Re: Editorial: With respect to AGW, there is no debate in the scientific community
Bret Cahill
> > With respect to AGW
>
> > There is no debate in the scientific community...
>
> That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
can dance on the end of a pin.
Bret Cahill
Arindam Banerjee
Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause, that is, carbon dioxide
being pumped out of ever bigger and fatter jet engine exhausts. Not
just scientists, but everyone.
Arindam Banerjee
Peter Franks
In fact, there is debate about the main cause. There is also debate
about the consequences, both real and imagined.
But it sounds like you are more interested in denigrating the marvels of
air travel. Why is that? Do you pine for the days of yore behind the
stench of a horse?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
to be limited to emmissions (if not thermal), and
getting close-enough with a giant coke-straw
to snort the chemtrail.
same applies to teh GCMs in general.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> > > > With respect to AGW
>
> > > > There is no debate in the scientific community...
>
> > > That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
>
> > And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> > can dance on the end of a pin.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
Ewe are right in as much as there is no debate among ewe loony leftist
fuckwits who deny AGW is a leftist scam, just as the religionists say
there is no debate among them over the existence of the scam they call
god.
MG
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
This nutter calls people "fuckwits" whilst referring to them as
"ewe".
Hilarious.
erschro...@gmail.com
Oh look, it's our resident nutter again.
Is it the masons this week? The illuminati?
Shrikeback
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
As if the environmental whackos at planetforlife have
any interest in or knowledge of whether there is a
scientific debate or not. Stalinists will make their
assertions, and that makes it true, because if the
Party says it's true, that makes it self-evident.
Shrikeback
> On Jun 23, 3:39 am, Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 8:01 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >
> > > > > > With respect to AGW
> >
> > > > > > There is no debate in the scientific community...
> >
> > > > > That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
> >
> > > > And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> > > > can dance on the end of a pin.
> >
> > > > Bret Cahill
> >
> > > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause,...
> >
> > Ewe are right in as much as there is no debate among ewe loony leftist
> > fuckwits who deny AGW is a leftist scam, just as the religionists say
> > there is no debate among them over the existence of the scam they call
> > god.
> >
> > MG
>
> Oh look, it's our resident nutter again.
>
> Is it the masons this week? The illuminati?
This week the two minute hate is focused on the
Big Carbon Conspiracy to infiltrate and impurify
our precious bodily fluids by carbonating our
water supplies. Turn in all energy producers!
Shrikeback
> On Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:07:15 AM UTC-7, ersch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 3:39 am, Michael Gordge <mike...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 8:01 am, Arindam Banerjee <baner...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill <Bret...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> > >
> > > > > > > With respect to AGW
> > >
> > > > > > > There is no debate in the scientific community...
> > >
> > > > > > That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
> > >
> > > > > And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> > > > > can dance on the end of a pin.
> > >
> > > > > Bret Cahill
> > >
> > > > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause,...
> > >
> > > Ewe are right in as much as there is no debate among ewe loony leftist
> > > fuckwits who deny AGW is a leftist scam, just as the religionists say
> > > there is no debate among them over the existence of the scam they call
> > > god.
> > >
> > > MG
> >
> > Oh look, it's our resident nutter again.
> >
> > Is it the masons this week? The illuminati?
>
> This week the two minute hate is focused on the
> Big Carbon Conspiracy to infiltrate and impurify
> our precious bodily fluids by carbonating our
> water supplies. Turn in all energy producers!
A PSA to Greenolas everywhere:
Anyone who is concerned about CO2 emissions but is
against nuclear power, is a self-contradiction and
should Unabomb himself.
Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > With respect to AGW
>
> > > > > > > There is no debate in the scientific community...
>
> > > > > > That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
>
> > > > > And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> > > > > can dance on the end of a pin.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause,...
>
> > > Ewe are right in as much as there is no debate among ewe loony leftist
> > > fuckwits who deny AGW is a leftist scam, just as the religionists say
> > > there is no debate among them over the existence of the scam they call
> > > god.
>
> > > MG
>
> > Oh look, it's our resident nutter again.
>
> > Is it the masons this week? The illuminati?
>
> This week the two minute hate is focused on the
> Big Carbon Conspiracy
Did you get find conspiracy theory on your Lyndon LaRouche link to a
dowser?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
When buying LSD, remember to only buy Fair Trade LSD,
because it's just greener and more loving to the proles.
Peace, love, and hallucinations to all!
Shrikeback
You're huffing more glue than usual because that
makes even less sense than your usual drivel.
Shrikeback
And the People's Co-op has a special on Mumia blotter
this week! Eat acid and eat Mumia's face at the same
time!
Shrikeback
I live in Portland, which is as blue as Viagra, so I know
my enemy well. That's why my ad homs are more effective
than yours, what with you living in a bat cave since
1981. And I do love my enemies, I really do. Thank
Allah for them!
