia as explaining the lack of warming in the first
> decade of the 21st century.

Say wait a minute! This "pirate theory" actually sounds like it has some
merit! Add in some "pirate feedback" and BINGO we finally have that
"explanation" that puts all the "deniers" in their places!

HEY SAM! DOESN'T THIS SOUND LIKE AN "ESTABLISHED SCIENCE" EXPLANATION
TO YOU?

[Marvin the Martian]

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Proof! It's a direct observable. A lack of pirates causes global warming.

[Sean]

On 27/01/2012 11:34 AM, AGWFacts wrote:
> AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW.
> You have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and
> others.

A fact requires evidence, namely evidence that humans are responsible
for climate change when it has always been caused by natural forces in
the past. Otherwise it is not science you are preaching but religion.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

LOL. Typical confused rationalisation disguised as reason.

Interesting here that "human" and "natural" are assumed mutally exclusive.

Elsewhere, humans pride themselves on doing being able to duplcate
what nature otherwise does for itself, only bigger and better.

It's the mechanism Luke, not the agent.

--
ur research shows a rolling record of the earth's mean surface temperature.
The warming figures reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all
point to a warming of the earth to around 0.75 degrees.
-- Richard Muller, Jul 16 2011

I know that I'll be criticized for my position on this, since I said
back in March ["I will accept Muller's results, whatever they are"]
that I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when
I expected them to do science per the scientific process.
-- Anothony Watts, denialist blogger, 24 Oct 2011

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:19:16 +0000 (UTC), k...@kymhorsell.com
wrote:

> In sci.physics Sean <labors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27/01/2012 11:34 AM, AGWFacts wrote:

> >> AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW.
> >> You have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and
> >> others.

> > A fact requires evidence, namely evidence that humans are responsible
> > for climate change when it has always been caused by natural forces in
> > the past. Otherwise it is not science you are preaching but religion.

> LOL. Typical confused rationalisation disguised as reason.

Yes indeed. These "evolution is a religion" (or in this case,
"physics is a religion") clowns use the word "religion" as an
insult, even as they engage in magical belief.

> Interesting here that "human" and "natural" are assumed mutally exclusive.

Indeed, they are not. But I understood what the clown was trying
to state.

Human-caused global warming has been observed since year 1911. In
the past four months new European Space Agency satellites have
been directly measuring the increasing anamalous retention of heat
along with the increase in greenhouse gases.

> Elsewhere, humans pride themselves on doing being able to duplcate
> what nature otherwise does for itself, only bigger and better.
>
> It's the mechanism Luke, not the agent.

Very well-said. Hman-caused climate change does not *CAUSE* any
new events: it amplified and amplifies changes in weather, which
in the long term has changed climate.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:03:23 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> > Physics is a theory, Shit-for-brains. It explains most of observed
> > reality.
> >

> > > and while AGW is based on physics
> >
> > ... in the same sense that evolution is; and gravity; and the
> > charge on the electron....
> >
> > > there are big gapping holes that are bridged with BS.
> >
> > Huh? What "holes?" Human-caused climate change does not have
> > "holes," any more than gravity does, or evolution. You seem to
> > have confused something somewhere.

> Physics Phys"ics, n. [See Physic.]
> The science of nature, or of natural objects; that branch of
> science which treats of the laws and properties of matter,
> and the forces acting upon it; especially, that department of
> natural science which treats of the causes (as gravitation,
> heat, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.) that modify the
> general properties of bodies; natural philosophy.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> Theory The"o*ry, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th['e]orie, L.
> theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation,
> speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See
> Theater.]
> 4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either
> physical or moral; as, Lavoisier's theory of combustion;
> Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments.
> [1913 Webster]

Stop lying by omission, Sht-for-brains.

THE-ORY: Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a
relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of
assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised
to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior
of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a
system.

Physics is therefore a theory.

> Physics is not a theory.

Idiot. Physics is the theory that explains how the universe works.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:07:04 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:28:39 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> > Huh? All of the physcists on the planet agree with me.

