Climate warming charging water cycle, producing bigger storms

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 5, 2012, 10:01:46 PM5/5/12

to

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms

> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earth’s natural process of evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported in a study in the journal Science.
>
> That’s about double the rate predicted by most current climate models, the authors noted.
>
> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
>

James

unread,

May 5, 2012, 11:09:28 PM5/5/12

to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rCdnRmrpe4XRjjS...@mchsi.com

Do models write these stories as they go or is a human involed?

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:23:08 AM5/6/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>
>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit

>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of

>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
>> in a study in the journal Science.
>>

>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,

>> the authors noted.
>>
>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.

"It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
science from newspapers.

Mickey Langan

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:39:35 AM5/6/12

to

They trumpet all this "hottest decade" stuff like it means something. Apparently
they don't understand that no one disputes there has been some warming happening
in the last 160 years....

It's all about catastrophic. There is exactly zero evidence that it gets
worse. The positive feedback required to get to 2C of warming simply is
not in evidence except in the minds of the people writing the computer
models.

--
Mickey

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain

gordo

unread,

May 6, 2012, 1:46:53 AM5/6/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:39:35 -0500, Mickey Langan
<mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

>On 2012-05-06, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>>>
>>>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
>>>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
>>>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
>>>> in a study in the journal Science.
>>>>
>>>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
>>>> the authors noted.
>>>>
>>>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
>>>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
>>>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
>>
>> "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
>> science from newspapers.
>
>They trumpet all this "hottest decade" stuff like it means something. Apparently
>they don't understand that no one disputes there has been some warming happening
>in the last 160 years....

Who is they? What does trumpet mean in the case of pointing out that
the last decade has been the warmest since records have been taken?

>It's all about catastrophic. There is exactly zero evidence that it gets
>worse.

The temperature of planet earth is going to continue to heat up. The
only thing to stop this would be a huge volcano or being hit by a
comet. Acidification will continue period.

>The positive feedback required to get to 2C of warming simply is
>not in evidence except in the minds of the people writing the computer
>models.

Does Mickey Langan have kids and hope for grandkids? If the
scientists are right if we don't reduce our burning of fossil fuels we
will present them with terrible problems. Final test. Do we trust
someone calling himself Mickey Langan or do we accept the science as
our best source of information?

G=EMC^2

unread,

May 6, 2012, 6:26:45 AM5/6/12

to

On May 5, 11:09 pm, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9rCdnRmrpe4XRjjS...@mchsi.com
>
> >http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-...

>
> >> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
> >> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earth’s natural process of
> >> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers
> >> reported in a study in the journal Science. That’s about double the
> >> rate predicted by most current climate
> >> models, the authors noted. It gets worse. If current trends
> >> continue -- possibly triggering
> >> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> >> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or
> >> more.
>
> Do models write these stories as they go or is a human involed?

This information gave me the idea for my heavy air theory I have been
posting for the last 5 years. Hurricanes bigger an having tornadoes in
the #4 range are more and more common place. Heavy air theory is
based on good science and common sense .Just the increase size of hail
stones proves it. Treb=Bert

Wally W.

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:01:46 PM5/6/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 22:46:53 -0700, gordo wrote:

>On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:39:35 -0500, Mickey Langan
><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-05-06, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>>>>
>>>>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
>>>>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
>>>>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
>>>>> in a study in the journal Science.
>>>>>
>>>>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
>>>>> the authors noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
>>>>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
>>>>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
>>>
>>> "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
>>> science from newspapers.
>>
>>They trumpet all this "hottest decade" stuff like it means something. Apparently
>>they don't understand that no one disputes there has been some warming happening
>>in the last 160 years....
>
>Who is they? What does trumpet mean in the case of pointing out that
>the last decade has been the warmest since records have been taken?

"They" generally refuse to provide a label by which others may refer
to them.

What kind of religion refuses to give itself a name?

>>It's all about catastrophic. There is exactly zero evidence that it gets
>>worse.
>The temperature of planet earth is going to continue to heat up. The
>only thing to stop this would be a huge volcano or being hit by a
>comet.

How do you know these are the *only* things that can stop it?

>Acidification will continue period.

Until it stops.

>>The positive feedback required to get to 2C of warming simply is
>>not in evidence except in the minds of the people writing the computer
>>models.
> Does Mickey Langan have kids and hope for grandkids? If the
>scientists are right if we don't reduce our burning of fossil fuels we
>will present them with terrible problems.

We can reduce our burning of fossil fuels by building nuclear power
plants.

Do you have another society-sustaining way to reduce our burning of
fossil fuels in the short term? Replacing light bulbs with CFLs is a
token effort that creates toxic waste.

Or do you favor the destruction of societies as we know them?

The way to help the third world is to make it more like developed
countries.

No one, other than some elite few, is helped by making the developed
countries more like the third world.

>Final test. Do we trust
>someone calling himself Mickey Langan or do we accept the science as
>our best source of information?

False dichotomy. Science is not the only important source of
information.

Can science quantify the cuteness of grandchildren? If it could, do I
care what it says about the cuteness of my granchildren compared with
someone else's? Should I shun my grandchildren because a scientist
says someone else's are cuter?

Mickey Langan

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:29:37 PM5/6/12

to

He doesn't. He doesn't know anything, and pretends he does.

>
>>Acidification will continue period.
>
> Until it stops.

And it has nothing to do with catastrophic anthropogenic
global warming.

Gordo is a know-nothing who pretends he knows something. He can appeal
to authority, toss out red herrings, and make personal attacks. He
can't even describe the problem. He doesn't even know why "hottest decade"
means nothing in a period of warming. He can't discuss the science at
all -- he instead tries to imply I don't care about my grandchildren.

I will point out that every million dollars we spend in useless
measures against uncertain fates dooms another few poor people to
lives of want. But I won't suggest they "don't care about poor
people". I understand what it means to have a differing opinion. I
don't have to use tactics like equating my opponents with Holocaust
deniers and other such slimy moves. And when I don't, it wins the day.
People can see how desparate and dishonest the global warming
alarmists are, which is why they are losing the argument.

--
Mickey

Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown

Wally W.

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:43:57 PM5/6/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 22:46:53 -0700, gordo wrote:

Why "if?" Isn't the claim that "the debate is over?"

>if we don't reduce our burning of fossil fuels we
>will present them with terrible problems.