AGW Facts
There are actual people, some of them educated as engineers and
scientists, who believe heliocentrism should still be debated
because the science isn't settled yet.
AGW Facts
wrote:
> On 6/22/2011 4:01 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >>
> >>>> With respect to AGW
> >>
> >>>> There is no debate in the scientific community...
> >>
> >>> That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
> >>
> >> And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> >> can dance on the end of a pin.
> >>
> >> Bret Cahill
> >
> > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause, that is, carbon dioxide
> > being pumped out of ever bigger and fatter jet engine exhausts. Not
> > just scientists, but everyone.
> In fact, there is debate about the main cause.
Just not among the scientists
> There is also debate
> about the consequences, both real and imagined.
The consequences are well-known.
Shrikeback
As a consequence of an assumption of
relativity, the center of the solar system
depends on which frame of reference you
choose.
Shrikeback
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:52 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/22/2011 4:01 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> > >>
> > >>>> With respect to AGW
> > >>
> > >>>> There is no debate in the scientific community...
> > >>
> > >>> That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
> > >>
> > >> And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> > >> can dance on the end of a pin.
> > >>
> > >> Bret Cahill
> > >
> > > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause, that is, carbon dioxide
> > > being pumped out of ever bigger and fatter jet engine exhausts. Not
> > > just scientists, but everyone.
>
> > In fact, there is debate about the main cause.
>
> Just not among the scientists
Bullshit.
> > There is also debate
> > about the consequences, both real and imagined.
>
> The consequences are well-known.
The consequences cannot be well known because the
atmosphere is a chaotic system not amenable to
prediction. That is the mathematical consensus,
and anyone who lies about it is a denier of the
mathematics of chaos.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
Depate this: there is zero experimental and/or peer-reviewed evidence
that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere.
Tom P
> On 6/22/2011 4:01 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>>>
>>>>> With respect to AGW
>>>
>>>>> There is no debate in the scientific community...
>>>
>>>> That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
>>>
>>> And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
>>> can dance on the end of a pin.
>>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause, that is, carbon dioxide
>> being pumped out of ever bigger and fatter jet engine exhausts. Not
>> just scientists, but everyone.
>
> In fact, there is debate about the main cause. There is also debate
> about the consequences, both real and imagined.
>
think is supposed to be debated and why.
Do you even know what the word "debate" means when you say there is debate?
Michael Gordge
> This........... off topic desperate leftist piffle snipped.
The subject, fuckwit, is not about me, fuckwit, its about ewe dopey as
all fuck lefturdian morons denying AGW is a gigantic scam.
There is no evidence man makes the globe hotter and colded by fucking
around with 0.000000000001% of earth's gas, its a scam, yet another
lie ewe fuckwits have invented to fraudulently raise revenue.
MG
Michael Gordge
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh look,........desperate leftist piffle snipped.
The subject, fuckwit, is not about me, ewe fuckwit, its about ewe
deniers of reality, specifically, ewe leftist fuckwits denying AGW is
a scam invented to generate revenue for your failing loony anti-human
socialist system.
MG
Sam Wormley
> In fact, there is debate about the main cause. There is also debate
> about the consequences, both real and imagined.
Here details some of the debate over the last 100+ years:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Sam Wormley
Michael, to fill you in on the past debate in the scientific community
of the last 100+ years, I refer you to the article from the American
Institute of Physics, titled, "The Discovery of Global Warming".
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Sam Wormley
> The subject, fuckwit, is not about me, ewe fuckwit, its about ewe
> deniers of reality, specifically, ewe leftist fuckwits denying AGW is
> a scam invented to generate revenue for your failing loony anti-human
> socialist system.
>
> MG
Michael, to fill you in on the past debate in the scientific community
Tim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right, because Japan has just proved how safe nukes are, eh moose boy.
Time for you to reductio ad absurdum your head back up your ass,
shitpack.
AGW Facts
But you already know that assertion is false, you silly goose.
AGW Facts
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/11 6:07 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> > The subject, fuckwit, is not about me, fuckwit, its about ewe dopey as
> > all fuck lefturdian morons denying AGW is a gigantic scam.
> >
> > There is no evidence man makes the globe hotter and colded by fucking
> > around with 0.000000000001% of earth's gas, its a scam, yet another
> > lie ewe fuckwits have invented to fraudulently raise revenue.
Can anyone make out any sense in the above?
> Michael, to fill you in on the past debate in the scientific community
> of the last 100+ years, I refer you to the article from the American
> Institute of Physics, titled, "The Discovery of Global Warming".
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The entire web site is available for download here:
AGW Facts
wrote:
> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
AGW Facts
wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/25/11 7:09 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Jim, read: The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >
> > "here is no doubt that the carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic.