> Yes. Every single one. They ALL agree with you. Not.

Go ahead and cite a physicist who says "free energy" is possible,
idiot. (This ought to be amusing.....)

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:45:35 +1100, Sean <labors...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 27/01/2012 11:34 AM, AGWFacts wrote:

> > AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW.
> > You have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and
> > others.

> A fact requires evidence, namely evidence that humans are responsible
> for climate change when it has always been caused by natural forces in
> the past.

Yes.

> Otherwise it is not science you are preaching but religion.

No.

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> Once again you do not understand the question; what magic instrument would
> you use to directly measure the Anthropogenic part of AGW?

No.

> Perhaps once again the problem may lie in your illiteracy and lack of
> understanding what the word "directly" means.

You may write to the ESA yourself and ask, and you can also view
their YouTube videos on the subject of the devices and their
(successful) launches into orbit, and you can also read their
press releases on the subject, or you can contnue to insist upon
remaining ignorant.

[Marvin the Martian]

That's a dictionary definition.

> THE-ORY: Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
> wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions,
> accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict,
> or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
> phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.
>
> Physics is therefore a theory.

You don't even know what physics IS, and here you are gibbering about it
making a even bigger ass of yourself.

The funny thing is, you not only don't realize you just shit your pants,
but you think you're winning the argument.

>> Physics is not a theory.
>
> Idiot. Physics is the theory that explains how the universe works.

Uh... no. Physics is a field of a scientific study. It is not "a
theory".

Crap, no wonder you keep posting stupid statements. You don't know the
difference between a science and a theory.

[Bill Ward]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:19:16 +0000, kym wrote:

> In sci.physics Sean <labors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 11:34 AM, AGWFacts wrote:
>>> AGW is an observed fact: physics is the tyheory that explains AGW. You
>>> have been told this fact, now, at least 40 times by myself and others.

>> A fact requires evidence, namely evidence that humans are responsible
>> for climate change when it has always been caused by natural forces in
>> the past. Otherwise it is not science you are preaching but religion.
>
>
> LOL. Typical confused rationalisation disguised as reason.
>
> Interesting here that "human" and "natural" are assumed mutally
> exclusive.
>
> Elsewhere, humans pride themselves on doing being able to duplcate what
> nature otherwise does for itself, only bigger and better.
>
> It's the mechanism Luke, not the agent.

Can you define specifically what you mean by the "mechanism" and the
"agent"? Also, an example of something simultaneously both "natural" and
"anthropogenic" would be interesting indeed.

[Bill Snyder]

"Interesting indeed?" Perhaps to someone with no powers of
observation, or no ability to reason, who has never noticed or
understood what's been all around him all his life.

Thunderstorms make noise. Jet aircraft make noise. Noise has a
natural and an anthropogenic component.

The Sun produces light. Human-made incandescent and fluorescent
bulbs produce light. Light has a natural and an anthropogenic
component.

Forest fires produce CO2. Coal-burning power plants produce CO2.
CO2 has a natural and an anthropogenic component.

[Mr A Clarke]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

news:fs38i7ludjvpvp5kk...@4ax.com...

I haven`t got into the habit of calling people idiots yet, but still;
why don`t you research "Hypothesis"?

Ashley Clarke

[Mr A Clarke]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:qP2dnXRMkcuvvbnS...@giganews.com...

Can`t you see he`s only trolling?
When has he ever concluded a conversation yet?

Ashley Clarke

[Mr A Clarke]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:adSdnbfA3OW1ob7S...@giganews.com...

He just needs a good "Teacher", but he seems a bit too slippery - LOL!

Ashley Clarke

[Mr A Clarke]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

news:fr38i7pnk84h46mt9...@4ax.com...

What you, a sense of humor? I doubt it.

Ashley Clarke

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:

<moron keeps pasting in irrelevant stuff already snipped>

>> Once again you do not understand the question; what magic instrument would
>> you use to directly measure the Anthropogenic part of AGW?
>
> No.

That's the right answer at last.

There is no instrument that can directly measure the Anthropogenic part
of AGW; it is indirectly inferred from other measurements.