*If* the scientists are right, that future is already assured.

Leaving them with tools to fight the problem is the most caring thing
to do.

Dismantling society to fight AGW is worse than locking the barn door
after the horse has escaped; it is like taking up residence in the
barn as penance to the horse, who is much happier to be free anyway. A
complete exercise in futility.

If you will notice, you will see that we have problems *now*. Pissing
money down the rathole of fighting AGW isn't helping.

Some people with us now won't *have* grandchildren if we don't work on
problems existing *now*.

gordo

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:46:22 PM5/6/12

to

He answers a question with a question and a really stupid one at that.

>
>>>It's all about catastrophic. There is exactly zero evidence that it gets
>>>worse.
>>The temperature of planet earth is going to continue to heat up. The
>>only thing to stop this would be a huge volcano or being hit by a
>>comet.
>
>How do you know these are the *only* things that can stop it?

Bill Gates is donating millions to research other ways to stop it.

>>Acidification will continue period.
>
>Until it stops.

True but if we stop emitting CO2 today acidification would continue
for a long time to come.

>
>>>The positive feedback required to get to 2C of warming simply is
>>>not in evidence except in the minds of the people writing the computer
>>>models.
>> Does Mickey Langan have kids and hope for grandkids? If the
>>scientists are right if we don't reduce our burning of fossil fuels we
>>will present them with terrible problems.
>
>We can reduce our burning of fossil fuels by building nuclear power
>plants.
>
>Do you have another society-sustaining way to reduce our burning of
>fossil fuels in the short term? Replacing light bulbs with CFLs is a
>token effort that creates toxic waste.
>
>Or do you favor the destruction of societies as we know them?

No one wants destructions of societies as we know them but this is
what is in store for the future of societies if we do not slow the
burning of fossil fuels.

>The way to help the third world is to make it more like developed
>countries.

In some respects but we can also learn from third world countries.

>No one, other than some elite few, is helped by making the developed
>countries more like the third world.

We want to continue our good life and can if we act smart .

>
>>Final test. Do we trust
>>someone calling himself Mickey Langan or do we accept the science as
>>our best source of information?
>
>False dichotomy. Science is not the only important source of
>information.
>
>Can science quantify the cuteness of grandchildren? If it could, do I
>care what it says about the cuteness of my granchildren compared with
>someone else's? Should I shun my grandchildren because a scientist
>says someone else's are cuter?

No. My grandchildren are by far the best.

gordo

unread,

May 6, 2012, 3:08:16 PM5/6/12

to

On Sun, 06 May 2012 11:29:37 -0500, Mickey Langan

There could be others and as I pointed out Bill Gates has donate
millions to research this.

>>>Acidification will continue period.
>>
>> Until it stops.
>
>And it has nothing to do with catastrophic anthropogenic
>global warming.

It has to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the amount we are
putting there is known. Didn't you know this?

There is no argument . CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the present
global warming. Attacks at me do not change facts.

Bill Ward

unread,

May 6, 2012, 3:20:00 PM5/6/12

to

Or burning down the barn so no horse can ever escape again. It's not
only futile, it's destructive.

gordo

unread,

May 6, 2012, 7:48:45 PM5/6/12

to

So who is the real alarmist. No one has dismantled society. You want
money expended in the third world but you have trillion dollars saying
not my dime. Get real you are the alarmists and the deniers. If we can
slow down the burning of fossil fuels there is the hope that the next
generation will not have to deal with runaway global warming.

>t is like taking up residence in the
>barn as penance to the horse, who is much happier to be free anyway. A
>complete exercise in futility.
>
>If you will notice, you will see that we have problems *now*. Pissing
>money down the rathole of fighting AGW isn't helping.
>
>Some people with us now won't *have* grandchildren if we don't work on
>problems existing *now*.

There is the meeting coming up in Rio. Real problems and solutions
will be addressed by industry, government and scientists. You of
course would say that pissing money down the rathole of fighting AGW
is not helping but of course this is what your leaders the Koch
brothers want you to believe. They want no regulations that interfere
with their bottom line so are you a committed member of this religious
cult?

Wally W.

unread,

May 6, 2012, 8:07:19 PM5/6/12

to

The Koch brothers are not my leaders. Who are yours?

I do note the conference will be in a tropical paradise, and not where
those who are oh-so-concerned about polar bears can actually *see* one
in the wild.

Wouldn't they be much more convincing if they came back from the
conference with eyewitness accounts?

Imagine the impact of a Hollywood hottie in full actress mode: "I saw
dead polar bears for myself. And there was a baby polar bear alone on
a piece of ice, drifting out to sea and calling for its mother. The
sky *is* falling, and we're all gonna die!"

gordo

unread,

May 6, 2012, 8:32:04 PM5/6/12

to

Are you part of the alarmists religious cult of the Koch brothers who
proclaim no regulations of dirty coal because it cuts into the bottom
line? The destruction from dirty coal is real. So is the snake oil
you have bought into.

Wally W.

unread,

May 6, 2012, 8:44:54 PM5/6/12

to

You nailed it. A green solution; complete with the beloved positive
feedbacks.

Burning the barn has no CO2 footprint because it was made with
recently grown trees; they don't contain carbon sequestered before
humans arrived.

As everyone knows, all was right with the world before humans arrived.

Burning the barn will make humans less able to withstand variations in
Nature. Therefore, more humans will die, reducing their blight on the
land. With fewer humans to help each other, positive feedbacks will
cause more to die.

Then humans will be in a sustainable equilibrium with beloved polar
bears to provide sustenance for said bears. The polar bears will then
eat fewer baby seals, and unicorns will flourish again.

gordo

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:35:27 AM5/7/12

to

I am glad they are not your leaders so quit following them. I have
several roll models who I really have trouble following but Mahatma
Gandhi comes to mind. Mother Teresa also is inspiring. Charles Darwin
is also a personal hero of mine. He waited a long time to publish but
when he did it remained a remarkable scientific discourse with
branches in every direction pun intended.

>I do note the conference will be in a tropical paradise, and not where
>those who are oh-so-concerned about polar bears can actually *see* one
>in the wild.
>
>Wouldn't they be much more convincing if they came back from the
>conference with eyewitness accounts?
>
>Imagine the impact of a Hollywood hottie in full actress mode: "I saw
>dead polar bears for myself. And there was a baby polar bear alone on
>a piece of ice, drifting out to sea and calling for its mother. The
>sky *is* falling, and we're all gonna die!"
>
>
>>>>Final test. Do we trust
>>>>someone calling himself Mickey Langan or do we accept the science as
>>>>our best source of information?