> > The circumstantial evidence is strong. Human population increases track
> > carbon dioxide increases. However, there is proof. Carbon dioxide
> > circulating between plants, animals and the atmosphere is made slightly
> > radioactive in the upper atmosphere by the sun. Carbon dioxide formed by
> > burning fossil fuels is not radioactive because the carbon has not been
> > in the upper atmosphere for millions of years. That makes it possible to
> > distinguish anthropogenic fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide from the
> > carbon dioxide circulating between plants and animals by measuring its
> > radioactivity".
> >
> >
> > Jim, read: Impacts of Climate Change
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm#impacts
> >
> > "At first global warming sounded like a good idea, especially to
> > people in Northern climes. But starting in the 1960s, scientists
> > recognized long-range problems, concentrating at first on sea-level rise
> > and a threat to food supplies. New items were gradually added to the
> > list, ranging from the degradation of ecosystems to threats to human
> > health. Experts in fields from forestry to economics, even national
> > security experts, pitched in to assess the range of possible
> > consequences. It was impossible to make solid predictions given the
> > complexity of the global system, the differences from one region to
> > another, and the ways human society itself might try to adapt to the
> > changes. But by the start of the 21st century, it was clear that climate
> > change would bring serious harm to many regions � some more than others.
> > Indeed many kinds of damage were already beginning to appear".
>
> Nothing in there about a 100+ year debate on AGW.
See the above link. You can do it.
AGW Facts
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/11 6:43 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > In fact, there is debate about the main cause.
... just not among scientists.
> > There is also debate about the consequences, both real and imagined.
No scietists are debating "imaginary consequences."
AGW Facts
wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/25/11 7:00 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lier.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Did you find the "The Discovery of Global Warming" from the AIP site
> > interesting Jim. Did you notice all the "debating" back and forth over
> > the last century? Did you notice that nobody was lying? Did you assume
> > the content without reading it?
> Yeah, I read it and there is nothing in there about a 100+ year debate
> on AGW.
Then you didn't read it. Try again.
LoneWolvea
>
> Right, because Japan has just proved how safe nukes are, eh moose boy.
> Time for you to reductio ad absurdum your head back up your ass,
> shitpack.
And?
I guess you better get cracking on building
those windmills. It'll only take about 500,000 square miles of them.
Or is it you five year
plan to disconnect yourself from America's
Internet, and go back to clubbing seals for
your fun?
Tim
"LoneWolvea" <shr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1505870375330886776.8...@nntp.aioe.org...
> Tim <tbee...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Right, because Japan has just proved how safe nukes are, eh moose boy.
>> Time for you to reductio ad absurdum your head back up your ass,
>> shitpack.
>
> And?
>
> I guess you better get cracking on building
> those windmills.
I guess you'd better get cracking on building that lead house.
>It'll only take about 500,000 square miles of them.
It'll only take a few feet of lead and concrete to shield you, and don't
worry about food etc., modern technology will automatically solve all that.
> Or is it you five year
> plan to disconnect yourself from America's
> Internet,
Is it your plan to stay inside for 50,000 yrs till the radiation levels
drop?
> and go back to clubbing seals for
> your fun?
Clubbing you is more fun, you squeal louder, are fatter, and slower moving.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
there is no debate about climate or weather or
the putatively official demarcation between them (say,
in computer science) -- with me.
have a nice _____, you dumbass Confirmerists and Denierists.
Arindam Banerjee
> On 6/22/2011 4:01 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 7:40 am, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> >>>> With respect to AGW
>
> >>>> There is no debate in the scientific community...
>
> >>> That is disturbing. There should be a lot of debate
>
> >> And some believe there should be a lot of debate about how many angels
> >> can dance on the end of a pin.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > Indeed there is no debate upon the main cause, that is, carbon dioxide
> > being pumped out of ever bigger and fatter jet engine exhausts. Not
> > just scientists, but everyone.
>
> about the consequences, both real and imagined.
There can be no debate about the fact that jet engines were NOT
pumping megatons of pollution in the upper atmosphere and continuously
too 60 years ago. It seems obvious that this must be the primary
cause - CO2 is a heavy gas, so will sink to the ground when burnt near
the ground. Some CO2 may indeed be sent up by winds, but that won't
be too high. It is the CO2 sent up at 40000 feet that is the NEW
factor.
> But it sounds like you are more interested in denigrating the marvels of
> air travel.
The way it is now, most certainly.
> Why is that?
Because I hold and have held since the Internet publication of my book
"To the Stars!" that rockets and jet engines are bad technology. We
need to make new engines using new and superior physics, and these
engines will never pollute. My book mentioned all that. Only Indians
noticed it - the rest all ignored and reviled it, and abused me. Very
thoroughly indeed. Still, I will have the last laugh, what with it
being experimentally proved that rail guns have no reaction, following
Schroeder's work on his Masters thesis. So, the new engines I
proposed in 2000 are perfectly possible, and indeed would have been
around today had I been heeded. Of course, the design I gave then was
too ideal - we can still have IFEs but powered by electricity from
fuel cells/hydrogen as opposed to the ideal higher technology proposed
in my book.