<snip babbling, off-topic nonsense>

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:44:59 -0600, Bill Ward
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

...

> Thunderstorms make noise. Jet aircraft make noise. Noise has a
> natural and an anthropogenic component.
>
> The Sun produces light. Human-made incandescent and fluorescent
> bulbs produce light. Light has a natural and an anthropogenic
> component.
>
> Forest fires produce CO2. Coal-burning power plants produce CO2.
> CO2 has a natural and an anthropogenic component.

For a second there I wondered why you were bothering to spell it out
as if to a child or simpleton.

But then I saw who you were talking to, so it made sense.

--
[Climate's "fixed thermostat":]
Do you understand how your heater thermostat maintains a relatively
constant temperature in the face of external forcings from the weather?
-- Bill Ward, 27 Jul 2011

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:27:00 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:21:27 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >

> > > Once again you do not understand the question; what magic instrument would
> > > you use to directly measure the Anthropogenic part of AGW?

> > No.

> > > Perhaps once again the problem may lie in your illiteracy and lack of
> > > understanding what the word "directly" means.

> > You may write to the ESA yourself and ask, and you can also view
> > their YouTube videos on the subject of the devices and their
> > (successful) launches into orbit, and you can also read their
> > press releases on the subject, or you can contnue to insist upon
> > remaining ignorant.

> That's the right answer at last.

Yes, I know.

> There is no instrument that can directly measure the Anthropogenic part
> of AGW; it is indirectly inferred from other measurements.

You are, as usual, being a deliberate idiot. What is that behavior
getting for you?

You hasve zero interest in the subject, therefore you will not do
as I have suggested. Why, then, do you keep bitching about it?

AGW is an observed fact, measureable to high precision, and not a
subject of doubt or skepticism among scienists and science. You
will just have to adjust.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:27:00 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:

Unbelievable; the moron keeps pasting in hundreds of lines of irrelevant
crap already snipped out.

Oh, for the good old days of USENET when such morons would quickly get a UDP.

>> There is no instrument that can directly measure the Anthropogenic part
>> of AGW; it is indirectly inferred from other measurements.
>
> You are, as usual, being a deliberate idiot. What is that behavior
> getting for you?

Oh, really, then maybe you can put a name on this magic instrument that
can directly measure the Anthropogenic part of warming and ignores the
natural part of warming?

You are the one claiming that AGW is directly measured, though I highly
doubt you have the slightest clue what the word "directly" means, as you
have already shown yourself to be illierate.

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:39:43 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:13:20 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:27:00 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >

> > > There is no instrument that can directly measure the Anthropogenic part
> > > of AGW; it is indirectly inferred from other measurements.
> >
> > You are, as usual, being a deliberate idiot. What is that behavior
> > getting for you?
> >

> > You hasve zero interest in the subject, therefore you will not do
> > as I have suggested. Why, then, do you keep bitching about it?
> >
> > AGW is an observed fact, measureable to high precision, and not a
> > subject of doubt or skepticism among scienists and science. You
> > will just have to adjust.

> Unbelievable; the moron keeps pasting in hundreds of lines of irrelevant
> crap already snipped out.
>
> Oh, for the good old days of USENET when such morons would quickly get a UDP.
>

> Oh, really, then maybe you can put a name on this magic instrument that
> can directly measure the Anthropogenic part of warming and ignores the
> natural part of warming?

I explained to you four times now how to do that.

> You are the one claiming that AGW is directly measured, though I highly
> doubt you have the slightest clue what the word "directly" means, as you
> have already shown yourself to be illierate.


--

[Wally W.]

Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
it?

He didn't ask for how, he asked for a name.

You said there are 130,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Does the name of this magic instrument not appear in any of them?

Why would that be?

Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
it?

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:22:31 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:

See above.

> You said there are 130,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Yes. You can buy the entire reference set for about $800, like I
did, and also subscribe to the update service.

> Does the name of this magic instrument not appear in any of them?

What??

> Why would that be?

Huh?

> Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
> it?