No Wally I see a world conference unlike the G8 or G20 conferences
meeting regularly to divide up the worlds riches behind barricades.
The Rio Conference is called Rio+20 because it is after 20 years. Any
idea how many G8 summits have been held in the last 20 years. I wonder
why there are barricades at the G8 summit? I wonder why they do not
just use video conferencing? I wonder why it is not a world
conference?

Wally W.

unread,

May 7, 2012, 7:25:40 AM5/7/12

to

No, what?

People who make a show of crying over polar bears wouldn't be much

more convincing if they came back from the conference with eyewitness
accounts?

Why not?

Your rant about economic summits is a diversion. Not to say it is
invalid. But an economic summit isn't hypocritical. Economic summit:
people who value money meeting to talk about money, how to get it, how
to keep it, and probably how to help others to some extent.

Contrast with Rio+20: people who *say* they value polar bears and
penguins meeting in a tropical paradise, where they will observe
neither.

Dawlish

unread,

May 7, 2012, 7:33:41 AM5/7/12

to

On May 7, 12:25 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:35:27 -0700, gordo wrote:
> >On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:07:19 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:48:45 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:43:57 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 22:46:53 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:39:35 -0500, Mickey Langan
> >>>>><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>On 2012-05-06, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-...

A diversion?? From a denier?? Good grief. Have a look at Avoid, Dodge,
deny for diversions. Another strawman from this wally. Have you
evidence to say that storms in the Arctic have caused storms to
decrease? NO. Thought not. And has anyone found you yet??

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,

May 7, 2012, 10:38:54 AM5/7/12

to

On May 6, 12:29 pm, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> On 2012-05-06, Wally W <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 05 May 2012 22:46:53 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:39:35 -0500, Mickey Langan
> >><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
>

> >>>On 2012-05-06, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-...

All the money spent on climate change in this country, summed for all
the years, doesn't equal what we spend on the military in a month, I'd
wager. How many children could you feed or clothe for the price of an
F22?

gordo

unread,

May 7, 2012, 1:36:02 PM5/7/12

to

No one is talking about polar bears or penguins . The objective of the
Conference is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable
development,It is about poverty reduction.

Fredric L. Rice

unread,

May 8, 2012, 9:50:05 PM5/8/12

to

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
> The rise of the average global temperature about 1
> degree Fahrenheit between 1950 and 2000 intensified
> the Earth’s natural process of evaporation and
> precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
> in a study in the journal Science.

Now watch as all the Republican corporate cock suckers cry, "Is not!" :)

The denial of directly observed phenomena makes for very poor science. :)

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

AGWFacts

unread,

May 11, 2012, 8:55:17 AM5/11/12

to

Of course as they noted the rate of increase is water vapor
residency time, not volume. One may read the abstract here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455.abstract

--
"We plough far too much money into universities
these days." -- Catoni, AGW proponent

AGWFacts

unread,

May 11, 2012, 9:04:41 AM5/11/12

to

On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:09:28 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

The conclusion that the water vapor cyucles has already sped up is
based upon direct measurement, you silly goose, which you would
know if you read the paper. The conclusion that it will continue
to do so is based upon the laws of physics.

"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry
regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in
response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in
sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain
ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an
identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our
50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with
changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an
intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of
surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by
current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial
(16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur
in a future 2° to 3° warmer world."

AGWFacts

unread,

May 11, 2012, 9:05:30 AM5/11/12

to

On Sun, 6 May 2012 04:23:08 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

So, when the doctor tells a patient that her cancer will get
worse, the doctor is out to frighten her?

net.k00k indeed.

"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry
regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in
response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in
sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain
ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an
identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our
50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with
changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an

intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ą 5% per degree of

AGWFacts

unread,

May 11, 2012, 9:06:26 AM5/11/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:39:35 -0500, Mickey Langan
<mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

> On 2012-05-06, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> > In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
> >>
> >>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
> >>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
> >>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
> >>> in a study in the journal Science.
> >>>
> >>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
> >>> the authors noted.
> >>>
> >>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
> >>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> >>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
> >
> > "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
> > science from newspapers.

> They trumpet all this "hottest decade" stuff like it means something. Apparently

Trying to change the subject will not make the evidence just go
away.

"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry
regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in
response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in
sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain
ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an
identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our
50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with
changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an
intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ą 5% per degree of
surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by
current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial
(16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur
in a future 2° to 3° warmer world."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455.abstract

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 11, 2012, 12:19:12 PM5/11/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 04:23:08 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>> >
>> >> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
>> >> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
>> >> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
>> >> in a study in the journal Science.
>> >>
>> >> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
>> >> the authors noted.
>> >>
>> >> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
>> >> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
>> >> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
>
>> "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
>> science from newspapers.
>
> So, when the doctor tells a patient that her cancer will get
> worse, the doctor is out to frighten her?

That is a non sequitur, but...

If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
from reading media stories about medicine, yes.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 11, 2012, 4:34:33 PM5/11/12

to

On Fri, 11 May 2012 16:19:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:05:30 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 May 2012 04:23:08 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
> > > >
> > > >> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
> > > >> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
> > > >> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
> > > >> in a study in the journal Science.
> > > >>
> > > >> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
> > > >> the authors noted.
> > > >>
> > > >> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
> > > >> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> > > >> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.

> > > "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
> > > science from newspapers.

> > So, when the doctor tells a patient that her cancer will get
> > worse, the doctor is out to frighten her?
> >

> > net.k00k indeed.
> >
> > "Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry
> > regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in
> > response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in
> > sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain
> > ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an
> > identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our
> > 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with
> > changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an

> > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of

> > surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by
> > current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial
> > (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur
> > in a future 2° to 3° warmer world."

> That is a non sequitur, but...
>
> If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
> from reading media stories about medicine, yes.

The subject is the increase in extreme weather events, you silly
net.k00k goose. It is observed to have happened; the laws of
physics dictate it will continue to get worse. Stating these facts
is exactly equal to stating lung cancer gets worse. Since you are
a k00k, you have written that stating the facts is
"scaremongering."

