OT: Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts

[Sam Wormley]

Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0

[Tunderbar]

On Feb 6, 9:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>

> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...

Oh well.... Doonesbury believes. It must be true then. Ok, I give up.
You win. Where's the koolade for me to drink? And where do I get my
socialist membership card? Also, where do I check in my brain, I
obviously will not need it anymore.

LOL. Good one. I crack me up. LOL.

[Blue]

On 06/02/2012 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>
> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0

They've misspelled 'myRELIGION' and 'Tree mourning ecofreak'.


So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 12:00 PM, Blue wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>>
>> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>>

> So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.

I like to get my climate "science" from papers like these:

> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>

You might benefit from these:

> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>

[AGWFacts]

LOL! Doonesbury is awesome. And the cartoon above is so life-like!


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

[Blue]

On 06/02/2012 18:37, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/6/12 12:00 PM, Blue wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>>>
>>> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>>>
>>>
>> So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.
>
> I like to get my climate "science" from papers like these:

------
The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
of scientific evidence and outright frauds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2096916/Chris-Huhnes-exit-gives-Cameron-chance-end-scourge-wind-turbines.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096959/Tory-MPs-rebellion-wind-farms-demand-subsidies-dramatically-cut.html

[Sam Wormley]

You prefer opinion pieces in tabloids and I prefer climate
science publications. :-o

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:15:37 +0000, Blue <bl...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On 06/02/2012 18:37, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/6/12 12:00 PM, Blue wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2012 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>>>>
>>>> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.
>>
>> I like to get my climate "science" from papers like these:
>
>
>------
>The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
>a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
>of scientific evidence and outright frauds.

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2096916/Chris-Huhnes-exit-gives-Cameron-chance-end-scourge-wind-turbines.html
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096959/Tory-MPs-rebellion-wind-farms-demand-subsidies-dramatically-cut.html

Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
with science. In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
one affects AGW not one iota.

There are people who claim you can cure arthritis with copper
bracelets, colored lights, or pleasant aromas. That doesn't mean
there's no such thing as arthritis. Feel free to add a "duh," if
you can stop drooling long enough.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[7]

Sam Wormley wrote:


>> So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.
>
> I like to get my climate "science" from papers like these:

You really don't understand physics, you are just a web monkey.
so why do you pretend you are able to read papers???


Surely your crucifixion on the altar of physics is enough
to let everyone know including yourself that
you are nothing but a web monkey?
And that you don't understand a word of what you post?!

Sad business this wormly web monkey trying to scale the walls of physics.



In case you lost track here it again fool - you being crucified:



====================================================


Where is your beef troll?????????????????

We haven't seen your replies to you being crucified
on the altar of Physics lately:




Previous posts of the Wormly Cretin --------------->:


>> Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??
>
>
> IR re-radiation in the downward (back to earth) direction
> is about 46% of of the re-radiation from energized CO2
> molecules.


So in your opinion 69=96?

You UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your snippage buffoonery has been re-instated
so you can answer the same question again.

People are watching while you hang yourself
grappling with real technical issues that warmies
for so long have wished to go away so they
can hallucinate ever more
harder about their unfettered evil.

Think you can storm sci.physics again troll
with your warmie crap? Better think again!!!!






>> Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??
>
> 46 percent of the re-radiated energy from CO2 is downward.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!


Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??

Surely you should by now know the difference??????????????????????????

Running away is not an option boy! Your online global warmie crap
is now toast. But you may wish to answer any way to convince yourself
you have been broadcasting crap all these years.

And, is that percentage you quote apply
across the whole solar power spectrum?

No? What do you mean by No???!!!

So if its not the full solar spectrum
then what percentage of the solar power spectrum are
*you* talking about when you pull this disconnected 46% out of thin air
and why toe rag?

Surely this is elementary global warmie science you would know by now
with the amount of warmie crap you have been posting all these years???




> Related Papers:

>
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
>
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf

STOP SNIPPING YOUR OWN PURILE RUBBISH TOE RAG!!!!!

ESCAPE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!





>> Put air into a glass jar with oxygen and nitrogen less CO2.
>> And then measure IR reflection of sample.
>> Then add 270ppm CO2 and take measurement again.
>> Piss poor reflection I would say.
>
> The IR is not "reflected" by greenhouse gasses such as CO2, but
> is absorbed by the molecules and is re-radiated.
>
> CO2 + hν <==> CO2*
> CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
> N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
> H20* ==> H2O + hν




WORMLY YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!


GO AND *FSCKING* LEARN SOME BASIC SCIENCE ABOUT GASES FOR FSCK SAKE!!!!




What is the percentage of radiation re-radiated back
for 270 ppm CO2?

Is that better or worse than than fake impossible
to draw global warming ray diagrams for fake internal reflections of gases
in a spherical contour so often championed by
warmies??????????????????????????????





Learn some basic physics of internal
angle of reflection before posting.


Here is your own post you snipped!!!:
How could you be so dumb as to post this
below without clearing it with your superior fool? ???????????????


WORKMY THE SUPREME CLIMATE IDIOT TROLL had just posted this
without understanding a word of what it implies for the climate troll
movement:


> The concentration of atmospheric CO2 rose by ∼80 parts per million (ppm),
from ∼190 to 270 ppm, during the last deglaciation. It is widely believed
that the primary source of that CO2 was the deep Southern Ocean. Burke and
Robinson (p. 557,
published online 15 December) present a 25,000-year-long record of the
radiocarbon content of deep-sea corals collected from the Southern Ocean,
which shows evidence of the 14C-depletion that must have accompanied CO2
sequestration. 14C depletion
and ocean stratification ended between 15,000 and 14,000 years ago, in a
manner consistent with the transfer of large amounts of CO2 from the deep
Southern Ocean to the atmosphere. The observed 14C drop can explain the
atmospheric CO2 rise
between 17,500 and 14,500 years ago, adding support to the existing model of
deglacial CO2 dynamics.

See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6068/557



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!



THE WORMLY GLOBAL WARMIE FOOL HAS UNDONE HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


CO2 concentration of 270 ppm?

ppm ???

Parts Per Million ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read that again CO2 concentration of 270 parts per million.

At those levels of CO2, nothing can happen.
No warming effect is possible.

Put air into a glass jar with oxygen and nitrogen less CO2.
And then measure IR reflection of sample.
Then add 270ppm CO2 and take measurement again.
Piss poor reflection I would say.

99% of all energy reaching the Earth will never stick around
long enough to make a difference when a full day and night has
passed. Sun weather controls Earths' temperatures and that is
the only thing that is certain.


As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-
warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-
again.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/

[Red Acer]

On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>
> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>
>

:)
Deniers anthem :-
"Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"

[Tunderbar]

On Feb 6, 3:42 pm, Red Acer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>

> >http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...

>
> :)
> Deniers anthem :-
> "Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"

Unless your "facts" are made-up shit with no basis in real science.

http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/climate-gate-cartoon-2.jpg

[Blue]

Do you really think you will find the truth in your church?
Do you really think it matters how many priests you ask, that
one will denounce then denounce his religion.

1. Many faithful not knowing what it's all about, but just believe.
Religion.

2. Models held up like golden calf idols. Religion.

3. The 'science' is all in, there will be no more discussion on
the matter, except more dosh for more priests and churches. Religion.

Son, who converted you? Was it a big man in a movie?
Did he dunk your head in the flood waters? Or did you merely
catch a glimpse of his skirt in a nasty video clip and you were sold?

Son, take your toy models masking as empirical evidence and burn them.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 3:49 PM, Blue wrote:
> Son, who converted you? Was it a big man in a movie?

A few years ago, a couple of us did the calculations
based on principles of chemistry and physics and found
we were in reasonable agreement with the IPCC predictions.

My colleague has gone on to refine those calculations and
sent them on to the APS, at their invitation. We regularly
update each other on our personal progress.

Turns out that this NASA paper is much more thorough. I
recommend it to you highly.

[Blue]

On 06/02/2012 20:37, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:15:37 +0000, Blue<bl...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/2012 18:37, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 2/6/12 12:00 PM, Blue wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2012 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>>>>>
>>>> So, Worm S, you get your 'science' from comics then.
>>>
>>> I like to get my climate "science" from papers like these:
>>
>> ------
>> The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
>> a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
>> of scientific evidence and outright frauds.
>
> And your evidence for this is . . . ?

The Link below from where the quote is from, derr.

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2096916/Chris-Huhnes-exit-gives-Cameron-chance-end-scourge-wind-turbines.html
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096959/Tory-MPs-rebellion-wind-farms-demand-subsidies-dramatically-cut.html
>
> Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
> with science. In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
> one affects AGW not one iota.

Nonsense, if such was the case the Green Lobby wouldn't be all
over politicians like a nasty rash. The Green Yoof Lobby is
one of the most powerful lobby groups in the world.

Greens can sit round their trees mourning and mopping about it till the
cows come home and no one will bother them. But when they criminally
start shoving their nonsense down our throats and their sticking hands
down our pockets ,I think we get to tell them to take their nonsense and
sod off.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:02:53 +0000, Blue <bl...@ntlworld.com>

I feel the same about wacko retards, so sod off, nutjob.