Huh?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

You have explained nothing.

All you have done is to keep pasting back in huge amounts of irrelevant crap
previously snipped as irrelevant, puerile moron that you are.

>> You are the one claiming that AGW is directly measured, though I highly
>> doubt you have the slightest clue what the word "directly" means, as you
>> have already shown yourself to be illierate.

It is impossible for AGW to be directly measured as you claim as to do that
there would have to exist a magic thermometer that could tell which heat
came from natural sources and which heat came from man-made sources.

Heat is heat and carries no marker as to the source, 1 degree C is identical
to any other 1 degree C, so your statement that AGW is directly measured is
obvious, ignorant, nonsense.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
> it?

That and the product of a mind that hasn't progressed beyond third grade.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:22:31 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
>> it?

<snip irrelevant crap yet again>

>> He didn't ask for how, he asked for a name.
>
> See above.

Moron; there is no instrument name in the above.

>> You said there are 130,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject.
>
> Yes. You can buy the entire reference set for about $800, like I
> did, and also subscribe to the update service.

One wonders how someone so stupid gets $800.

>> Does the name of this magic instrument not appear in any of them?
>
> What??

The name of the magic instruement that directly measures AGW that you
claim exists.

I doubt you understand the meaning of the word "directly", illiteracy
being a big problem for you.

>> Why would that be?
>
> Huh?

The name of the magic instruement that directly measures AGW that you
claim exists.

I doubt you understand the meaning of the word "directly", illiteracy
being a big problem for you.

>> Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
>> it?
>
> Huh?

Your ignoring the question and pasting in irrelevancies because you are
backed against the wall by having made an extremely stupid statement, i.e.
that AGW is directly measured.

[Amyellen Leib]

On Jan 24, 5:04 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"

>

> There is no such thing as "free energy," idiot.

Hmmmm....

My early childhood was defined by My father's excitement for His work
in electrogravitics, then (1950's) being worked on openly by all major
aerospace companies. My father, a CalTech graduate and one of the top
electrical engineers at one of these companies, would tell Me about
the successes of His experiements (gravity control and overunity (free
energy)), and tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look
like.

Cars would fly, cities would float, and We would have all the energy
We could use.

Then, one night He came home from work late and woke Me up to tell Me
We couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating cities, the free
energy anymore. "They want it secret for now."

Yah. I think it is suppressed. Why? Easy.

Since My childhood, I have studied economics, coming to the conclusion
(later confirmed by Jeremy Rifkin in His book, Entropy) that all money
represented was meaningful energy expended. One can grasp this most
easily by considering the first hunter, fisherperson, gatherer,
farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fish,
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the
meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the
killing, fishing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining,
transporting.

Add abundantly what money represents - energy - and the need for money
(and the control of others it affords) in all its forms (barter,
trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds...) will dissipate
and what is left is free.

And if the control money affords the power elite is not needed...They
have no control of Us. Pretty simple.

[Androcles]

"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:41:37 -0800 (PST), Amyellen Leib
<Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote:

> On Jan 24, 5:04 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> > There is no such thing as "free energy," idiot.

> Hmmmm....
>
> My early childhood was defined by My father's excitement for His work
> in electrogravitics, then (1950's) being worked on openly by all major
> aerospace companies. My father, a CalTech graduate and one of the top
> electrical engineers at one of these companies, would tell Me about
> the successes of His experiements (gravity control and overunity (free
> energy)), and tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look
> like.

You mean to tell us that your father was an uneducated ignorant
fool. There is no such thing as "over-unity" for *EXACTLY* the
same reason 1 is less than 2: energy is an ability, not a thing---
it is a quantity, a sum.

"Free energy" is impossible.