See why nobody takes you seriously?

--
"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,
tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 11, 2012, 5:04:49 PM5/11/12

to

On 5/5/12 11:23 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>>
>>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
>>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
>>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
>>> in a study in the journal Science.
>>>
>>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
>>> the authors noted.
>>>
>>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
>>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
>>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
>
> "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
> science from newspapers.
>
>

All Wormley does is bring some physics related news to sci.physics,
actively attempt to get those who reject or misunderstand the physics
to look at educational resources, published papers and articles.

jimp, on the other hand, is a global warming naysayer, won't read
the educational resources, published papers and articles, and calls
other posters names, instead of articulating scientific discussion.
He'll go to his grave denying that AGW is reaching a point of reeking
havoc upon the earth's living ecosystems and populations.

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 11, 2012, 5:06:43 PM5/11/12

to

On 5/11/12 11:19 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
> from reading media stories about medicine, yes.
>

What Wormley does is bring some physics related news to sci.physics,
actively attempts to get those who reject or misunderstand the physics

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 11, 2012, 6:06:03 PM5/11/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 16:19:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:05:30 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 6 May 2012 04:23:08 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> > wrote:
>> >

<snip>

>> > > "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
>> > > science from newspapers.
>
>> > So, when the doctor tells a patient that her cancer will get
>> > worse, the doctor is out to frighten her?

>> That is a non sequitur, but...
>>
>> If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
>> from reading media stories about medicine, yes.
>
> The subject is the increase in extreme weather events

No, the subject is scaremongers quoting crap out of newspaper articles
and pretending that newspaper articles are science.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 11, 2012, 6:12:31 PM5/11/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/12 11:19 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
>> from reading media stories about medicine, yes.
>>
>
> What Wormley does is bring some physics related news to sci.physics,

What swormley1, the arrogant little asshole, does is to quote mass media
articles, pretend that mass media publishes science, and try to scare
people of the supposed dangers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

> jimp, on the other hand, is a global warming naysayer,

Jim P, on the other hand, is a bit more rational and doesn't believe
the current UN predictions of doom and gloom due to increased global
temperatures any more than he believed the UN predictions of doom and
gloom from a global ice age a few decades back.

GW: Obvious by observation
AGW: Mostly speculation
CAGW: Hysterical, speculative, arm waving

swormley1: A foul little turd that should be flushed.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 11, 2012, 6:13:27 PM5/11/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

The same exact response twice because not even he reads what he writes.

Peter Webb

unread,

May 11, 2012, 7:59:49 PM5/11/12

to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9rCdnRmrpe4XRjjS...@mchsi.com...

> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>
>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit

>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earth’s natural process of

>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported in
>> a study in the journal Science.
>>

>> That’s about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
>> the authors noted.
>>

More evidence that existing climate models are seriously wrong.

As if we needed it.

Does the story state which models have been shown to make incorrect
predictions as to evaporation rate, and hence should be discarded? Were any
of these incorrect models used by the IPCC in forming their predictions?

Will Janoschka

unread,

May 11, 2012, 9:05:15 PM5/11/12

to

On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:04:49, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/5/12 11:23 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
> >>
> >>> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
> >>> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
> >>> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
> >>> in a study in the journal Science.
> >>>
> >>> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
> >>> the authors noted.
> >>>
> >>> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
> >>> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> >>> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
> >
> > "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
> > science from newspapers.
> >
> >
>
> All Wormley does is bring some physics related news to sci.physics,
> actively attempt to get those who reject or misunderstand the physics
> to look at educational resources, published papers and articles.

All Wormley does on AGW, is bring the same biased, tired,
psudo-scientific,
political nonsense to sci.physics, Bull Shit All, no physics.

Wormley knows not the difference between the scientific method and
the political method! He refuses to learn!

> jimp, on the other hand, is a global warming naysayer, won't read
> the educational resources, published papers and articles, and calls
> other posters names, instead of articulating scientific discussion.
> He'll go to his grave denying that AGW is reaching a point of reeking
> havoc upon the earth's living ecosystems and populations.
>

Good for jimp, rejecting psudo-science Bull Shit! There is no
branch
of science called Climate Science, go ask the geophysics folk.

Bill Snyder

unread,

May 12, 2012, 2:12:03 AM5/12/12

to

On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:05:15 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

>All Wormley does on AGW, is bring the same biased, tired,
>psudo-scientific,
>political nonsense to sci.physics, Bull Shit All, no physics.
>
>Wormley knows not the difference between the scientific method and
>the political method! He refuses to learn!
>
>> jimp, on the other hand, is a global warming naysayer, won't read
>> the educational resources, published papers and articles, and calls
>> other posters names, instead of articulating scientific discussion.
>> He'll go to his grave denying that AGW is reaching a point of reeking
>> havoc upon the earth's living ecosystems and populations.
>>
> Good for jimp, rejecting psudo-science Bull Shit! There is no
>branch
> of science called Climate Science, go ask the geophysics folk.

Where's that calculation to back up your loony claim, wackjob?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

bjacoby

unread,

May 12, 2012, 1:07:47 PM5/12/12

to

Looney? Wackjob? Say, that sounds suspiciously like a "character
assassination"? Wormley just assured us that you warmists never do that
sort of thing. Only "deniers" do that.

Bill Snyder

unread,

May 12, 2012, 4:47:52 PM5/12/12

to

On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:07:47 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 5/12/2012 2:12 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:05:15 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> Janoschka) wrote:
>
>>> Good for jimp, rejecting psudo-science Bull Shit! There is no
>>> branch of science called Climate Science, go ask the geophysics folk.
>
>> Where's that calculation to back up your loony claim, wackjob?
>
>Looney? Wackjob? Say, that sounds suspiciously like a "character
>assassination"?

Not to sane people. To them it sounds like a challenge to a kook.
One he keeps running away from, because he has no character to be
assassinated, any more than you do.

> Wormley just assured us that you warmists never do that
>sort of thing. Only "deniers" do that.

If you have a problem with something somebody else said, shit-bot,
maybe you should talk to them about it.