[Blue]

On 06/02/2012 22:02, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/6/12 3:49 PM, Blue wrote:
>> Son, who converted you? Was it a big man in a movie?
>

> Turns out that this NASA paper is much more thorough. I
> recommend it to you highly.

Yes yes, I think the English have heard quite enough about
operation paperclip.



http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UKI3lKts9Q
http://www.thegwpf.org/cache/multithumb_images/1500539555.jpg
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7895f54970b-pi
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/policy-research/energy/paying-for-energy
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2011.png
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/
http://tinyurl.com/bvz7clc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQX3ndQQg4
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/well_fancy_that_climate_alarmists_exaggerate/
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/187-post-normal-science-its-culture-and-how-it-retards-learning-in-our-universities
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/285016

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6959/2969626920/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/
http://www.outersite.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/8ModelvsActual_Troposphere_Temps_620pixs.jpg
http://www.real-science.com/paper-trail-mikes-nature-trick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fciZxyB2Lp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA
http://tinyurl.com/ctnsmxu
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013325/Green-power-push-double-energy-bills-years.html
http://essayweb.net/geology/quicknotes/images/65%20million.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CZIMcDxy0OA/TsuDZ9HdrQI/AAAAAAAAAFI/Fl5n8VNReDw/s1600/1.JPG

[Blue]

Well, Willy, I speak for the thousands that are freezing to death
in winters. Those who can't afford the astronomical green energy bills.

I speak for the poor, the disabled, the desperate.
I speak for sanity, empirical data and real science.

You, Willy, speak for fraud, scammers and pocket liners.
You speak for lobby groups and millionaire politicians.

Rich celebrities in rich mansions in Sunny Los Angeles.

You, Willy, speak for science models, crystal balls and
Cassandra wish lists.

You, Willy, speak for sending us back to the stone age with
the religious tree mourners and the population exterminating
ecofacists.

So, dear Willy, I say, you leave your warm home, your transport.
And you sod off back to the back woods from whence you came.
Begone you vile vermine. You Willy wacko retard, nut-job piece of trash!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!

I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
lie about anything!

Oh here it is: IT' shows CO2 only causing 14% -24% of greenhouse effect.
We won't even argue that this figure is grossly over-estimated.

Now just what percentage of CO2 is man-made?

http://www.redbubble.com/people/hugh023/journal/6874072-how-well-has-the-media-and-government-informed-us-about-co2-levels-in-the-air-part-2

Gosh it's only 3% of the total.

So how much "global warming" is "anthropogenic"?

Well that would be .42% to .72%!

And now lets ask the BIG question: Just how much of that man-made CO2
will be eliminated by that huge energy tax you are selling so hard?

PULEASE! I'm laughing too hard to even answer.


Hey WORMER, You could drag out the neutron bombs and KILL EVERYBODY and
STILL not even put a dent in that "tipping point" of global doom!


Just bend over wormley, tuck you head between your legs and kiss your
stupid, fucking, ignorant, ass goodby!

You have lost ALL credibility here and by your OWN NASA people!

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:09:56 +0000, Blue <bl...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On 06/02/2012 22:17, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:02:53 +0000, Blue<bl...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
>>>> with science. In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
>>>> one affects AGW not one iota.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, if such was the case the Green Lobby wouldn't be all
>>> over politicians like a nasty rash. The Green Yoof Lobby is
>>> one of the most powerful lobby groups in the world.
>>>
>>> Greens can sit round their trees mourning and mopping about it till the
>>> cows come home and no one will bother them. But when they criminally
>>> start shoving their nonsense down our throats and their sticking hands
>>> down our pockets ,I think we get to tell them to take their nonsense and
>>> sod off.
>>
>> I feel the same about wacko retards, so sod off, nutjob.
>
>
>Well, Willy, I speak for the thousands that are freezing to death
>in winters. Those who can't afford the astronomical green energy bills.

And if none of them can tell "the weather for the last couple of
weeks in Northern Europe" from "the climate of the entire world,"
their removal should bump the average intelligence significantly.
But more likely it's just you that's as dumb and/or dishonest
and/or crazy as that.

>I speak for the poor, the disabled, the desperate.
>I speak for sanity, empirical data and real science.

Except when sanity gets in your way, or you don't like the data or
the science. That is to say, about 99.9999% of the time.

>You, Willy, speak for fraud, scammers and pocket liners.
>You speak for lobby groups and millionaire politicians.

Gosh, on Planet Kookazoid oil companies and coal producers don't
have lobby groups, or pet pols, and nobody there is a pocket
liner?

>Rich celebrities in rich mansions in Sunny Los Angeles.
>
>You, Willy, speak for science models, crystal balls and
>Cassandra wish lists.

Only the first of those, wackaroonie.

>You, Willy, speak for sending us back to the stone age with
>the religious tree mourners and the population exterminating
>ecofacists.

Not likely, kooko.

>So, dear Willy, I say, you leave your warm home, your transport.
>And you sod off back to the back woods from whence you came.
>Begone you vile vermine. You Willy wacko retard, nut-job piece of trash!

And I say you need to go eat shit, same as your brother maggots.

[Wally W.]

Also interesting:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the
"Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

[Marvin the Martian]

now you're citing a fucking socialist clown.

Figures.

[Unum]

On 2/6/2012 5:35 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!

Seems like he cites quite a few, why do you snip them?

> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never lie
> about anything!

As opposed to brainless little fruitcakes on the internet?

> Oh here it is: IT' shows CO2 only causing 14% -24% of greenhouse effect. We
> won't even argue that this figure is grossly over-estimated.

Won't argue it because you don't have a clue? There are definitely
other GHG's in addition to CO2, what about it?

> Now just what percentage of CO2 is man-made?
>
> http://www.redbubble.com/people/hugh023/journal/6874072-how-well-has-the-media-and-government-informed-us-about-co2-levels-in-the-air-part-2
>
>
> Gosh it's only 3% of the total.

Haw! Denialist lie site. Nobody ever claimed humans injected all the
CO2 into the atmosphere. But the concentration has been climbing
steadily and we do know why that is.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

> So how much "global warming" is "anthropogenic"?
>
> Well that would be .42% to .72%!

Lol, where did you get those numbers dumbass?

> And now lets ask the BIG question: Just how much of that man-made CO2 will be
> eliminated by that huge energy tax you are selling so hard?

Didn't see Wormley selling any kind of tax. Why did you lie?

> PULEASE! I'm laughing too hard to even answer.

I'm laughing pretty hard too.

[Unum]

But wait, that guy is nothing but a geologist with a website and
a big fat yap. I could cite several car mechanics that have a
different opinion.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:25:44 -0600, Unum wrote:

> On 2/6/2012 5:35 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>
>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>
> Seems like he cites quite a few, why do you snip them?

I would snip them because he keeps posting the same damned silly links
over and over again.

I told him what was wrong with them: one was proof of a greenhouse
effect, which few deny, but doesn't even MENTION CO2 except to say look
elsewhere. One presumes that hot air doesn't rise...

It is no surprise, given the CRU e-mails, that such crap gets published.
A bunch of frauds control the so called "peer review" process and make
sure that pro-AGW propaganda gets published and that Anti-AGW science
does not.

The Worm won't even address the CRU e-mails except to point to the frauds
who are sponsoring this AGW non-science also cleared their stooges. Well,
duh! The worm's answer to that is STFU and drink the Kool-Aid.

< snip mindless, non-responsive ridicule and drivel >

[Unum]

On 2/6/2012 7:33 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:25:44 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 5:35 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>>
>>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>
>> Seems like he cites quite a few, why do you snip them?
>
> I would snip them because he keeps posting the same damned silly links
> over and over again.
>
> I told him what was wrong with them: one was proof of a greenhouse
> effect, which few deny, but doesn't even MENTION CO2 except to say look
> elsewhere. One presumes that hot air doesn't rise...

Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about
your brainless opinion.

> It is no surprise, given the CRU e-mails, that such crap gets published.
> A bunch of frauds control the so called "peer review" process and make
> sure that pro-AGW propaganda gets published and that Anti-AGW science
> does not.

Its all a CONSPIIRACEEE!!!

> The Worm won't even address the CRU e-mails except to point to the frauds
> who are sponsoring this AGW non-science also cleared their stooges. Well,
> duh! The worm's answer to that is STFU and drink the Kool-Aid.

Yawn, marvin still whining about the stolen emails, none of
which have ever been shown to have any effect on the science.

[Wally W.]

Do have a particular nit to pick with his analysis?

Shall we compare his science credentials with yours?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/6/2012 3:37 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:15:37 +0000, Blue<bl...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:

>> ------
>> The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
>> a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
>> of scientific evidence and outright frauds.
>
> And your evidence for this is . . . ?

Still having trouble with reading comprehension, Bill?

He obviously said the THEORY of man-made global warming is a scam,
misrepresentation, fraud etc. He made no statement about the existence
of some amount of global warming as climate change. Evidence for
statement abounds to any disinterested observer (see Climategate I and
II) Nice ploy though.

> Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
> with science. In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
> one affects AGW not one iota.

However, AGW is used as the so-called REASON to have stupid noisy,
bird-killing, ineffective wind farms in the first place. Hence the
theory of AGW is clearly affecting (and trying to affect) civilization
(negatively) and not the other way round.