> Cars would fly, cities would float, and We would have all the energy
> We could use.
>
> Then, one night He came home from work late and woke Me up to tell Me
> We couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating cities, the free
> energy anymore. "They want it secret for now."
>
> Yah. I think it is suppressed. Why? Easy.
>
> Since My childhood, I have studied economics, coming to the conclusion
> (later confirmed by Jeremy Rifkin in His book, Entropy) that all money
> represented was meaningful energy expended. One can grasp this most
> easily by considering the first hunter, fisherperson, gatherer,
> farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fish,
> fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the
> meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the
> killing, fishing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining,
> transporting.
>
> Add abundantly what money represents - energy - and the need for money
> (and the control of others it affords) in all its forms (barter,
> trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds...) will dissipate
> and what is left is free.
>
> And if the control money affords the power elite is not needed...They
> have no control of Us. Pretty simple.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:19 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:31:22 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:22:31 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
> > > it?
> > >

> > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:51:26 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:39:43 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:13:20 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:27:00 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:21:27 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:43:04 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:40:13 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:28:39 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:49 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> > > >> > > > > > > > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:34:50 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:01:30 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:34 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:20:06 -0000, "Androcles"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > "Mr A Clarke" <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote in message
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > news:g0FTq.2892$d66...@newsfe15.iad...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >

> > > He didn't ask for how, he asked for a name.
> >
> > See above.
> >

> > > You said there are 130,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject.
> >
> > Yes. You can buy the entire reference set for about $800, like I
> > did, and also subscribe to the update service.
> >

> > > Does the name of this magic instrument not appear in any of them?
> >
> > What??
> >

> > > Why would that be?
> >
> > Huh?
> >

> > > Your misdirection of follow-ups wouldn't be a form of evasion, would
> > > it?
> >
> > Huh?

> Moron; there is no instrument name in the above.

See above, Shit-for-brains net. k00k

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:19 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:

<Once again the babbling moron pastes in a huge pile of already deleled
crap, none of which contains an instrument name.>

>> Moron; there is no instrument name in the above.
>
> See above, Shit-for-brains net. k00k

And once again the babbling moron repeats his idiocy of "See above" when
the above does not contain an instrument name.

One wonders if this moron even understands the phrase "instrument name".

Hey, illiterate moron, here are some examples of an instrument name:

thermometer
barometer
altimiter
volt meter
hygrometer

So what is the name of your magic instrument that directly measures the
man-made portion of global warming?

But if this idiot has an attention span of greater that 30 seconds, he
would realize that in another post he has already stated that the
man-made portion of global warming is determined from caluclations and
thus is NOT directly measured.

[Wally W.]

Ok:

Nor would we want it to be missed that this month's most prolific
poster in alt.global-warming was talking out of his ass, should that
be the case.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:05:38 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

Well that shut the kook's yip. LOL!

[Wally W.]

You must have your fingers in your ears.

Your "see above" is bullshit.

You were called on it.

Give it up. You were wrong. Repeated denial that you were wrong just
embarrasses you.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/20484
"When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging." - Will Rogers

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:05:38 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

> pasted in 180 lines of irrlevant crap and then pulled out of his ass:

> Well that shut the kook's yip. LOL!

What a moron.

[The Skeptic Tank]

He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons think of.
There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not allow
for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...

| >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
| >news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

| He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons think
of.
| There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not allow
| for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.

Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
Hmmm...

[Jim]

LOL
Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?
Current theory is that the Universe came from.....NOTHING!!!!!
A bubble in the all pervasive nothing.. and bang! a Universe!
If all of this came from nothing, then over unity DOES exist!
(we may not know how or be able to access it, but it does exist)

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:37:10 -0600, Jim wrote:

> Androcles wrote:
>> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
>>
>> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
>> |

>> >news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089-
a5e0-88f...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons
>> think of.
>> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not
>> allow | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
>>
>> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank? Hmmm...
>>
>>
>>
> LOL
> Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?
> Current theory is that the Universe came from.....NOTHING!!!!!

Umm... not really.

[The Skeptic Tank]

You may need to practice your reading comprehension to understand how to
use Usenet.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[The Skeptic Tank]

Jim <jim...@brightok.com> wrote:
>Androcles wrote:
>> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
>> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
>> | >news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons think of.
>> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not allow
>> | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
>> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
>> Hmmm...
>LOL
>Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?