> Do you pine for the days of yore behind the
> stench of a horse?
Never had that experience. Have you? Internal combustion engines are
okay, provided they burn hydrogen.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Does your proposed engine run on dilithium crystals by any chance?
>> Do you pine for the days of yore behind the
>> stench of a horse?
>
> Never had that experience. Have you? Internal combustion engines are
> okay, provided they burn hydrogen.
Hydrogen engines produce more oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, than petroleum
engines because of the higher flame temperature.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Arindam Banerjee
What evidence is there of jet engines pumping megatons of CO2 into the
upper atmosphere 60 years ago?
Arindam Banerjee
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:n5tsd8-...@mail.specsol.com...
I do not confuse fact with fiction, as all the lying einsteinian devils do.
I note that the modern intellect is capable only of weak sarcasm. Any
genuine intellect around may heck my recent posts in usenet, where I have
given details.
>>> Do you pine for the days of yore behind the
>>> stench of a horse?
>>
>> Never had that experience. Have you? Internal combustion engines are
>> okay, provided they burn hydrogen.
>
> Hydrogen engines produce more oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, than
> petroleum
> engines because of the higher flame temperature.
Not when they are used in fuel cells, and modern cars are based upon fuel
cells. Nitrogen oxides lead to fertiliser making, good for plants, and that
happens naturally with lightning. Like CO2, it is really a good gas when
used properly. It is only when CO2 goes up with the winds, that we have
them associated with global warming or climate change.
Sam Wormley
> I do not confuse fact with fiction, as all the lying einsteinian devils do.
That's a very telling sentence!
John J Stafford
head and it is not you.
Michael Gordge
> Michael, to fill you in on the past debate in the scientific community
> of the last 100+ years, I refer you to the article from the American
> Institute of Physics, titled, "The Discovery of Global Warming".
Hahahha ewe hoax deniers are sooo fucking funny, if only ewe fuckwits
weren't so fucking dangerous, sooooo what do the deniers of the AGW
hoax say about parts of the globe having the coldest June on record?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/30/3257573.htm?section=justin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/09/3240219.htm
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/124821929.html
http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/pique/index.php?cat=C_News&content=Cold+spring+1826
MG
Michael Gordge
> "LoneWolvea" <shr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1505870375330886776.8...@nntp.aioe.org...
>
>
> >> Right, because Japan has just proved how safe nukes are, eh moose boy.
> >> Time for you to reductio ad absurdum your head back up your ass,
> >> shitpack.
>
> > And?
>
> > I guess you better get cracking on building
> > those windmills.
>
> I guess you'd better get cracking on building that lead house.
>
> >It'll only take about 500,000 square miles of them.
>
> It'll only take a few feet of lead and concrete to shield you, and don't
> worry about food etc., modern technology will automatically solve all that.
>
> > Or is it you five year
> > plan to disconnect yourself from America's
> > Internet,
>
> Is it your plan to stay inside for 50,000 yrs till the radiation levels
> drop?
>
> > and go back to clubbing seals for
> > your fun?
>
> Clubbing you is more fun, you squeal louder, are fatter, and slower moving.
Soooo why dont ewe have a crack at explaining one of Canada's coldest
Junes on record given you deny AGW is a scam?
In NZ and Australia deniers of the AGW scam are claiming AGW is the
cause of coldest June temperatures on record, are the deniers of the
AGW scam doing or saying the same thing in Canada?
MG
Michael Gordge
> The entire web site is available for download here:
Hahahaha, sooo ewe deny its all just a fucking great hoax?
MG
Michael Gordge
> > AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>
> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
making the globe colder.
MG
Sam Wormley
Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
Peter Webb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
Which, of course, was not predicted by any climate model, demonstrating they
are all incorrect.
Couldn't even one climate model get it roughly correct, from the hundreds
published?
Can you think of another science which is as consistently wrong as climate
"science" ? Would you believe Relativity if it had failed every single
experimental test?
Sam Wormley
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>>>>
>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>>>
>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
>>> making the globe colder.
>>>
>>> MG
>>
>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
>>
>>
>
> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
The climate models, contrary to your opinion of them, have been
pretty much on the money.
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
> than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
> you to read, Peter:
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
>
> Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Peter Webb
> On 7/1/11 10:30 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
>>>> making the globe colder.
>>>>
>>>> MG
>>>
>>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
>>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
>
> Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
> years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
> Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
>
No, we just have to look at the predictions made 30 years ago.
Perhaps you can supply the prediction as to future climate made by climate
"science" in 1981, and we can see how well they work.
> The climate models, contrary to your opinion of them, have been
> pretty much on the money.
>
OK, give us an example.
Michael Gordge
> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> >>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>
> >> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>
> > Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> > making the globe colder.
>
> > MG
>
> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> up!