> There are people who claim you can cure arthritis with copper
> bracelets, colored lights, or pleasant aromas. That doesn't mean
> there's no such thing as arthritis. Feel free to add a "duh," if
> you can stop drooling long enough.

And it doesn't mean that copper bracelets or colored lights cannot cure
arthritis either. Science (other than "political science") not your
strong suit, it it?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/6/2012 4:42 PM, Red Acer wrote:
> On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts

> :)
> Deniers anthem :-
> "Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"

I presume that includes warmers too (who use the same service).

At least by using a "denier" in the cartoon Trudeau insures continued
publication of his work at big media outlets. One hand washes the other.

Hey go tell Wormley we've got more "scientific evidence" for him of AGW
in the Sunday paper cartoons...Oh wait! Wormer was the one who posted
this "evidence"!

[Unum]

Why bother? He's just another idiot with a website. If you think
there's anything worth defending there let's see it, dumbass.

> Shall we compare his science credentials with yours?

Shall we compare your credentials with the car mechanics?

[George East]

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cLudnSQvuq55ZbLS...@mchsi.com:

> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>

> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width
> =900.0
>
>

Another liberal faggot writes that cartoon.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:

> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about
> your brainless opinion.

And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least
one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves what
they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it and
can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully make
that assertion? I thought not.)

>> It is no surprise, given the CRU e-mails, that such crap gets published.
>> A bunch of frauds control the so called "peer review" process and make
>> sure that pro-AGW propaganda gets published and that Anti-AGW science
>> does not.
>
> Its all a CONSPIIRACEEE!!!

Oh here we go. Politicians NEVER lie. They never commit crimes. They
never steal money. They never get together to commit and cover up
crimes. A TRILLION dollars in tax revenue is certainly NOT going to
interest any politicians or businessmen. Right? And they CERTAINLY would
NEVER lie to get their hands on some of it, just as you never would...
RIGHT?

Just how Stooopid do you think we are?

>> The Worm won't even address the CRU e-mails except to point to the frauds
>> who are sponsoring this AGW non-science also cleared their stooges. Well,
>> duh! The worm's answer to that is STFU and drink the Kool-Aid.
>
> Yawn, marvin still whining about the stolen emails, none of
> which have ever been shown to have any effect on the science.

And many of which have been shown to promote faking data, slanting
theories, omitting contrary data and in general attempting to produce
fake science to influence the ignorant public (just like you do). You
can say it has no effect, but what you mean is the things they have NOT
been yet caught faking still stand in your mind. The fact that this is a
scandal of the size of mouse-painting doesn't matter and you think it
needs to be ignored.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 6:06 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the
> "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

Try a bit of self-education, Wally.

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.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
>

[Unum]

On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>
>> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about
>> your brainless opinion.
>
> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least one
> can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves what they
> think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it and can CONFIRM
> that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully make that assertion? I
> thought not.)

Why did you snip out the previous context you brainless coward.

>>> It is no surprise, given the CRU e-mails, that such crap gets published.
>>> A bunch of frauds control the so called "peer review" process and make
>>> sure that pro-AGW propaganda gets published and that Anti-AGW science
>>> does not.
>>
>> Its all a CONSPIIRACEEE!!!
>
> Oh here we go. Politicians NEVER lie. They never commit crimes. They never
> steal money. They never get together to commit and cover up crimes. A TRILLION
> dollars in tax revenue is certainly NOT going to interest any politicians or
> businessmen. Right? And they CERTAINLY would NEVER lie to get their hands on
> some of it, just as you never would... RIGHT?

Did someone ask for a fruitcake for Xmas?

> Just how Stooopid do you think we are?

Pretty damn stoopid, lol.

>>> The Worm won't even address the CRU e-mails except to point to the frauds
>>> who are sponsoring this AGW non-science also cleared their stooges. Well,
>>> duh! The worm's answer to that is STFU and drink the Kool-Aid.
>>
>> Yawn, marvin still whining about the stolen emails, none of
>> which have ever been shown to have any effect on the science.
>
> And many of which have been shown to promote faking data, slanting theories,
> omitting contrary data and in general attempting to produce fake science to
> influence the ignorant public (just like you do). You can say it has no
> effect, but what you mean is the things they have NOT been yet caught faking
> still stand in your mind. The fact that this is a scandal of the size of
> mouse-painting doesn't matter and you think it needs to be ignored.

Lol, lot of stuff hasn't been caught yet. That's all you got, moron?

[Wally W.]

You have nothing then.

It doesn't agree with your religion, so it must be wrong?

Here is a statement which goes to the heart of your religion:

"Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes
work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such
structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside,
allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in
circulating air"

Why is it wrong? "Because all the ... say so" is not an acceptable
answer. Why do *you* say it is wrong?

>> Shall we compare his science credentials with yours?
>
>Shall we compare your credentials with the car mechanics?

You brought up car mechanics. Why is their opinion equal to that of an
experienced, scientifically trained geologist?

You say his analysis is to be discounted. On what basis do you make
that assertion? What fault do you find in his analysis?

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:35:15 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 3:37 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:15:37 +0000, Blue<bl...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> ------
>>> The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
>>> a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
>>> of scientific evidence and outright frauds.
>>
>> And your evidence for this is . . . ?
>
>Still having trouble with reading comprehension, Bill?
>
>He obviously said the THEORY of man-made global warming is a scam,
>misrepresentation, fraud etc.

And presented no evidence of this, fucktard. So I asked him if he
had any. And I heard crickets. And I still hear crickets.

> He made no statement about the existence
>of some amount of global warming as climate change. Evidence for
>statement abounds to any disinterested observer (see Climategate I and
>II) Nice ploy though.
>
>> Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
>> with science. In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
>> one affects AGW not one iota.
>
>However, AGW is used as the so-called REASON to have stupid noisy,
>bird-killing, ineffective wind farms in the first place. Hence the
>theory of AGW is clearly affecting (and trying to affect) civilization
>(negatively) and not the other way round.

Scientific theories don't try to affect anything, retardo. What
politicians say is not science.

>> There are people who claim you can cure arthritis with copper
>> bracelets, colored lights, or pleasant aromas. That doesn't mean
>> there's no such thing as arthritis. Feel free to add a "duh," if
>> you can stop drooling long enough.
>
>And it doesn't mean that copper bracelets or colored lights cannot cure
>arthritis either. Science (other than "political science") not your
>strong suit, it it?

It's good to know you're truly crazy on more that just one or two
subjects.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:15:33 -0600, Unum wrote:

> On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about your
>>> brainless opinion.
>>
>> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least
>> one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves
>> what they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it
>> and can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully
>> make that assertion? I thought not.)
>
> Why did you snip out the previous context you brainless coward.

Instead of going into your childish tantrum, you could have just brought
up the paper and searched it for 'carbon dioxide" and "CO2", and you
would have seen what I said was absolutely true! Wormley was trying to
pass off a paper that claimed that the greenhouse effect exists as saying
that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. It was a damned deception on
Wormley's part.

And given your mindless spittle, spew and hate, who in their right mind
would value YOUR opinion? You'd rather look like a fool for AGW than be
right.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>
> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
> lie about anything!

They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.

>
> Oh here it is: IT' shows CO2 only causing 14% -24% of greenhouse effect.

No it doesn't.

> We won't even argue that this figure is grossly over-estimated.
>
> Now just what percentage of CO2 is man-made?

40% of what's in the atmosphere.


>
> http://www.redbubble.com/people/hugh023/journal/6874072-how-well-has-...

>
> Gosh it's only 3% of the total.

Gosh, you're lying.

>
> So how much "global warming" is "anthropogenic"?
>
> Well that would be .42% to .72%!

Well you're lying.

>
> And now lets ask the BIG question: Just how much of that man-made CO2
> will be eliminated by that huge energy tax you are selling so hard?
>
> PULEASE! I'm laughing too hard to even answer.
>
> Hey WORMER, You could drag out the neutron bombs and KILL EVERYBODY and
> STILL not even put a dent in that "tipping point" of global doom!
>
> Just bend over wormley, tuck you head between your legs and kiss your
> stupid, fucking, ignorant, ass goodby!
>
> You have lost ALL credibility here and by your OWN NASA people!

Yeah, you know more than the world's scientists. Just not in this
universe.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

And once again, a denialist finds a denialist blog, which he believes
refutes all the scientific papers in all the scientific journals.

But then denialists are incredibly stupid.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 6, 10:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 3:37 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>

> > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:15:37 +0000, Blue<b...@ntlworld.com>

> > wrote:
> >> ------
> >> The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than
> >> a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation
> >> of scientific evidence and outright frauds.
>
> > And your evidence for this is . . . ?
>
> Still having trouble with reading comprehension, Bill?
>
> He obviously said the THEORY of man-made global warming is a scam,
> misrepresentation, fraud etc.

He's an idiot. Like the birthers, or the flat-earthers. Like you?

> He made no statement about the existence
> of some amount of global warming as climate change. Evidence for
> statement abounds to any disinterested observer (see Climategate I and
> II) Nice ploy though.

Yep, you're an idiot too.