No. The best cosmology research indicates that the Universe is a quantum
fluctuation, a phenomena which ultimatly has zero mass and zero energy.
What you see around you is "borrowed" from the future, the consequences of
a quantum fluctuation.

And no, cultloon delusions about "free energy" and other insane lunatic
notions are physically impossible inside of the current singularity where
the laws that govern the Universe are set inviolate. All the praying at
gods, masturbation, and wishful thinking won't make "one over unity" and
other amusing delusions some true, neither will the waving of a pixie magic

wand. :)

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[Androcles]

| "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
| You may need to practice your reading comprehension to understand how to
| use Usenet.

You also may need to trace back through the snipped thread and find
out which statement was attributed to whom, you stupid Septic Troll,
anything you can snip I can snip better, I can snip anything better than
you.


I'm superior, you're inferior
I'm the big attraction, you're the small
I'm the major one, you're the minor one
I can beat you shootin', that's not all

/ C - Dm - / G7 - C - / - - D7 - / G - Cdim7 G7 /

Anything you can snip, I can snip better
I can snip any thing better than you
No you can't, Yes I can, No you can't, Yes I can
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

/ G7 C G7 C / / / Dm7 G7 - - /

Anything you can be I can be greater
Sooner or later, I'm greater than you
No you're not, Yes I am, No you're not Yes I am
No you're not, Yes I am, yes I am

I can shoot a partridge with a single cartridge
I can get a sparrow with a bow and arrow
I can do most anything
Can you bake a pie? No. Neither can I

/ Em - Em6 - / Dm - Dm6 - / D7Am7 D7Am7 D7 - / G7 - Dm7 G7 /

Anything you can snip I can snip louder
I can snip anything louder than you
No you can't....

Anything you can snip, I can snip cheaper
I can snip anything cheaper than you
Fifty cents, Forty cents, Thirty cents, Twenty cents
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

Anything you can dig, I can dig deeper
I can dig anything deeper than you
Thirty feet, Forty feet, Fifty feet, Sixty feet
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

I can drink my liquor faster than a flicker
I can do it quicker and get even sicker
I can live on bread and cheese
And only on that? Yes, So can a rat

Anything you can reach, I can go higher
I can sing anything higher than you
No you can't....

Anyone you can lick, I can lick faster
I can lick anyone faster than you
With your fist? With my feet, With your feet? With an axe
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

Any school where you went, I could be master
I could be master much faster than you
Can you spell, No I can't, Can you add, No I can't
Can you teach, Yes I can, yes I can

I could be a racer, quite a steeple chaser
I can jump a hurdle even with my girdle
I can open any safe
With out being caught? Yes, That's what I thought, you crook

Any note you can hold I can hold longer
I can hold any note longer than you.
No you can't, Yes I ca-a-a-a-an, Yes you ca-a-an

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message

news:rOmdnV6WBMeuZLfS...@posted.sonicnet...

| Jim <jim...@brightok.com> wrote:
| >Androcles wrote:
| >> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
| >> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
| >> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
| >> |
>news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
| >> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons
think of.
| >> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not
allow
| >> | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
| >> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
| >> Hmmm...
| >LOL
| >Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?
|
| No.

Yes it is, septic fuckwit.

[Jim]

Ok, this is turning into worse than a moronic child game.

Newsgroup is NOW unsubscribed!
(only reply for your own ego - I won't be reading it!)

[Androcles]

"Jim" <jim...@brightok.com> wrote in message
news:EbFWq.29$W01....@sooner.brightok.net...

Excellent. Take all the morons that know no physics with you.

[AGWFacts]

> http://www.skeptictank.org/

Yeahj, I was going to mention that also but I am too polite.
Remember when Usenet was not full of kooks and nutbars? Ah, for
the old days!

[The Skeptic Tank]

"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

>"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>news:rOmdnV6WBMeuZLfS...@posted.sonicnet...
>| Jim <jim...@brightok.com> wrote:
>| >Androcles wrote:
>| >> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>| >> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
>| >> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
>| >> |
> >news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>| >> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons
>think of.
>| >> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not
>allow
>| >> | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
>| >> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
>| >> Hmmm...
>| >LOL
>| >Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?
>|
>| No.
>Yes it is, septic fuckwit.