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 14, 2012, 12:21:35 AM5/14/12

to

On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> GW: Obvious by observation
> AGW: Mostly speculation

The whittle away at your AGW speculation, jimp:

> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Sorry, Deniers, Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
>

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 14, 2012, 12:44:49 AM5/14/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> GW: Obvious by observation
>> AGW: Mostly speculation
>
> The whittle away at your AGW speculation, jimp:

Sorry, this does not parse as English, ass hat.

<snip references to mass media represented as science>

AGWFacts

unread,

May 16, 2012, 11:22:45 AM5/16/12

to

On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:06:03 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:34:33 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 May 2012 16:19:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:05:30 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 6 May 2012 04:23:08 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit
> > > > > >> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earths natural process of
> > > > > >> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported
> > > > > >> in a study in the journal Science.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That about double the rate predicted by most current climate models,
> > > > > >> the authors noted.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering
> > > > > >> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> > > > > >> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
> >

> > > > > "It gets worse" only to climate scaremongers like swormley1 who get their
> > > > > science from newspapers.
> >
> > > > So, when the doctor tells a patient that her cancer will get
> > > > worse, the doctor is out to frighten her?
> > > >

> > > > net.k00k indeed.
> > > >
> > > > "Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry
> > > > regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in
> > > > response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in
> > > > sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain
> > > > ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an
> > > > identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our
> > > > 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with
> > > > changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an
> > > > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of
> > > > surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by
> > > > current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial
> > > > (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur
> > > > in a future 2° to 3° warmer world."
> >

> > > That is a non sequitur, but...
> > >
> > > If the doctor is a quack like swormley1 that got his medical training
> > > from reading media stories about medicine, yes.

> > The subject is the increase in extreme weather events, you silly
> > net.k00k goose. It is observed to have happened; the laws of
> > physics dictate it will continue to get worse. Stating these facts
> > is exactly equal to stating lung cancer gets worse. Since you are
> > a k00k, you have written that stating the facts is
> > "scaremongering."
> >
> > See why nobody takes you seriously?

> No, the subject is scaremongers quoting crap out of newspaper articles
> and pretending that newspaper articles are science.

I'm sorry you are frightened by people stating the facts. Maybe
you can talk to a health care professional about this problem.

Meanwhile, extreme weather events are increasing at an
unprecedented rate:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain

Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf

Background:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf

An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:

http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf

http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub

http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf

"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average
season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named
storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 16, 2012, 11:41:29 AM5/16/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

It only took the childish moron 5 days to paste in 97 lines of crap from
other posts this time.

What a total buffoon.

Will Janoschka

unread,

May 16, 2012, 12:48:21 PM5/16/12

to

Why do "these" religious nuts hate science so much?
Just becase they can not do it? Sad.

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 16, 2012, 1:32:12 PM5/16/12

to

On 5/11/12 5:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> No, the subject is scaremongers quoting crap out of newspaper articles
> and pretending that newspaper articles are science.

The jimp should wake up to the bigger picture concerning this global
warming and why it threatens humanity.

> The Last Great Global Warming
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming
>
> Rob Dunbar: The threat of ocean acidification
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfgbVjb688
>
> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 16, 2012, 1:38:33 PM5/16/12

to

On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> GW: Obvious by observation
> AGW: Mostly speculation

You and most scientific societies disagree, jimp.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic
global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

>
> NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
> State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
> The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
> American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
> American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
> National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
> American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
>
> There's more!

Betcha can't find any scientific fault in any of these articles, jimp:

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 16, 2012, 2:18:50 PM5/16/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/12 5:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> No, the subject is scaremongers quoting crap out of newspaper articles
>> and pretending that newspaper articles are science.
>
> The jimp should wake up to the bigger picture concerning this global
> warming and why it threatens humanity.

The swormley1 ass hat should put down his mass media puff pieces, get out
into the real world, and stop his scare mongering.

If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
have died and continue to die from malaria.

I guess to true believers, the deaths of mostly black kids doesn't count
for anything.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 16, 2012, 2:21:35 PM5/16/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> GW: Obvious by observation
>> AGW: Mostly speculation
>
> You and most scientific societies disagree, jimp.
>
> Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic

You mean your list of mostly mass media news sources, swormley1?

Fuck off and die, ass hat.

bjacoby

unread,

May 17, 2012, 1:33:38 AM5/17/12

to

On 5/16/2012 1:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> GW: Obvious by observation
>> AGW: Mostly speculation
>
> You and most scientific societies disagree, jimp.
>
> Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic
> global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

What Sam and his propaganda consultants who provide the links to media
puff pieces for him to post mean is that the sold-out LEADERSHIP of all
these "societies" and "organizations" support his fairytale view of
climate change. So far as I know NO as in NONE of these societies have
ever actually polled their membership to find their views. The "leaders"
tell the members what they are thinking.

Sam, you are still an asshat fooling nobody but yourself.

Bill Snyder

unread,

May 17, 2012, 9:29:38 AM5/17/12

to

On Thu, 17 May 2012 01:33:38 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Because scientists are all sheep who don't mind being told what to
think. Uh-huh.

>Sam, you are still an asshat fooling nobody but yourself.

When you talk to your mirror, you're supposed to call it by your
own name.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 17, 2012, 12:43:46 PM5/17/12

to

In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:

> Because scientists are all sheep who don't mind being told what to
> think. Uh-huh.

No, because most organizations, scientific and otherwise, don't bother
to poll the membership for their view before publishing postition statements.

kym horsell

unread,

May 17, 2012, 1:09:23 PM5/17/12

to

Is that what it is?

--
There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles [out of the 40,000
published since 1970?] questioning the importance of man-made global warming.
-- John ["gun statistics"] Lott, 8 Dec 2009

AGWFacts

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:11:54 PM5/17/12

to

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:41:29 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ą 5% per degree of

> > season due to a moderate La Nińa, with the most number of named

> > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

> It only took the childish moron 5 days to paste in 97 lines of crap from
> other posts this time.

No, you did not. Trying to take credit for the positive
achievement of someone else is the act of a child.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:13:02 PM5/17/12

to

On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:21:35 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 12:38:33 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/11/12 5:12 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > GW: Obvious by observation
> > > AGW: Mostly speculation
> >
> > You and most scientific societies disagree, jimp.
> >
> > Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic

> You mean your list of mostly mass media news sources, swormley1?

No, Shit-for-brains: he means the list above. Sheeeish.

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:26:28 PM5/17/12

to

On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
> like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
> have died and continue to die from malaria.

Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson

> Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Population_decline_and_recovery

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:56:54 PM5/17/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
>> like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
>> have died and continue to die from malaria.
>
> Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson

From your own link, ass hat:

"Carson and the environmental movement were-and continue to be-criticized by
some ... who argue that restrictions placed on pesticides, specifically DDT,
have caused tens of millions of needless deaths..."

But since most of those dead millions are black babies, what do you care?

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:59:06 PM5/17/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> cut and pasted:

44 lines from other posts in an attempt to pretend I posted it.

What a total fool.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 17, 2012, 8:52:22 PM5/17/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in:

130 lines of crap cut and paste from other posts thinking this is somehow
the smart thing to do.

What an idiot.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:11:44 PM5/20/12

to

On Fri, 18 May 2012 00:52:22 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > > > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 � 5% per degree of

> > > > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > > > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > > > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > > > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > > > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > > > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > > > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > > > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > > > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
> >
> > > It only took the childish moron 5 days to paste in 97 lines of crap from
> > > other posts this time.
> >
> > No, you did not. Trying to take credit for the positive
> > achievement of someone else is the act of a child.

> 130 lines of crap cut and paste from other posts thinking this is somehow
> the smart thing to do. What an idiot.

Huh?

AGWFacts

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:12:43 PM5/20/12

to

On Fri, 18 May 2012 00:59:06 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> 44 lines from other posts in an attempt to pretend I posted it.

So now you're denying you even wrote it? Do you really believe
anyone is going to fall for it?

AGWFacts

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:18:06 PM5/20/12

to

On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:26:28 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
> > like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
> > have died and continue to die from malaria.

Only a batshit crazy net.k00k would believe that assertion.

Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.

> Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
>
> Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 � April 14, 1964) was an American
> marine biologist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are
> credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Population_decline_and_recovery

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:19:23 PM5/20/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

139 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:20:27 PM5/20/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

61 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 20, 2012, 1:05:16 PM5/20/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
> also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
> use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.

Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
available insecticide, i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated
and in some cases flat wrong, DDT did not cease to be effective, and
Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.

Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 20, 2012, 5:45:02 PM5/20/12

to

Interesting jimp cares so much about dying Malaria victims and
cares nothing about those dying form global warming. The latter
is going to get much worse, jimp!

Global Warming Leads to 150,000 Deaths Every Year
> http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandhealth/a/gw_deaths.htm

> Global warming is not only a threat to our future health, it already contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually, according to a team of health and climate scientists at the World Health Organization and the University of Wisconsin at Madison—and those numbers could double by 2030.

tm

unread,

May 20, 2012, 6:17:09 PM5/20/12

to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:UradnUya2stD-CTS...@mchsi.com...

The bullshit is really getting deep around here.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 20, 2012, 6:49:27 PM5/20/12

to

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/20/12 12:05 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
>>> also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
>>> use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.
>>
>> Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
>> available insecticide, i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated
>> and in some cases flat wrong, DDT did not cease to be effective, and
>> Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.
>>
>> Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.
>>
>>
>
> Interesting jimp cares so much about dying Malaria victims and
> cares nothing about those dying form global warming. The latter
> is going to get much worse, jimp!
>
>
> Global Warming Leads to 150,000 Deaths Every Year

Arm waving, hysterical, nonsense.

Malaria accounts for a real death rate of roughly 1,000,000 per year
and could be prevented with judicious use of DDT.

kym horsell

unread,

May 20, 2012, 7:49:37 PM5/20/12

to

On Monday, May 21, 2012 7:45:02 AM UTC+10, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/20/12 12:05 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
> >> also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
> >> use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.
> >
> > Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
> > available insecticide, i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated
> > and in some cases flat wrong, DDT did not cease to be effective, and
> > Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.
> >
> > Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.
> >
> >
>
> Interesting jimp cares so much about dying Malaria victims and
> cares nothing about those dying form global warming. The latter
> is going to get much worse, jimp!

...

Not to mention that warming increases the spread of Malaria. 15 mn hits. 8-o

Maybe this is how we get the gimpster into the club? :)

--
[The second thing to go is memory:]
Sam wrote:
>>Hey jimp--do you realize there ain't enough safe fresh water for
>>all the people? Do you realize shortages will increase dramatically
>>in the next decade due to global climate change! It's not rocket
>>science, jimp!

Jimp then wrote:
>If that were true there would be people dying of thirst.
>Show me the bodies.

Later, jimp mis-remembered the OT & who strawmanned "dying of thirst":
The original topic was people dying of thirst, moron.
Then you post some crap about people dying from drinking contaminated water, fool.
Dying from drinking contaminated water is NOT dying of thirst, idiot.
The dying part could have easily been prevented by boiling the water, retard.
-- ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com, 17 Mar 2012 16:59 -0000

gordo

unread,

May 20, 2012, 8:09:04 PM5/20/12

to

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:17:09 -0400, "tm" <No_on...@white-house.gov>
wrote:

The article was from Nature magazine. Now point out where the study
was wrong and tell us. The study was from the World Heath
Organization and a university and I am positive that they will gladly
hear any corrections so that what their findings are can be corrected.
I will as well. So easy just to say bullshit though isn't it.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 25, 2012, 11:22:35 AM5/25/12

to

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:19:23 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ą 5% per degree of

> > > > > > season due to a moderate La Nińa, with the most number of named

> > > > > > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > > > > > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > > > > > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > > > > > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > > > > > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > > > > > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > > > > > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > > > > > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
> > > >
> > > > > It only took the childish moron 5 days to paste in 97 lines of crap from
> > > > > other posts this time.
> > > >
> > > > No, you did not. Trying to take credit for the positive
> > > > achievement of someone else is the act of a child.
> >
> > > 130 lines of crap cut and paste from other posts thinking this is somehow
> > > the smart thing to do. What an idiot.
> >
> > Huh?