>
> > Whether or not a politician likes wind power has nothing to do
> > with science.  In fact, whether wind power is a good idea or a bad
> > one affects AGW not one iota.
>
> However, AGW is used as the so-called REASON to have stupid noisy,
> bird-killing, ineffective wind farms in the first place. Hence the
> theory of AGW is clearly affecting (and trying to affect) civilization
> (negatively) and not the other way round.
>
> > There are people who claim you can cure arthritis with copper
> > bracelets, colored lights, or pleasant aromas.  That doesn't mean
> > there's no such thing as arthritis.  Feel free to add a "duh," if
> > you can stop drooling long enough.
>
> And it doesn't mean that copper bracelets or colored lights cannot cure
> arthritis either. Science (other than "political science") not your
> strong suit, it it?

Intelligence not yours, obviously.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 6, 11:02 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>
> > Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about
> > your brainless opinion.
>
> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least
> one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves what
> they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it and
> can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully make
> that assertion? I thought not.)

Then you need to get someone with superior reading comprehension to
explain it to you. Like a 5th grader.

>
> >> It is no surprise, given the CRU e-mails, that such crap gets published.
> >> A bunch of frauds control the so called "peer review" process and make
> >> sure that pro-AGW propaganda gets published and that Anti-AGW science
> >> does not.
>
> > Its all a CONSPIIRACEEE!!!
>
> Oh here we go. Politicians NEVER lie. They never commit crimes. They
> never steal money. They never get together to commit and cover up
> crimes. A TRILLION dollars in tax revenue is certainly NOT going to
> interest any politicians or businessmen. Right? And they CERTAINLY would
> NEVER lie to get their hands on some of it, just as you never would...
> RIGHT?

Denialist argument 5: All the world's scientists are part of a giant
conspiracy. Right up there with Obama is not a citizen.

>
> Just how Stooopid do you think we are?
>
> >> The Worm won't even address the CRU e-mails except to point to the frauds
> >> who are sponsoring this AGW non-science also cleared their stooges. Well,
> >> duh! The worm's answer to that is STFU and drink the Kool-Aid.
>
> > Yawn, marvin still whining about the stolen emails, none of
> > which have ever been shown to have any effect on the science.
>
> And many of which have been shown to promote faking data, slanting
> theories, omitting contrary data and in general attempting to produce
> fake science to influence the ignorant public (just like you do).

Total utter lie. None have been shown to do any such thing.

> You
> can say it has no effect, but what you mean is the things they have NOT
> been yet caught faking still stand in your mind. The fact that this is a
> scandal of the size of mouse-painting doesn't matter and you think it
> needs to be ignored.

You know, there's a reason "conspiracy" and "nut" go together.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Q: Why do almost all the world's scientists say you're wrong?

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:47:29 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:

Drawing upon the resource of "almost all the world's scientists," what

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:42:39 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:

Truth is where one finds it.

And once again, a Warmist uses an ad hom as "proof" of their religion.

>But then denialists are incredibly stupid.

But then, Warmists are incredibly fallacious.

[Red Acer]

On 06/02/12 21:48, Tunderbar wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:42 pm, Red Acer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>>
>>> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...

>>
>> :)
>> Deniers anthem :-
>> "Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"
>

> Unless your "facts" are made-up shit with no basis in real science.

Hey. Lighten up. It's a cartoon. How threatening can that be?


>
> http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/climate-gate-cartoon-2.jpg

[Unum]

On 2/7/2012 6:52 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:15:33 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about your
>>>> brainless opinion.
>>>
>>> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least
>>> one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves
>>> what they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it
>>> and can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully
>>> make that assertion? I thought not.)
>>
>> Why did you snip out the previous context you brainless coward.
>
> Instead of going into your childish tantrum, you could have just brought
> up the paper and searched it for 'carbon dioxide" and "CO2", and you

"the paper" was snipped, along with all of the previous
context. If you have something you think makes any difference
here cite it and quote it.

> would have seen what I said was absolutely true! Wormley was trying to
> pass off a paper that claimed that the greenhouse effect exists as saying
> that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. It was a damned deception on
> Wormley's part.

Cite it and quote it.

> And given your mindless spittle, spew and hate, who in their right mind
> would value YOUR opinion? You'd rather look like a fool for AGW than be
> right.

A lot of big talk from the little man. Post some facts.

[Tunderbar]

On Feb 7, 12:59 pm, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 6:52 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:15:33 -0600, Unum wrote:
>

> >> On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, BJAC...@teranews.com wrote:
> >>> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>
> >>>> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about your
> >>>> brainless opinion.
>
> >>> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At least
> >>> one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for themselves
> >>> what they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND understood it
> >>> and can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can you truthfully
> >>> make that assertion? I thought not.)
>
> >> Why did you snip out the previous context you brainless coward.
>
> > Instead of going into your childish tantrum, you could have just brought
> > up the paper and searched it for 'carbon dioxide" and "CO2", and you
>
> "the paper" was snipped, along with all of the previous
> context. If you have something you think makes any difference
> here cite it and quote it.
>
> > would have seen what I said was absolutely true! Wormley was trying to
> > pass off a paper that claimed that the greenhouse effect exists as saying
> > that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. It was a damned deception on
> > Wormley's part.
>
> Cite it and quote it.

it is self evident. read the post.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:13:59 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 9:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
> >
> > http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...

> Oh well.... Doonesbury believes.

No. The cartoonist accepts the evidence.

See the difference?


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

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:42:17 +0000, Red Acer
<red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:

> > Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
> >

> > http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0

> :) Deniers anthem :-
> "Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"

Except when the facts come from all of the experts who are
educated in the subject.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:48:54 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 3:42 pm, Red Acer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 06/02/12 15:59, Sam Wormley wrote:> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
> >

> > >http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...

> >
> > :)
> > Deniers anthem :-
> > "Everyone is entitled to their own set of facts"

> Unless your "facts" are made-up shit with no basis in real science.

Do let someone know what that happens, m'kay? Thank you.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 10:18 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:47:29 -0800 (PST), erschroedin...@gmail.com

Who's analysis? Your "authority" who has a bachelor's degree in
geology? Is someone with a BS in biology a physician?

Well, here's one place he's at fault:

"why on earth would we disregard what the US Geological Survey and the
British Geological Survey say about volcanic CO2 and instead accept
the pseudo-paper published by a petroleum geologist on his website?

That’s right, Timothy Casey’s lively hood depends on the petroleum
industry.

But let’s assume for a moment that he’s correct that CO2 emissions
from volcanic activity is larger than thought. Let’s assume it’s
double the estimates. It would still amount to less than 2% as much
annually as from burning fossil carbon fuels."

Here's another:

"Don’t you think it’s too much of a coincidence that Casey’s “1000
potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide” have been
hypothetically increasing their emissions, starting around 1850,
precisely matching the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions?
Something that has never happened in the last 400000 years, according
to the Vostok CO2 record.

Casey is also wrong in his assertion that volcanic CO2 is
indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions. Concentrations and
isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in ocean-floor basalts
SARAI et. al 1984 found “The isotopic ratios of indigenous carbon and
nitrogen are in very narrow ranges, -6.2 [per mil; symbol didn't
paste] relative to PDB and +0.2 & 0.6460 relative to atmospheric
nitrogen, respectively.”
This is less negative than the atmospheric ratio, which declined from
-7.6 in 1980 to -8.2 in 2008. The Mid Ocean Ridge is the largest
volcanic structure on earth, 65,000 miles long. Its erupted basalt
created the ocean floor, average age ~70 million years, thickness
~2km, area ~1.8e8 km^2. The volume is therefore 3.6e8 km^3, and the
eruption rate is ~5km^3 per year. The is equivalent to one Mount
Pinatubo every 2 years – Pinatubo was the largest eruption since
Novarupta in 1912, and caused no measurable change in atmospheric
carbon isotope ratios."

Another:

"Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy.
Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author
on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:

Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate
Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp.
8-17,

hardly an exciting CV.

And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him
from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so
he thinks.

We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do
physics, and the greenhouse effect is bunkum.................

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the
"Greenhouse Effect".

What do we get at the start of this article? Frankly, a whole load of
guff confusing the use of impermeable and absorption, going back to
Fourier (1882) and Arrhenius, and wittering on about the definition of
the 'greenhouse effect' on the OED.

Do we care? Not really! What we do care about is basic physics, and
according to basic physics, the 'greenhouse effect' is easy-peasy.

In fact, his supposed explanation is total nonsense. Because all that
is going on is that the EQiULIBRIUM temperature of a radiating,
illuminated body like the earth depends on what is between the earth
and the cold of empty space. Forget about mistaken pictures of
radiation being bounced back and heating the earth again -- it;s the
ole confusion, yet again, over NET heat flow, and how you compute the
NET effect (hence equilibrium temperature), by having this mythical
'back radiation' that so many try to object to. Just tells me they
haven't understood the process by which the equilibrium temperature is
computed.

So, we have someone with a simple degree in geology, who thinks he can
do basic physics better than the physicists, and research geology
better than vulcanologists. He can't.

And then M who is willing (or so it seems) to believe every word these
self-styled experts care to spout, as long as it agrees with what was
already her stated position........................."