Hahahha, 50 years ago they claimed to have scientific data and proof,
and of course they used the exact same photographs of chimneys spewing
out mostly water vapor and some unburnt fuel, to claim it was getting
colder because of man, the minds of reason didn't believe them then
and they still dont.
Man made climate change was a hoax back then, nothing's changed.
MG
Sam Wormley
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MtGdnbSLBIOnDpPT...@mchsi.com...
>> On 7/1/11 10:30 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
>>>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>>>>>
>>>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
>>>>> making the globe colder.
>>>>>
>>>>> MG
>>>>
>>>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
>>>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
>>
>> Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
>> years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
>> Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
>>
>
> No, we just have to look at the predictions made 30 years ago.
Fraid Not! Quoting Chris L Peterson
"Discussing AGW theory starts with the reasonable assumption that
it is real, and delves into details. Discussing it as if there was
some debate about its existence is as silly as discussing if GR or
evolution are real. In other words, a waste of time. Again, you are
making extraordinary claims, and the burden is on you to support
them. And the only way to do that is to present your original
research, since there's virtually nothing in the peer reviewed
literature to support the idea that AGW doesn't exist".
So, Peter, cite your papers, published in climate journals, or
take the time to learn some climate science. Your posting record
to date is that of a climate change denying troll.
Sam Wormley
<smiling>
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
>>>> making the globe colder.
>>>>
>>>> MG
>>>
>>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
>>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
>
> Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
> years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
Which means we would have to wait 17 years, not 10.
Peter Webb
> On 7/1/11 10:53 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MtGdnbSLBIOnDpPT...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 7/1/11 10:30 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
>>>>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
>>>>>> making the globe colder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MG
>>>>>
>>>>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
>>>>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
>>>
>>> Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
>>> years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
>>> Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
>>>
>>
>> No, we just have to look at the predictions made 30 years ago.
>
> Fraid Not! Quoting Chris L Peterson
>
> "Discussing AGW theory starts with the reasonable assumption that
> it is real, and delves into details.
It shouldn't.
You don't just assume a theory is true, and then base a whole mythology
around it.
This may be how astrologers work (and is), but is not part of the scientific
method.
> Discussing it as if there was
> some debate about its existence is as silly as discussing if GR or
> evolution are real.
Displays a *huge* lack of knowledge of the experimental verification of GR
and evolution.
> In other words, a waste of time. Again, you are
> making extraordinary claims, and the burden is on you to support
> them.
Yes. You could start by showing how AGW successfully predicts future
temperatures.
I am very happy to show that GR and evolution agree with experiment; if you
believe they are comparable to AGW, doubtless you will will be happy to show
the succesful predictions of future temperatures made by climate "science".
So go for it.
Sam Wormley
> I am very happy to show that GR and evolution agree with experiment.
How do the agree with experiment?
Peter Webb
> On 7/1/11 11:47 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> I am very happy to show that GR and evolution agree with experiment.
>
> How do the agree with experiment?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Lists many predictions of GR that have subsequently been confirmed to many
places of accuracy.
Now show us the predictions of AGW as to temperature that have subsequently
been confirmed to many places of accuracy.
Sam Wormley
Very good, Peter. My next question is about the debate within
the climatology community. What is the percentages who agree/disagree
with anthropogenic global warming, among the climatologists?
Peter Webb
No, now its your turn to demonstrate that climate "science" correctly
predicts future temperatures, just as I have shown evidence that GR
correctly predicts gravitational effects.
Apparently climate "science" is as well tested as Relativity, so it should
be easy for you to do.
So go for it.
Sam Wormley
> No, now its your turn to demonstrate that climate "science" correctly
> predicts future temperatures, just as I have shown evidence that GR
> correctly predicts gravitational effects.
The IPCC reports have been accurate as far as they went. Can you cite
chapter and verse from any of the reports that were incorrect?
Peter Webb
Perhaps if you told us which prediction in which IPCC report was correct,
and where exactly we could find it?
For example, if you wanted to know what predictions of GR have proved to be
correct (which apparently has no more experimental support than AGW), I
would cite Gravitational lensing, Shapiro effect, Gravity Probe B,
observation of the Hulse-Taylor binary, Pound-Rebka and many others.
All I want is the same thing for AGW as exists for GR (an analogy I did not
pick, BTW).
Sam Wormley
Arindam Banerjee
> Self evidence is a necessary illusion. There's someone living in your
> head and it is not you.
Is it illusion that all the jet engines pour megatons of CO2 (a top
greenhouse gas) into the upper atmosphere?
Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Relativity has failed every single experimental test. The MMI
experiment clearly shows that the null results can only happen when
c(V)=c+V if we agree that the Earth moves in space.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:43e9d52a-2ef9-4e2b...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
1. Why don't you have a crack at explaining how your idiotic question has
anything to do with my mopping the floor with that idiot shitpack, randtard.
2. Why don't you have a crack at explaining where there is any scam, and how
one cold June magically changes long term trends.