> 139 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

But Extreme weather events are increasing at an unprecedented

rate:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain

Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf

Background:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf

An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:

http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf

http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub

http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf

"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average

season due to a moderate La Nińa, with the most number of named

storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

AGWFacts

unread,

May 25, 2012, 11:23:03 AM5/25/12

to

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:20:27 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> 61 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

Extreme weather events are increasing at an unprecedented rate:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain

Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf

Background:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf

An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:

http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf

http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub

http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf

"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average

season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

AGWFacts

unread,

May 25, 2012, 11:30:16 AM5/25/12

to

On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:06 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:26:28 -0500, Sam Wormley
> > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> > > > If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
> > > > like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
> > > > have died and continue to die from malaria.
> >
> > Only a batshit crazy net.k00k would believe that assertion.
> >

> > Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
> > also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
> > use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.
> >

> > > Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
> > >
> > > Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 � April 14, 1964) was an American
> > > marine biologist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are
> > > credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Population_decline_and_recovery

> Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
> available insecticide,

Nobody here claimed otherwise, Shit-for-brains. The subject is the
ban on DDT: there is no evidence that shows the ban on DDT had any
adverse effect on human health.

> i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated

And you "know" that how, exactly?

> and in some cases flat wrong,

And you "know" that how, exactly?

> DDT did not cease to be effective,

Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_HTM_MAL_2006.1112_eng.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1077266

DDT was used so much in agriculture, that in several regions of
the world DDT ceased being effective because disease vectors
evolved resistance to DDT.

> and
> Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.

Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.

http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm

> Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.

Read that sentence to yourself over and over and over again.

my fake smile

unread,

May 25, 2012, 1:10:13 PM5/25/12

to

On May 5, 11:09 pm, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9rCdnRmrpe4XRjjS...@mchsi.com
>
> >http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-...

>
> >> The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit

> >> between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earth’s natural process of

> >> evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers

> >> reported in a study in the journal Science. That’s about double the

> >> rate predicted by most current climate
> >> models, the authors noted. It gets worse. If current trends
> >> continue -- possibly triggering
> >> another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming
> >> decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or
> >> more.
>

> Do models write these stories as they go or is a human involed?

You aren't there during the writing, so why would you care?

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 25, 2012, 4:18:02 PM5/25/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

206 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 25, 2012, 4:24:23 PM5/25/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>

>> Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
>> available insecticide,
>
> Nobody here claimed otherwise, Shit-for-brains. The subject is the
> ban on DDT: there is no evidence that shows the ban on DDT had any
> adverse effect on human health.

No cheap, effective, readily available insecticide, i.e. DDT, means
people die needlessly from malaria.

Yeah, I know, most of the dead are brown and black so they don't matter
to you.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 25, 2012, 4:25:31 PM5/25/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

123 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,

May 25, 2012, 4:34:45 PM5/25/12

to

On May 25, 4:24 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:16 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com

> > wrote:
>
> >> Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
> >> available insecticide,
>
> > Nobody here claimed otherwise, Shit-for-brains. The subject is the
> > ban on DDT: there is no evidence that shows the ban on DDT had any
> > adverse effect on human health.
>
> No cheap, effective, readily available insecticide, i.e. DDT, means
> people die needlessly from malaria.

Not this myth again.

1. Malaria was not banned world-wide -- the EPA doesn't have that
power.
2. Mosquitoes were already becoming DDT-resistant where DDT was being
widely used.
3. DDT causes genetic damage, urogenital damage, and other problems.

>
> Yeah, I know, most of the dead are brown and black so they don't matter
> to you.

Yeah, you right-wingers care so much about minorities.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 26, 2012, 9:02:08 PM5/26/12

to

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:18:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of

> > > > > > > > season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

> > season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

> > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

> 206 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

But you claimed the following is wrong. How do you "know" that?

Extreme weather events are increasing at an unprecedented rate:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain

Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf

Background:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf

An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:

http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf

http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub

http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf

"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average

season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

AGWFacts

unread,

May 26, 2012, 9:02:37 PM5/26/12

to

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:25:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

> > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

> 123 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

Extreme weather events are increasing at an unprecedented rate:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain

Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf

Background:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf

An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:

http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html

http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf

http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub

http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf

http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf

"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average

season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

AGWFacts

unread,

May 26, 2012, 9:03:48 PM5/26/12

to

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:24:23 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:30:16 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >

> > > On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:06 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:26:28 -0500, Sam Wormley
> > > > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
> > > > > > like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
> > > > > > have died and continue to die from malaria.
> > > >
> > > > Only a batshit crazy net.k00k would believe that assertion.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
> > > > also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
> > > > use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.
> > > >
> > > > > Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
> > > > >
> > > > > Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American
> > > > > marine biologist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are
> > > > > credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions
> > > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Population_decline_and_recovery
> >

> > > Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
> > > available insecticide,
> >
> > Nobody here claimed otherwise, Shit-for-brains. The subject is the
> > ban on DDT: there is no evidence that shows the ban on DDT had any
> > adverse effect on human health.
> >

> > > i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated
> >
> > And you "know" that how, exactly?
> >
> > > and in some cases flat wrong,
> >
> > And you "know" that how, exactly?
> >
> > > DDT did not cease to be effective,
> >
> > Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.
> >
> > http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_HTM_MAL_2006.1112_eng.pdf
> >
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1077266
> >
> > DDT was used so much in agriculture, that in several regions of
> > the world DDT ceased being effective because disease vectors
> > evolved resistance to DDT.
> >
> > > and
> > > Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.
> >
> > Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.
> >
> > http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm
> >
> > > Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.
> >
> > Read that sentence to yourself over and over and over again.

> No cheap, effective, readily available insecticide, i.e. DDT, means
> people die needlessly from malaria.

But as you saw above, that never happened. There is no evidence
that shows anyone died due to the "ban" of DDT.

> Yeah, I know, most of the dead are brown and black so they don't matter
> to you.