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 7:52 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> Instead of going into your childish tantrum, you could have just brought
> up the paper and searched it for 'carbon dioxide" and "CO2", and you
> would have seen what I said was absolutely true! Wormley was trying to
> pass off a paper that claimed that the greenhouse effect exists as saying
> that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. It was a damned deception on
> Wormley's part.
>
> And given your mindless spittle, spew and hate, who in their right mind
> would value YOUR opinion? You'd rather look like a fool for AGW than be
> right.

An exactly correct assessment, Marvin. I've observed the Wormley "trick"
of trying to pass off the existence of greenhouse gasses as "proof" that
CO2 is the major greenhouse gas (it's not) ever since I first read the
papers in his links.

Personally I don't get it. What is it with the Worm anyway? Apparently
his field is teaching astronomy. And apparently he's retired and
enjoying teaching geezer photography classes in Iowa. So WHY is he
producing this HUMONGOUS effort of pro-alarmist global warming posts
attempting to convince some unknown readership that the IPCC plan for
civilization-busting energy taxes somehow makes sense? Is he THAT bored
with his life? Quite frankly it's a pain for me to keep up with
debunking his spew because of it's volume. Has he invented an alarmist
posting bot? Does he have his camera classes posting under his name?
What in hell is going on here anyway? Quite frankly it doesn't make
sense and really smells bad.

We need to change our thrust here from questions like "is AGW real" or
"Does the IPCC lie" to "Why is Wormley such an AGW posting demon".
Inquiring minds want to know.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 8:44 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

>> He made no statement about the existence
>> of some amount of global warming as climate change. Evidence for
>> statement abounds to any disinterested observer (see Climategate I and
>> II) Nice ploy though.
>
> Yep, you're an idiot too.

Oh look Muffy, More "scientific proof" from the anonymous pussy.

I don't understand that climate science jargon "idiot".

>> And it doesn't mean that copper bracelets or colored lights cannot cure
>> arthritis either. Science (other than "political science") not your

>> strong suit, is it?
>
> Intelligence not yours, obviously.

Science and logic not your strong suit is it? I presume you are a
"science" teacher or work for the government.

[Unum]

All I see is some unsupported claims and opinions. Apparently that's
all we are ever going to see. Very similar to the spam you post
every day.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:02:19 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 2/7/2012 8:44 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> He made no statement about the existence
>>> of some amount of global warming as climate change. Evidence for
>>> statement abounds to any disinterested observer (see Climategate I and
>>> II) Nice ploy though.
>>
>> Yep, you're an idiot too.
>
>Oh look Muffy, More "scientific proof" from the anonymous pussy.

You proved it; he just took note of the proof.

>I don't understand that climate science jargon "idiot".

Nor most other words of more than two syllables.

>>> And it doesn't mean that copper bracelets or colored lights cannot cure
>>> arthritis either. Science (other than "political science") not your
>>> strong suit, is it?
>>
>> Intelligence not yours, obviously.
>
>Science and logic not your strong suit is it? I presume you are a
>"science" teacher or work for the government.

Ah, yes, anybody and everybody who laughs at your nonsense must be
part of Teh Conspiracy. People didn't laugh at Bozo the Clown
because he was funny; it was because they were all conspiring
against him.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:59:20 -0600, Unum wrote:

> On 2/7/2012 6:52 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:15:33 -0600, Unum wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2012 9:01 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like bullshit to me marvin. Cite it. Nobody cares about your
>>>>> brainless opinion.
>>>>
>>>> And nobody cares about your opinion of Marvin's opinion, Unum. At
>>>> least one can refer to Wormley's original paper and decide for
>>>> themselves what they think of it.(which I have done and read it AND
>>>> understood it and can CONFIRM that Marvin's opinion is correct! Can
>>>> you truthfully make that assertion? I thought not.)
>>>
>>> Why did you snip out the previous context you brainless coward.
>>
>> Instead of going into your childish tantrum, you could have just
>> brought up the paper and searched it for 'carbon dioxide" and "CO2",
>> and you
>
> "the paper" was snipped, along with all of the previous context. If you
> have something you think makes any difference here cite it and quote it.
>
>> would have seen what I said was absolutely true! Wormley was trying to
>> pass off a paper that claimed that the greenhouse effect exists as
>> saying that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. It was a damned deception
>> on Wormley's part.
>
> Cite it and quote it.

From a recent worm post...

> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>

From page nine of nine, the very last line before the cites:

"The specific contributions of individual gases such as CO2 to Earth’s
greenhouse effect are covered well by the
standard treatments of the subject"

>> And given your mindless spittle, spew and hate, who in their right mind
>> would value YOUR opinion? You'd rather look like a fool for AGW than be
>> right.
>
> A lot of big talk from the little man. Post some facts.

Now, shut the fuck up asshole.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:23:47 -0600, Unum wrote:


> All I see is some unsupported claims and opinions. Apparently that's all
> we are ever going to see. Very similar to the spam you post every day.

You're a dumb ass idiot.

I provided the cites and you're too stupid to look 'em up.

I did a cut and paste and you're still got your head up your ass.

You don't matter. You're nothing but a bald faced liar.

[Marvin the Martian]

Much of it is spam. He cuts and paste from a list he keeps. There's no
new content in many of his posts.

It's pretty clear that he doesn't know what's in many of the cites he
posts. He says they prove one thing, and they don't. He keeps posting the
same things over and over again and claims they're the answer to
everything. I ended up wasting a lot of time reading them and they DON'T
prove what he says they prove.

[George Webb Jr.]

AGWFacts wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:13:59 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
>

> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 9:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>
> > >http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?wid...
> > Oh well.... Doonesbury believes.
>
> No. The cartoonist accepts the evidence.
>
> See the difference?
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

The Bible wants us to conquer nature and crush anything in our way.
More and more science appears to be a leftist conspiracy designed to
steal our freedom. rob us of our riches and enslave us in Godless
Communism.

Luckilly there are plenty of websites and opinion articles in the
tabloids to keep us well informed and defeat their lies, lies which
they lie by calling facts. Don't let your child grow up to be a
scientist, or he'll turn socialist on ya. Get out of school as soon
as you can. Limbaugh and Hannity never graduated college and His
Majesty Lord Christopher Monckton doesn't have a science degree and
they're rich and everybody believes what they say.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>
>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>
>> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
>> lie about anything!
>
>
> They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.

Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.

Then there was Hansen and his insane rant before congress about putting
"deniers" to death for crimes against humanity. The whole NASA AGW group
is run by a sociopathic wacko who wants to kill anyone who disagrees with
him.

[Bill Ward]

Wormley must be a group effort. No single person could possibly be that
stupid.

[Unum]

Haw! So you didn't have a thing to show that "CO2 is the major
greenhouse gas". Why did you lie?

>>> And given your mindless spittle, spew and hate, who in their right mind
>>> would value YOUR opinion? You'd rather look like a fool for AGW than be
>>> right.
>>
>> A lot of big talk from the little man. Post some facts.
>
> Now, shut the fuck up asshole.

Why did you lie? And who is the hater now little man?

[Unum]

You can knock it all back to one or two sentences but you
still look like an idiot. Let's see your cites Marvin.

[Unum]

On 2/7/2012 7:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>>
>>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>>
>>> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
>>> lie about anything!
>>
>>
>> They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>
> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
> them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.

Lol, "there were those that claim".

> Then there was Hansen and his insane rant before congress about putting
> "deniers" to death for crimes against humanity. The whole NASA AGW group
> is run by a sociopathic wacko who wants to kill anyone who disagrees with
> him.

No cite means Marvin is making all this up.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:38 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

He's certainly not making up that last paragraph.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:05:05 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ad hom. No Phd is ever wrong? Someone with a BS is never right?

You are qualified to comment because ...?

In what discipline is *your* doctorate?

>Well, here's one place he's at fault:
>
>"why on earth would we disregard what the US Geological Survey and the
>British Geological Survey say about volcanic CO2 and instead accept
>the pseudo-paper published by a petroleum geologist on his website?

What are you quoting? This doesn't appear on the page I linked.

You couldn't dispute the text that I linked, so you found something
else to attack?

>That’s right, Timothy Casey’s lively hood depends on the petroleum
>industry.

Ad hom. Irrelevant.

Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
research grants; for more studies of AGW.

>But let’s assume for a moment that he’s correct that CO2 emissions
>from volcanic activity is larger than thought. Let’s assume it’s
>double the estimates. It would still amount to less than 2% as much
>annually as from burning fossil carbon fuels."

Again, not relevant to the discussion about the greenhouse effect in
the link I provided.

>Here's another:
>
>"Don’t you think it’s too much of a coincidence that Casey’s “1000
>potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide” have been
>hypothetically increasing their emissions, starting around 1850,
>precisely matching the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions?
>Something that has never happened in the last 400000 years, according
>to the Vostok CO2 record.
>
>Casey is also wrong in his assertion that volcanic CO2 is
>indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions. Concentrations and
>isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in ocean-floor basalts
>SARAI et. al 1984 found “The isotopic ratios of indigenous carbon and
>nitrogen are in very narrow ranges, -6.2 [per mil; symbol didn't
>paste] relative to PDB and +0.2 & 0.6460 relative to atmospheric
>nitrogen, respectively.”
>This is less negative than the atmospheric ratio, which declined from
>-7.6 in 1980 to -8.2 in 2008. The Mid Ocean Ridge is the largest
>volcanic structure on earth, 65,000 miles long. Its erupted basalt
>created the ocean floor, average age ~70 million years, thickness
>~2km, area ~1.8e8 km^2. The volume is therefore 3.6e8 km^3, and the
>eruption rate is ~5km^3 per year. The is equivalent to one Mount
>Pinatubo every 2 years – Pinatubo was the largest eruption since
>Novarupta in 1912, and caused no measurable change in atmospheric
>carbon isotope ratios."