3. Explain how a savage who never learned to speak speaks, randtard.
4. Fuck off and go back to diddling sheep, sheep fucker.
>
> In NZ
people are stupid, shrug.
Sam Wormley
> Relativity has failed every single experimental test. The MMI
> experiment clearly shows that the null results can only happen when
> c(V)=c+V if we agree that the Earth moves in space.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
You'll have to convince millions of people! Are you up to the task?
AGW Facts
<banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:37�am, John J Stafford <j...@stafford.invalid> wrote:
> > Self evidence is a necessary illusion. There's someone living in your
> > head and it is not you.
Huh?
> Is it illusion that all the jet engines pour megatons of CO2 (a top
> greenhouse gas) into the upper atmosphere?
One of the reasons the world does not have a sleet of supersonic
transports is due to the damage the exhaust would cause. See for
example the definitive report at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3996/517.short
and
http://elib.dlr.de/31909/1/94-ann.pdf
and also
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5406293
The damage to the ozone layer would have been so great that rates
of skin cancer would have been six times greater than that caused
by CFC's reducing the ozone layer. It was a horrible bullet that
scientists let us dodge.
The same scientists, and the same science organizations, all agree
our CO2 has caused and is causing serious damage to Earth's
climate.
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.
AGW Facts
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
> > Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> > making the globe colder.
No.
> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
S.G. Callendar in the late 1930s showed that human-produced CO2
had already caused global warming. Alarmists like Michael Gordge
hate that fact.
AGW Facts
<webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
> > On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >>>
> >>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
> >>
> >> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> >> making the globe colder.
> >>
> >> MG
> >
> > Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> > up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
Huh? No.
> Which, of course, was not predicted by any climate model
... because it's a lie and didn't happen...
> demonstrating they are all incorrect.
Climate models have been and are extremely accurate:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
> Couldn't even one climate model get it roughly correct, from the hundreds
> published?
Can't you stop buying child pornography?
> Can you think of another science which is as consistently wrong as climate
> science?
There is no such thing as "climate science," you silly goose.
Climatology (i.e., physics and chemistry) successfully predicted
the currently observed global increase in temperature OVER 80
YEARS AGO.
Stings, eh?
> Would you believe Relativity if it had failed every single
> experimental test?
Huh?
AGW Facts
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/11 10:30 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >>>>
> >>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
> >>>
> >>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> >>> making the globe colder.
> >>>
> >>> MG
> >>
> >> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> >> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
> > Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
No scientist is aware of this astounding discovery... just an
anonymous alarmist clown in Usenet. LOL!
> Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
> years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
> Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
>
> The climate models, contrary to your opinion of them, have been
> pretty much on the money.
Earth has been continued warming since 1998, obviously.
> > The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> > http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
> >
>
> > The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
> > than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
> > you to read, Peter:
> >
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
> >
> > Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
> >
> > Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> >
> > Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
AGW Facts
<webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MtGdnbSLBIOnDpPT...@mchsi.com...
> > On 7/1/11 10:30 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ypOdnXANrcshFpPT...@mchsi.com...
> >>> On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
> >>>>
> >>>> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> >>>> making the globe colder.
> >>>>
> >>>> MG
> >>>
> >>> Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> >>> up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Was heating up until 1998. It seems to have plateaued since than.
> > Well you will just have to watch what happens during the next ten
> > years, won't you! Remember climatologists use 30-year trends.
> > Furthermore climate models don't model "noise".
> No, we just have to look at the predictions made 30 years ago.
And 40 years ago. And 50. And 60. All the way back to Joseph
Fourier in 1824.
Over 100 years of sucessful predictions about human-caused
cluimate change.
Stings, eh what?
> Perhaps you can supply the prediction as to future climate made by climate
> science in 1981, and we can see how well they work.
Again? Hundreds and hundres of times just wasn't good enough for
you? LOL! Funny!
AGW Facts
That's putting the case mildly.
Asserting antropogenic climate change did not appen is just as
absurd, asinine, and wrong as asserting evolution did not happen.
Neither are debated among scientists regarding =IF= they happened
and happen: it's a "done deal," and has been for manuy decades.
> So, Peter, cite you papers, published in climate journals, or
> take the time to learn some climate science. Your posting record
> to date is that of a climate change denying troll.
LOL! Good luck with that. :-)
AGW Facts
wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/1/11 9:51 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, AGW Facts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> AGW has not been debated for 100+ years.
> >>>
> >>> It has been debated nearly that long. See above link.
> >>
> >> Back in the late 60s the knuckle-draggers were mass-debating over man
> >> making the globe colder.
> >>
> >> MG
> >
> > Now 50 years later the observations show that the earth was heating
> > up! Measurements are worth more than expert opinions.
> So you are finally admitting AGW has not been debated for 100+ years
So you finally admit to downloading child pornography off the
internet.
> and that "consensus" is not how science is done.