Try again, shitstain cultloon:

[The Skeptic Tank]

"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

>| "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
>| You may need to practice your reading comprehension to understand how to
>| use Usenet.

>You also may need to trace back through the snipped thread and find
>out which statement was attributed to whom, you stupid Septic Troll,

Translation: The shitstain cultloon could not address the issues.
Try again, cultloon:

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:30:44 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (The
Skeptic Tank) wrote:

> "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
>
> >"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
> >news:rOmdnV6WBMeuZLfS...@posted.sonicnet...
> >| Jim <jim...@brightok.com> wrote:
> >| >Androcles wrote:
> >| >> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
> >| >> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
> >| >> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in message
> >| >> |
> > >news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> >| >> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons
> >think of.
> >| >> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not
> >allow
> >| >> | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
> >| >> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
> >| >> Hmmm...

> >| >LOL
> >| >Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?

> >| No.

> >Yes it is, septic fuckwit.

The universe is an example of "over unity?" ROTFL! Good fucking
grief.

> Try again, shitstain cultloon:
>
> No. The best cosmology research indicates that the Universe is a quantum
> fluctuation, a phenomena which ultimatly has zero mass and zero energy.
> What you see around you is "borrowed" from the future, the consequences of
> a quantum fluctuation.

Exactly so. If it is a fact that the universe is an isolated
system, it cannot be used to perform work outside itself: it
therefore has a sum total of zero energy. The universe may not be
isolated, though.

> And no, cultloon delusions about "free energy" and other insane lunatic
> notions are physically impossible inside of the current singularity where
> the laws that govern the Universe are set inviolate. All the praying at
> gods, masturbation, and wishful thinking won't make "one over unity" and
> other amusing delusions some true, neither will the waving of a pixie magic
> wand. :)
>

> http://www.skeptictank.org/

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message

news:Wo-dnbfg7rxle7PS...@posted.sonicnet...

| "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
|
| >"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
| >news:rOmdnV6WBMeuZLfS...@posted.sonicnet...
| >| Jim <jim...@brightok.com> wrote:
| >| >Androcles wrote:
| >| >> "The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
| >| >> news:89idncX3Lr96JLXS...@posted.sonicnet...
| >| >> | >"Amyellen Leib" <Amyell...@thegamerstudio.com> wrote in
message
| >| >> |
| >
>news:37605ea7-4b5d-4089...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
| >| >> | He's right, at least not in the sense that "over unity" cultloons
| >think of.
| >| >> | There is no such thing, the laws that govern the Universe does not
| >allow
| >| >> | for such sweaty delusional notions to be evidenced in fact.
| >| >> Is that what you think Amy Ellen Lieb wrote, Septic Tank?
| >| >> Hmmm...
| >| >LOL
| >| >Isn't that what the Universe itself is? An example of over unity?
| >|
| >| No.
| >Yes it is, septic fuckwit.
|
| Try again, shitstain cultloon:

Ok, I will.
Yes it is, deranged septic fuckwit.

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message

news:zNedncUvP_aKerPS...@posted.sonicnet...
| Translation: The snipping shitstain cultloon septic tinker could not
address the issues.

The fucking issue is some cunt snipped an attribution making it
appear I'd said something I hadn't, and the fucking stooopid
bastard calling itself septic is too indolent to check back through
the thread and verify who said what.

Now address that issue, arsewipe.

[The Skeptic Tank]

"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

Try again, shitstain cultloon:

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message

news:ve-dndspF9pTkrLS...@posted.sonicnet...
| Try again, shitstain cultloon:

I did, you stupid snipping fuck.

[The Skeptic Tank]

[Androcles]

"The Skeptic Tank" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message

news:yvGdnf8rIZd1qLLS...@posted.sonicnet...

| "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
|
| Try again, shitstain cultloon:
|

I didn't write that, you LYING bastard, YOU wrote it.