All irrelevant to the discussion about the greenhouse effect in the
link I provided.

>Another:
>
>"Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy.
>Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author
>on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:
>
>Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate
>Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp.
>8-17,
>
>hardly an exciting CV.
>
>And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him
>from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so
>he thinks.

He seems to have a decent handle on the needed physics.

>We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do
>physics, and the greenhouse effect is bunkum.................
>
>The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the
>"Greenhouse Effect".
>
>What do we get at the start of this article? Frankly, a whole load of
>guff confusing the use of impermeable and absorption, going back to
>Fourier (1882) and Arrhenius, and wittering on about the definition of
>the 'greenhouse effect' on the OED.

That you find it confusing is telling.

>Do we care? Not really! What we do care about is basic physics, and
>according to basic physics, the 'greenhouse effect' is easy-peasy.

Then you didn't understand what he wrote.

>In fact, his supposed explanation is total nonsense. Because all that
>is going on is that the EQiULIBRIUM temperature of a radiating,
>illuminated body like the earth depends on what is between the earth
>and the cold of empty space.

Your credentials for knowing "all that is going on" are ...?

>Forget about mistaken pictures of
>radiation being bounced back and heating the earth again -- it;s the
>ole confusion, yet again, over NET heat flow, and how you compute the
>NET effect (hence equilibrium temperature), by having this mythical
>'back radiation' that so many try to object to. Just tells me they
>haven't understood the process by which the equilibrium temperature is
>computed.

There are many processes for calculating things. All those processes
are not equally correct.

>So, we have someone with a simple degree in geology, who thinks he can
>do basic physics better than the physicists, and research geology
>better than vulcanologists. He can't.

This assessment from someone who has a doctorate in what ...?

>And then M who is willing (or so it seems) to believe every word these
>self-styled experts care to spout, as long as it agrees with what was
>already her stated position........................."

No one believes "everything" someone else says, except the Warmists
who genuflect to the "consensus."

[Unum]

No cite means you are making that up too. Is it an infection?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 7:01 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> Ah, yes, anybody and everybody who laughs at your nonsense must be
> part of Teh Conspiracy. People didn't laugh at Bozo the Clown
> because he was funny; it was because they were all conspiring
> against him.

Oh, and now we drag out the old "conspiracy theory" slam. Gosh I've
NEVER seen politicians commit crimes. I've never seen them conspire to
do these things. I've never seen them go to jail. I've never seen them
lie. And certainly NOT when a mere trillion dollars is up for grabs.
Everybody knows that them thar "conspiracy theorists" are just loons.
The idea that those in government would conspire to steal money?
BWAHAHAHA! You are absolutely right Bill, anyone who doesn't completely
trust their officials and EVERYTHING they say is a moron. Obviously I'm
laughing at you because YOU are a Bozo.

And Oh, I'm with the government. Please let me hold your money for you
until you really need it! OK?

(I don't even have to say it on this one)

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 7:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>>> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
>>>> lie about anything!
>>> They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
>> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
>> them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.
> Lol, "there were those that claim".

...

Of course the Berkeley people put them all back plus 100s more
low quality sources beside.

Result -- trend warming within a few percent of the other folks.

Must sure suck to be a Martian "scientist".

--
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate
issues, and we didn't know what we'd find.
Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior
groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very
careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some
skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection,
homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps
our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.
-- Richard Muller, Oct 22, 2011

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:25:57 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>

It means that its such common knowledge that I shouldn't have to tell
you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
"In 2008 interviews with ABC News, The Guardian, and in a separate
op-ed, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company
executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on
trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds
that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread
doubt and misinformation about global warming, in the same way that
tobacco companies tried to hide the link between smoking and
cancer."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Hansen
"Hansen ... in a 2008 statement, he commented that the CEOs
bankrolling denialist think tanks should be put on trial for "high
crimes against humanity and nature," which caused quite some
butthurt."

There is more of the same.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:00:09 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 2/7/2012 7:01 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, anybody and everybody who laughs at your nonsense must be
>> part of Teh Conspiracy. People didn't laugh at Bozo the Clown
>> because he was funny; it was because they were all conspiring
>> against him.
>
>Oh, and now we drag out the old "conspiracy theory" slam. Gosh I've
>NEVER seen politicians commit crimes. I've never seen them conspire to
>do these things. I've never seen them go to jail. I've never seen them
>lie. And certainly NOT when a mere trillion dollars is up for grabs.

Wow, a TRILLION BUCKS for making fun of jackasses like you on
Usenet, and here I've been doing it for free all these years. I
really must call my congresscritter and find out how to get on the
gravy train.

>Everybody knows that them thar "conspiracy theorists" are just loons.
>The idea that those in government would conspire to steal money?
>BWAHAHAHA! You are absolutely right Bill, anyone who doesn't completely
>trust their officials and EVERYTHING they say is a moron. Obviously I'm
>laughing at you because YOU are a Bozo.

Nah, you're laughing because having your head up your ass for so
long has caused permanent brain damage and you can't do anything
else.

But thanks for the demented rant that makes it so clear to
everybody just how fucked-up you are.

>And Oh, I'm with the government. Please let me hold your money for you
>until you really need it! OK?
>
>(I don't even have to say it on this one)

Being a janitor at the dog pound isn't really being "with the
government," as most of us use the term.

[Marvin the Martian]

Your problem is, you're willfully ignorant AND an asshole.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/06/james-hansen-wants-to-send-energy-
ceo-deniers-to-jail/

You didn't know if my claim was true or not (which is why you're
ignorant) You didn't even try to remedy your ignorance; which is willful
ignorance. You hoped that I would be as lazy as you and not bother to
get the info. And then, not knowing if it was true or not, you went into
lie and slander mode, which is why you're an asshole. You have no regard
for the truth at all.

At this point, I'm going to point out that you're nothing but a damned
liar who doesn't care about the truth, and all you do is attack people
and post nothing of science content.

So, into the killfile with you with the other shit throwing monkeys.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:42:39 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 6, 7:06 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:20 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >On 2/6/12 3:49 PM, Blue wrote:
>> >> Son, who converted you? Was it a big man in a movie?
>>
>> >   A few years ago, a couple of us did the calculations based on
>> >   principles of chemistry and physics and found we were in
>> >   reasonable agreement with the IPCC predictions.
>>
>> >   My colleague has gone on to refine those calculations and sent
>> >   them on to the APS, at their invitation. We regularly update each
>> >   other on our personal progress.
>>
>> >   Turns out that this NASA paper is much more thorough. I recommend
>> >   it to you highly.
>>
>> >> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
>> >>  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>
>> Also interesting:http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ the notion of
>> "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect",
>> also has no real foundation.
>

> And once again, a denialist finds a denialist blog, which he believes
> refutes all the scientific papers in all the scientific journals.
>
> But then denialists are incredibly stupid.

Actually, that "all the scientific papers in all the scientific journals"
was a remarkably stupid claim you made; as if you expect people to
believe your lie that every scientist out there agrees with you? Hey,
how's the chem class at the junior college coming along? Tough luck for
them that you don't know simple chemistry, huh, and can't do equilibrium
problems.

[Marvin the Martian]

I heard that rumor too. But if that was true, you'd expect to find SOME
variation in his post: a twinge of shame at some stupidity he posted, a
different set of cut and pastes, an occasional understanding that the cut
and paste cites are not relevant to the issue being discussed....

He very consistent in his errors and his "just drink the Kool-Aid"
attitude.

[Sam Wormley]

I apologize, if you think my bringing climate science to your
attention is anything other than me trying to get you to look at
the physics of climate science. I suggest you listen to these
podcasts to improve your background in climate science, even though
there are social issues too.

> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/12 6:09 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> At this point, I'm going to point out that you're nothing but a damned
> liar who doesn't care about the truth, and all you do is attack people
> and post nothing of science content.
>
> So, into the killfile with you with the other shit throwing monkeys.

I guess that's one way, Marvin, you can try to avoid the realities
of global climate change and a *very rapid warmup* driven by the CO2
produced by human activity.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/12 6:22 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

>
> Actually, that "all the scientific papers in all the scientific journals"
> was a remarkably stupid claim you made; as if you expect people to
> believe your lie that every scientist out there agrees with you? Hey,
> how's the chem class at the junior college coming along? Tough luck for
> them that you don't know simple chemistry, huh, and can't do equilibrium
> problems.

Speaking of scientific papers, Marvin...

> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
>
> More from University of Iowa
> http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
>

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 6:02 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Like I presume you dropped out after 6th grade and live in a trailer
park collecting welfare.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 8:39 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> >> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>
> >> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
> >> lie about anything!
>
> > They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>
> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
> them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.

Yes, and there are those who claim NASA faked the moon landings.

The BEST study settled the issue of readings.