Consenus =IS= how science is done, shit-for-brains.
Michael Gordge
> 2. Why don't you have a crack at explaining where there is any scam, and how
> one cold June magically changes long term trends.
Hahahaha, fuck ewe Kantians are a joke, ewe fucking brain dead morons
have been using single events as your conclusive evidence of the AGW
hoax since the hoax began, but when an event (coldest June on record
in many parts of the globe) shows the crap ewe are spewing, ewe duck
for cover and go further into denial.
If the "globe" is getting hotter, because man isn't paying enough tax,
then explain just how the fuck the coldest temperatures on record,
within the supposedly "hotter globe", e.g. parts of your own fucking
country, are even happening?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Consenus =IS= how science is done, shit-for-brains.
Hitler would certainly agree with ewe, ewe fascist fuckface, in
reality science is about non-contradictory identification and
integration of the sensory evidence, water doesn't boil at a certain
temperature according to any consensus, ewe fucking idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
> The damage to the ozone layer would have been so great that rates
> of skin cancer would have been six times greater than that caused
> by CFC's reducing the ozone layer. It was a horrible bullet that
> scientists let us dodge.
>
> The same scientists, and the same science organizations, all agree
> our CO2 has caused and is causing serious damage to Earth's
> climate.
>
> Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
> works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.
Do ewe deny AGW is a hoax?
MG
Michael Gordge
> S.G. Callendar in the late 1930s showed that human-produced CO2
> had already caused global warming.
So how come the coldest temperatures on record are being recorded
around the globe 80 years and trillions upon trillions of tons of Co2
later, not to even count the contribution of Co2 from exploding
volcanos and termites?
> Alarmists like Michael Gordge
> hate that fact.
Ewe haven't given any facts to hate, fucking idiot.
MG
Peter Webb
"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:runu075r53mj3hh5g...@4ax.com...
I couldn't find a single prediction of future climate in any of these which
was correct.
Instead of a dozen links which don't answer my question, how about even a
single link to a page which shows a correct prediction of future
temperatures made by climate "science" ?
This is how the truth of scientific theories is determined; its called the
scientific method, lets use it.
Or do you deny the scientific method?
Peter Webb
Lets see them.
> Stings, eh what?
>
What tempertures did Fourier predict from 1824 to 2010 ?
Indeed, how about actually posting links to these "successful predictions".
If I asked an astrologer for successful predictions of astrology, I would
not be satisfied with an answer that there were "successful predictions made
40, 50 and 60 years ago"; I would want to know what they were and how
accurate they turned out to be.
So, how about some evidence?
>> Perhaps you can supply the prediction as to future climate made by
>> climate
>> science in 1981, and we can see how well they work.
>
> Again? Hundreds and hundres of times just wasn't good enough for
> you? LOL! Funny!
>
The only predictions that I am aware of made in 1981 was a warming at the
rate of 0.3 degrees per decade, which is more than double what whas been
experienced.
If you have any predictions that were even vaguely correct, you should post
them.
> Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
> works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.
Using the scientific method.
Which involves comparing theoretical predictions with experimental outcomes.
So what were the theoretical projections for temperature that best matched
(or even vaguely matched) experimental outcomes?
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> The IPCC reports have been accurate as far as they went. Can you cite
> chapter and verse from any of the reports that were incorrect?
Why bother. Since deniers say stuff "no predictions are correct"
when you'd normally expect -- just by chance -- some prediction
might be correct. I.e. they parade their lack of intellectual
integrity and think nothing of it.
--
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
The acceleration during the last 50 years is caused by using gas and oil
instead of coal. Gas and oil are changed into water during combustion.
So the slow or the accelerated rise of sea level is not a problem.
-- Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl>, 28 May 2011 09:50 +0200
Michael Gordge
> Can you cite chapter and verse from any of the reports that were incorrect?
Sure can, ewe fascist fuckface:
The IPCC report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster
than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and
perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current
rate."
MG
Michael Gordge
> Over 100 years of sucessful predictions about human-caused
> cluimate change.
Here's an example of a prediction from the scamsters at the IPCC, who
needed more funding, that fuckwits like AGW no longer want to talk
about.
Michael Gordge
> Earth has been continued warming since 1998, obviously.
Here's an example of what excites those who deny AGW is a gigantic
leftist scam, the "AGW Fact's" ilk.
The report from the IPCC read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a82e6900-b8a9-407c...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 12:17 am, "Tim" <t...@noplace.com> wrote:
>
>> 2. Why don't you have a crack at explaining where there is any scam, and
>> how
>> one cold June magically changes long term trends.
>
> Hahahaha,
Hey dumb cunt, I didn't ask you to giggle like a typical nz retard, I asked
you to answer the question, randtard. Now do so or go back to sucking your
daddy's dick, randtard.
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:760149b7-ceb8-47e2...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Explain this then, you stupid cunt:
Michael Gordge
> ..... I asked
> you to answer the question,.....