Appears Mental.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 26, 2012, 9:12:53 PM5/26/12

to

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT),
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 4:24 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:30:16 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> >
> > > On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:06 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:26:28 -0500, Sam Wormley
> > > > > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/16/12 1:18 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If anything is a threat to humanity, it is scare mongering ass hats
> > > > > > > like swormley1 and Rachel Carson, thanks to whom millions of people
> > > > > > > have died and continue to die from malaria.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a batshit crazy net.k00k would believe that assertion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody died because Dr. Carson discovered the dangers of DDT. Note
> > > > > also that DDT ceased being effective before the world banned the
> > > > > use of DDT; Malathion replaced DDT before the ban.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting perspective jimp has on Rachel Carson.
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American
> > > > > > marine biologist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are
> > > > > > credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Population_decline_and_recovery
> > >

> > > > Millions have in fact died due to the lack of a cheap, effective, readily
> > > > available insecticide,
> > >
> > > Nobody here claimed otherwise, Shit-for-brains. The subject is the
> > > ban on DDT: there is no evidence that shows the ban on DDT had any
> > > adverse effect on human health.
> > >

> > > > i.e. DDT, the "dangers" of DDT were vastly overstated
> > >
> > > And you "know" that how, exactly?
> > >
> > > > and in some cases flat wrong,
> > >
> > > And you "know" that how, exactly?
> > >
> > > > DDT did not cease to be effective,
> > >
> > > Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.
> > >
> > > http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_HTM_MAL_2006.1112_eng.pdf
> > >
> > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1077266
> > >
> > > DDT was used so much in agriculture, that in several regions of
> > > the world DDT ceased being effective because disease vectors
> > > evolved resistance to DDT.
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > Malathion did not replace DDT for mosquito control where the people are dieing.
> > >
> > > Yes, it did, Shit-for-brains.
> > >
> > > http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm
> > >
> > > > Just because you lie and say such things does not make the so.
> > >
> > > Read that sentence to yourself over and over and over again.

> > No cheap, effective, readily available insecticide, i.e. DDT, means
> > people die needlessly from malaria.

> Not this myth again.
>

> 1. [DDT] was not banned world-wide -- the EPA doesn't have that
> power.

Exactly. DDT is not even banned in the USA. DDT use is restricted
in the USA, and for damn good reasons.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240541/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2127062/pdf/9240045.pdf

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/84/10/764.full.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2022666/

http://www.kean.edu/~jfasick/docs/Spring_09_SeniorSem_Sect02/Stephanie%20Long%20Presentation%20Dees%20et%20al%201997.pdf

"Women exposed to relatively high levels of DDT prior to
mid-adolescence are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer
later in life than women with lower exposures. But exposure after
adolescence does not increase risk."

This is one of the reasons why DDT has not been banned, but has
been restricted. The fact is that there are other pesticides that
do not cause cancer.

> 2. Mosquitoes were already becoming DDT-resistant where DDT was being
> widely used.

Yes.

> 3. DDT causes genetic damage, urogenital damage, and other problems.

Yes, and chiefly in the areas of reproduction.

> > Yeah, I know, most of the dead are brown and black so they don't matter
> > to you.

> Yeah, you right-wingers care so much about minorities.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 26, 2012, 10:07:24 PM5/26/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

269 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 26, 2012, 10:08:38 PM5/26/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

67 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 26, 2012, 10:09:49 PM5/26/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

184 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 28, 2012, 1:02:03 PM5/28/12

to

On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:07:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > > > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

> 269 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 28, 2012, 1:02:39 PM5/28/12

to

On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:09:49 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > > > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > > > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > > > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > > > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > > > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > > > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > > > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > > > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
> >

> > > 123 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> >
> > Extreme weather events are increasing at an unprecedented rate:
> >
> > http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain
> >
> > Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
> > billion-dollar events:
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron
> >
> > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf
> >
> > An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:
> >
> > http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html
> >
> > http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf
> >
> > http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf
> >
> > http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf
> >
> > http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub
> >
> > http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf
> >
> > http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005
> >
> > http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf
> >
> > http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf
> >
> > http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf
> >
> > "The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average

> > season due to a moderate La Ni�a, with the most number of named

> > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"

> 184 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 28, 2012, 1:03:02 PM5/28/12

to

On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:08:38 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> 67 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 28, 2012, 1:49:36 PM5/28/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

90 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 28, 2012, 1:50:39 PM5/28/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

192 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

Last Post

unread,

May 28, 2012, 2:54:51 PM5/28/12

to

On Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:01:46 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/climate-warming-charging-water-cycle-producing-bigger-storms
>

> > The rise of the average global temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit between 1950 and 2000 intensified the Earth’s natural process of evaporation and precipitation by about 4 percent, researchers reported in a study in the journal Science.
> >
> > That’s about double the rate predicted by most current climate models, the authors noted.

> >
> > It gets worse. If current trends continue -- possibly triggering another 3 to 5 degrees F of average global warming over the coming decades -- this water cycle could intensify by another 20 percent or more.
> >

ø Another fraudulent paper promoted by the journal
Science. There is NO global warming, nor has there
been since the end of the Medieval Warm Period.

ø The global climate has been in a concerted cooling
period for the past 15 years and is likely to continue
for several centuries during which the Polar Ice will
start moving toward the Equator.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 28, 2012, 10:20:46 PM5/28/12

to

On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:50:39 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > > season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

> > > > > > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > > > > > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > > > > > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > > > > > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > > > > > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > > > > > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > > > > > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > > > > > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
> > > >

> > > > > 123 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> > > > season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named

> > > > storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
> > > > the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
> > > > season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
> > > > it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
> > > > second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
> > > > activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
> > > > the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
> > > > this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
> >

> > > 184 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> 192 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 28, 2012, 10:21:34 PM5/28/12

to

On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:49:36 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > 67 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> 90 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 28, 2012, 11:13:47 PM5/28/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

97 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

May 28, 2012, 11:14:42 PM5/28/12

to

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

199 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,

May 29, 2012, 7:37:56 PM5/29/12

to

On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:14:42 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > 184 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
> >
> > > 192 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> 199 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
>

AGWFacts

unread,

May 29, 2012, 7:38:01 PM5/29/12

to

On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:13:47 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > > > > 67 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
> >
> > > 90 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> 97 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
>

Climate warming charging water cycle, producing bigger storms | Alaska Dispatch

Sam Wormley

James

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

Mickey Langan

gordo

G=EMC^2

Wally W.

Mickey Langan

Wally W.

gordo

gordo

Bill Ward

gordo

Wally W.

gordo

Wally W.

gordo

Wally W.

Dawlish

erschro...@gmail.com

gordo

Fredric L. Rice

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

AGWFacts

Sam Wormley

Sam Wormley

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

Peter Webb

Will Janoschka

Bill Snyder

bjacoby

Bill Snyder

Sam Wormley

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

AGWFacts

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

Will Janoschka

Sam Wormley

Sam Wormley

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

bjacoby

Bill Snyder

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

kym horsell

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

Sam Wormley

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

Sam Wormley

tm

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

kym horsell

gordo

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

my fake smile

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

erschro...@gmail.com

AGWFacts

AGWFacts

AGWFacts