>
> Then there was Hansen and his insane rant before congress about putting
> "deniers" to death for crimes against humanity.

He never said that. Did you ever think of checking things out before
posting them?

>The whole NASA AGW group
> is run by a sociopathic wacko who wants to kill anyone who disagrees with
> him.

Well, I must bow to the denialists when it comes to sociopathy.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 1:00 am, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 7:01 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> > Ah, yes, anybody and everybody who laughs at your nonsense must be
> > part of Teh Conspiracy.  People didn't laugh at Bozo the Clown
> > because he was funny; it was because they were all conspiring
> > against him.
>
> Oh, and now we drag out the old "conspiracy theory" slam. Gosh I've
> NEVER seen politicians commit crimes. I've never seen them conspire to
> do these things. I've never seen them go to jail. I've never seen them
> lie. And certainly NOT when a mere trillion dollars is up for grabs.
> Everybody knows that them thar "conspiracy theorists" are just loons.
> The idea that those in government would conspire to steal money?
> BWAHAHAHA! You are absolutely right Bill, anyone who doesn't completely
> trust their officials and EVERYTHING they say is a moron. Obviously I'm
> laughing at you because YOU are a Bozo.

But you're alleging that all the world's scientists are also in on a
giant conspiracy.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 11:22 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:05:05 -0800 (PST), erschroedin...@gmail.com

As I said, someone with a BS is no more a scientist than someone with
a BS is a physician.

>
> You are qualified to comment because ...?
>
> In what discipline is *your* doctorate?

Well, actually, chemistry.

>
> >Well, here's one place he's at fault:
>
> >"why on earth would we disregard what the US Geological Survey and the
> >British Geological Survey say about volcanic CO2 and instead accept
> >the pseudo-paper published by a petroleum geologist on his website?
>
> What are you quoting? This doesn't appear on the page I linked.

Didn't say it did. It does appear on a page discussing
denialists' (including Casey) claim that volcanoes are responsible for
the added CO2.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

>
> You couldn't dispute the text that I linked, so you found something
> else to attack?

I attacked Casey's basic understanding of facts and of science, which
go directly to his credibility and his expertise.

>
> >That’s right, Timothy Casey’s lively hood depends on the petroleum
> >industry.
>
> Ad hom. Irrelevant.

Hardly. If someone blogged "Sears is the best store" and you found
they worked for Sears, wouldn't that latter fact be relevant?

>
> Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
> publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
> research grants; for more studies of AGW.

BS. First, you're alleging the world's scientists are all in on a
giant conspiracy. Secondly, think -- it'd make more sense to keep
saying "we don't know what's causing GW so we need more money to find
out."

Perhaps you think all the cancer researchers are also lying about
cancer just to get money?

>
> >But let’s assume for a moment that he’s correct that CO2 emissions
> >from volcanic activity is larger than thought. Let’s assume it’s
> >double the estimates. It would still amount to less than 2% as much
> >annually as from burning fossil carbon fuels."
>
> Again, not relevant to the discussion about the greenhouse effect in
> the link I provided.

Relevant to the source you cited.

Relevant to the credibility of your source.

>
> >Another:
>
> >"Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy.
> >Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author
> >on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:
>
> >Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate
> >Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp.
> >8-17,
>
> >hardly an exciting CV.
>
> >And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him
> >from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so
> >he thinks.
>
> He seems to have a decent handle on the needed physics.

Are you a physicist? How can you judge this?

>
> >We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do
> >physics, and the greenhouse effect is bunkum.................
>
> >The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the
> >"Greenhouse Effect".
>
> >What do we get at the start of this article? Frankly, a whole load of
> >guff confusing the use of impermeable and absorption, going back to
> >Fourier (1882) and Arrhenius, and wittering on about the definition of
> >the 'greenhouse effect' on the OED.
>
> That you find it confusing is telling.

It's confusing because it's gobbledly-gook.

>
> >Do we care? Not really! What we do care about is basic physics, and
> >according to basic physics, the 'greenhouse effect' is easy-peasy.
>
> Then you didn't understand what he wrote.

What he wrote is contradicted by facts.

>
> >In fact, his supposed explanation is total nonsense. Because all that
> >is going on is that the EQiULIBRIUM temperature of a radiating,
> >illuminated body like the earth depends on what is between the earth
> >and the cold of empty space.
>
> Your credentials for knowing "all that is going on" are ...?
>

1. Science.
2. What almost all of the world's scientists say.
3. Facts.

Your blind acceptance of what he wrote is based on what?

> >Forget about mistaken pictures of
> >radiation being bounced back and heating the earth again -- it;s the
> >ole confusion, yet again, over NET heat flow, and how you compute the
> >NET effect (hence equilibrium temperature), by having this mythical
> >'back radiation' that so many try to object to. Just tells me they
> >haven't understood the process by which the equilibrium temperature is
> >computed.
>
> There are many processes for calculating things. All those processes
> are not equally correct.

Right. Now you're starting to understand why Casey is a wacko.

>
> >So, we have someone with a simple degree in geology, who thinks he can
> >do basic physics better than the physicists, and research geology
> >better than vulcanologists. He can't.
>
> This assessment from someone who has a doctorate in what ...?

Chemistry. But you don't have to have a doctorate; again, look at
what people with doctorates are saying.

>
> >And then M who is willing (or so it seems) to believe every word these
> >self-styled experts care to spout, as long as it agrees with what was
> >already her stated position........................."
>
> No one believes "everything" someone else says, except the Warmists
> who genuflect to the "consensus."

Yeah, and that consensus on the earth going around the sun. You must
not believe that either.

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

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

> I apologize, if you think my bringing climate science to your
> attention is anything other than me trying to get you to look at
> the physics of climate science.

If that was what you were actually doing, there would be far fewer
compliants about your idiotic crossposts free of physics content.

[Unum]

So you lied. Nothing there about 'putting "deniers" to death for
crimes against humanity'. Why did you lie?

> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Hansen
> "Hansen ... in a 2008 statement, he commented that the CEOs
> bankrolling denialist think tanks should be put on trial for "high
> crimes against humanity and nature," which caused quite some
> butthurt."
>
> There is more of the same.

They should be put on trial, I completely agree. They are colluding
to harm us all to their benefit and at our expense.

[Unum]

On 2/8/2012 6:09 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:38 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2012 7:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW
>>>>> never lie about anything!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>>>
>>> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
>>> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they
>>> eliminated them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.
>>
>> Lol, "there were those that claim".
>>
>>> Then there was Hansen and his insane rant before congress about putting
>>> "deniers" to death for crimes against humanity. The whole NASA AGW
>>> group is run by a sociopathic wacko who wants to kill anyone who
>>> disagrees with him.
>>
>> No cite means Marvin is making all this up.
>
> Your problem is, you're willfully ignorant AND an asshole.
>
> http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/06/james-hansen-wants-to-send-energy-
> ceo-deniers-to-jail/
>

Wow look, its some guy's blog. Apparently if its posted somewhere on
the internet it must be fact.

> You didn't know if my claim was true or not (which is why you're
> ignorant) You didn't even try to remedy your ignorance; which is willful
> ignorance. You hoped that I would be as lazy as you and not bother to
> get the info. And then, not knowing if it was true or not, you went into
> lie and slander mode, which is why you're an asshole. You have no regard
> for the truth at all.

Obviously you are too stupid to see that your cite doesn't support
your claim, dumbass. Nothing whatsoever there about 'putting "deniers"
to death for crimes against humanity', merely a suggestion that "chief
executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial". And
its really clear that they should be.

> At this point, I'm going to point out that you're nothing but a damned
> liar who doesn't care about the truth, and all you do is attack people
> and post nothing of science content.
>
> So, into the killfile with you with the other shit throwing monkeys.

Run away you sorry little jackass.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 3:38 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:25:57 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 2/7/2012 10:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:38 -0600, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/7/2012 7:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

But not simply denialists. Those who are responsible for putting the
CO2 in the air and then lying about its effect.

If a company put arsenic in your water and then told you there's no
evidence arsenic is hazardous, wouldn't you want something done with
the CEO?

And don't you think the tobacco companies CEOs have some
responsibility for selling a product they knew was hazardous yet lying
about it?

[Sam Wormley]

What complaints... I'm attempting to get people to look at the
climate science. Discuss the science, not deny it!

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 10:22 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
> publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
> research grants; for more studies of AGW.

What an interestingly jaded perception of climate science.

Go back, start over with some basics, Wally:

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 9:59 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Doonesbury - Climate Change Denier Facts
>
> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/62dbb4502e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0
>
>

Doonesbury - Creationism
> http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/63ab62402e8d012f2fcd00163e41dd5b?width=900.0

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:03:58 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 8:39 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>
>> >> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>>
>> >> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
>> >> lie about anything!
>>
>> > They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>>
>> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
>> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
>> them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.
>
>Yes, and there are those who claim NASA faked the moon landings.
>
>The BEST study settled the issue of readings.

The BEST study isn't over yet but apparently one of the things it did
show was that the NASA temperature data contained higher temperatures
than other similar data bases.