Stop kidding yourself, ewe haven't learnt how to think so ewe cant
possibly be asking any questions.
So seee if ewe can find someone to explain to ewe, just how the fuck
the globe is getting hotter when the coldest June on record is being
recorded around the globe, even in your own back yard?
MG
Michael Gordge
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:760149b7-ceb8-47e2...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:19 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> >> Earth has been continued warming since 1998, obviously.
>
> > Here's an example of what excites those who deny AGW is a gigantic
> > leftist scam, the "AGW Fact's" ilk.
>
> > The report from the IPCC read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding
> > faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate
> > continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and
> > perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current
> > rate."
>
> > MG
>
What was there to explain?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Explain this.......
>
> http://lens.blogs.nytimes.........
Hahhaha fuck ewe Kantian clowns are funny, "nytimes"? hahahahha a
hysterical biased leftist rag written for the brain dead loony left,
ewe stupid cunt, ewe'd would believe anything they say wouldn't ewe?
MG
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2ec387d9-ecde-4d8c...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
Explain the very obvious diminished size of the glaciers in the more recent
photographs , really it's very simple. You can giggle like the village
idiot, surely, but can you give a reasonable account of the photos and still
maintain your incoherent babble re. ACC?
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8823d0e4-6916-47db...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
The fact that the more recent photos clearly show that the glaciers have
receded, duh.
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:23abad84-e6cc-4e6d...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 1:22 pm, "Tim" <t...@noplace.com> wrote:
>
>> ..... I asked
>> you to answer the question,.....
>
> Stop kidding yourself, ewe haven't learnt how to think so ewe cant
> possibly be asking any questions.
Sorry shaggers, but as a randtard you are forbidden from making such claims,
that's just a fact of life.
>
> So seee if ewe can find someone to explain to ewe, just how the fuck
> the globe is getting hotter when the coldest June on record is being
> recorded around the globe, even in your own back yard?
>
> MG
ACC.
Explain what's going on in the photos, sheep stuffer.
Michael Gordge
> Explain the very obvious diminished size of the glaciers in the more recent
> photographs ,
Sure, here look at this fuckface, it will show ewe where the ice is
going, fucking idiot.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet_growing_enough_to_lower_sea_levels.htm
MG
Michael Gordge
> Explain what's going on in the photos.............
I already did, artic and antartic sea ice cant grown unless it melts
somewhere else, ewe fucking dumb cunt, but here's another link to save
ewe taking another lot of antidepressant anti antianxiety medication.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm
MG
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e8df1d02-ca49-49cb...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Hey cunt, the subject was glaciers disappearing in the Himalayas, explain or
shut the fuck up.
Michael Gordge
> The fact that the more recent photos clearly show that the glaciers have
> receded,
Hahahha look here to see where that ice is going, ewe dumb fuck.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/02/artic-sea-ice-extent-update-still-growing/
It is a fact that ewe loony lefturdian dishonest dumb cunts used the
loss of artic sea ice in 2007 as 'evidence' of your scam, and now that
BOTH the artic and antartic ice is growing at rates not seen for many
years, ewe no longer want to talk about or use the artic and antartic
ice as the conclusive evidence that ewe were talking shit, now why is
that?
MG
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d28f2c7c-816b-47e1...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, "Tim" <t...@noplace.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact that the more recent photos clearly show that the glaciers have
>> receded,
>
> Hahahha look here to see where that ice is going, ewe dumb fuck.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
oops, you had something to say?
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/02/artic-sea-ice-extent-update-still-growing/
>
> It is a fact that ewe loony lefturdian dishonest dumb cunts used the
> loss of artic sea ice in 2007 as 'evidence' of your scam, and now that
> BOTH the artic and antartic ice is growing at rates not seen for many
> years, ewe no longer want to talk about or use the artic and antartic
> ice as the conclusive evidence that ewe were talking shit, now why is
> that?
>
> MG
It's a fact, you are an idiot.
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d28f2c7c-816b-47e1...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
ooops, you had something to say?
Michael Gordge
> ............ the subject was glaciers disappearing in the Himalayas,...
Hey dopey, growing sea ice at BOTH the artic AND the antartic means
its melting somewhere else.
Ewe leftist fucking morons used melting artic sea ice as your evidence
of man making the globe hot, because he's not paying enough tax, but
now that BOTH artic and antartic sea ice is growing ewe dont want to
talk about it anymore, why is that?
MG
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d28f2c7c-816b-47e1...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/03/science-arctic-ice-melt-sea-level.html
ooops, the randtard was saying?
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5e071018-940a-47f6...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/03/science-arctic-ice-melt-sea-level.html
I'm sorry randtard, I couldn't hear you. See there's this savage who never
learned how to speak and he keeps grunting this nonsense about how the facts
aren't facts and that Himalayan glaciers go to Antartica for vacation. Did
you have something to say?