>
>
>>
>> Then there was Hansen and his insane rant before congress about putting
>> "deniers" to death for crimes against humanity.
>
>He never said that. Did you ever think of checking things out before
>posting them?
>
>
>>The whole NASA AGW group
>> is run by a sociopathic wacko who wants to kill anyone who disagrees with
>> him.
>
>Well, I must bow to the denialists when it comes to sociopathy.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wally W.]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:42:42 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 2/7/12 10:22 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
>> publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
>> research grants; for more studies of AGW.
>
> What an interestingly jaded perception of climate science.

Congratulations to you and the Warmist propaganda machine.

Your evasiveness deserves a large portion of the credit.

Tenets of the Warmist religion:
1. Ascetism for others.
2. Those who are more equal than others charter jets to smug-fests.
3. The unwashed masses cannot understand our data, so we won't show it
to them.
4. Try to baffle them with bullshit; don't produce a concise
rationale.
5. Vilify those who disagree with dogma.
6. Throw defectors under the bus.
7. Send money.

[Wally W.]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:13 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:

And you are wrong.

Are you saying scientific discoveries can be made only by those with a
Phd?

Are you saying only those with a Phd can perform a valid scientific
analysis?

>> You are qualified to comment because ...?
>>
>> In what discipline is *your* doctorate?
>
>Well, actually, chemistry.

So you have no background in vocanology, which is the area you chose
to attack.

>> >Well, here's one place he's at fault:
>>
>> >"why on earth would we disregard what the US Geological Survey and the
>> >British Geological Survey say about volcanic CO2 and instead accept
>> >the pseudo-paper published by a petroleum geologist on his website?
>>
>> What are you quoting? This doesn't appear on the page I linked.
>
>Didn't say it did. It does appear on a page discussing
>denialists' (including Casey) claim that volcanoes are responsible for
>the added CO2.
>
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
>
>
>>
>> You couldn't dispute the text that I linked, so you found something
>> else to attack?
>
>I attacked Casey's basic understanding of facts and of science, which
>go directly to his credibility and his expertise.

No. You attacked his statements about a narrow slice of science.

You see, there is more to "science" than your narrow interest in AGW.

>> >That’s right, Timothy Casey’s lively hood depends on the petroleum
>> >industry.
>>
>> Ad hom. Irrelevant.
>
>Hardly. If someone blogged "Sears is the best store" and you found
>they worked for Sears, wouldn't that latter fact be relevant?

If someone blogged "AGW is a problem, more funding needed" and you
found they worked at NOAA, might it not occur to you that some attempt
to feather their nest contributed to the statement?

>> Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
>> publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
>> research grants; for more studies of AGW.
>
>BS. First, you're alleging the world's scientists are all in on a
>giant conspiracy. Secondly, think -- it'd make more sense to keep
>saying "we don't know what's causing GW so we need more money to find
>out."

First, I didn't allege that. I stated an economic reality. The
organiztion where someone works needs an income if they are going to
pay the people who work there.

Have you found that not to be true?

Second, why should funding continue for someone who can never find
what they are looking for?

>Perhaps you think all the cancer researchers are also lying about
>cancer just to get money?

They can point to patients and results.

Warmist point to computer models and declare the sky is going to fall
on our cute grandchildren, along with cute polar bears and cute baby
seals. And they can get a pouty Hollywood hottie to say so.

>> >But let’s assume for a moment that he’s correct that CO2 emissions
>> >from volcanic activity is larger than thought. Let’s assume it’s
>> >double the estimates. It would still amount to less than 2% as much
>> >annually as from burning fossil carbon fuels."
>>
>> Again, not relevant to the discussion about the greenhouse effect in
>> the link I provided.
>
>
>Relevant to the source you cited.

Hair color is relevant to the source I cited. That bit of trivia has
no impact on the discussion about the greenhouse effect.

No. Whether this particular criticism has any merit is irrelevant to
his arguement about the greenhouse effect.

>> >Another:
>>
>> >"Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy.
>> >Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author
>> >on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:
>>
>> >Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate
>> >Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp.
>> >8-17,
>>
>> >hardly an exciting CV.
>>
>> >And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him
>> >from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so
>> >he thinks.
>>
>> He seems to have a decent handle on the needed physics.
>
>
>Are you a physicist? How can you judge this?

I know enough physics to follow his arguements. One doesn't need to be
a physists to do that. Even a chemist might do so, if they try.

>> >We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do
>> >physics, and the greenhouse effect is bunkum.................
>>
>> >The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the
>> >"Greenhouse Effect".
>>
>> >What do we get at the start of this article? Frankly, a whole load of
>> >guff confusing the use of impermeable and absorption, going back to
>> >Fourier (1882) and Arrhenius, and wittering on about the definition of
>> >the 'greenhouse effect' on the OED.
>>
>> That you find it confusing is telling.
>
>It's confusing because it's gobbledly-gook.

For example ...?

>> >Do we care? Not really! What we do care about is basic physics, and
>> >according to basic physics, the 'greenhouse effect' is easy-peasy.
>>
>> Then you didn't understand what he wrote.
>
>What he wrote is contradicted by facts.

Which "facts?"

>> >In fact, his supposed explanation is total nonsense. Because all that
>> >is going on is that the EQiULIBRIUM temperature of a radiating,
>> >illuminated body like the earth depends on what is between the earth
>> >and the cold of empty space.
>>
>> Your credentials for knowing "all that is going on" are ...?
>>
>
>1. Science.

Too broad. There are no renaissance men.

>2. What almost all of the world's scientists say.

This is not *your* credential.

>3. Facts.

Again, this is not *your* credential.

>Your blind acceptance of what he wrote is based on what?
>
>
>> >Forget about mistaken pictures of
>> >radiation being bounced back and heating the earth again -- it;s the
>> >ole confusion, yet again, over NET heat flow, and how you compute the
>> >NET effect (hence equilibrium temperature), by having this mythical
>> >'back radiation' that so many try to object to. Just tells me they
>> >haven't understood the process by which the equilibrium temperature is
>> >computed.
>>
>> There are many processes for calculating things. All those processes
>> are not equally correct.
>
>Right. Now you're starting to understand why Casey is a wacko.

Or why the results from the Warmist's computer models differ.

>> >So, we have someone with a simple degree in geology, who thinks he can
>> >do basic physics better than the physicists, and research geology
>> >better than vulcanologists. He can't.
>>
>> This assessment from someone who has a doctorate in what ...?
>
>Chemistry. But you don't have to have a doctorate;

So you admit having a doctorate is not necessary to have an informed
opinion.

>again, look at
>what people with doctorates are saying.

OK:

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/>
We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence
on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate
Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically
give accurate future projections.
- Dr. Bill Gray

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html>
I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no
substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described.
- Dr. Richard Lindzen

<http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate>
according to Dr. Miskolczi’s discovery, Earth’s temperature will not
rise or fall as a result of increasing CO2 emissions

Are you happy now?

>> >And then M who is willing (or so it seems) to believe every word these
>> >self-styled experts care to spout, as long as it agrees with what was
>> >already her stated position........................."
>>
>> No one believes "everything" someone else says, except the Warmists
>> who genuflect to the "consensus."
>
>Yeah, and that consensus on the earth going around the sun. You must
>not believe that either.

You ignore the more complex motion resulting from the motion of the
Sun through the galaxy.

But then, Warmists aren't given to looking at the big picture.

[Wally W.]

Here is one.

Are you counting?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 5:30 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:13 -0800 (PST), erschroedin...@gmail.com

Really? So anybody who took 1 science class in college could call
himself a "scientist"? How inane.

>
> Are you saying scientific discoveries can be made only by those with a
> Phd?

I'm saying they understand science and scientific research better.
Just like a physician can better diagnose an illness than someone who
took 1 biology class.

>
> Are you saying only those with a Phd can perform a valid scientific
> analysis?

I'm saying in this day and age, it's more valid, yes.

And anyway, where are Casey's publications in scientific journals?
That's the measure of you doing science.

>
> >> You are qualified to comment because ...?
>
> >> In what discipline is *your* doctorate?
>
> >Well, actually, chemistry.
>
> So you have no background in vocanology, which is the area you chose
> to attack.

Vocan? Speech? You might mean vulcanology. That's not a discipline,
but usually contained within geology. And there are published papers
in scientific journals by professional scientists that refute Casey.

>
>
>
> >> >Well, here's one place he's at fault:
>
> >> >"why on earth would we disregard what the US Geological Survey and the
> >> >British Geological Survey say about volcanic CO2 and instead accept
> >> >the pseudo-paper published by a petroleum geologist on his website?
>
> >> What are you quoting? This doesn't appear on the page I linked.
>
> >Didn't say it did.  It does appear on a page discussing
> >denialists' (including Casey) claim that volcanoes are responsible for
> >the added CO2.
>

> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-ant...

>
> >> You couldn't dispute the text that I linked, so you found something
> >> else to attack?
>
> >I attacked Casey's basic understanding of facts and of science, which
> >go directly to his credibility and his expertise.
>
> No. You attacked his statements about a narrow slice of science.

To show he hasn't a clue about science.

>
> You see, there is more to "science" than your narrow interest in AGW.

And Casey is ignorant of all of it.

>
> >> >That’s right, Timothy Casey’s lively hood depends on the petroleum
> >> >industry.
>
> >> Ad hom. Irrelevant.
>
> >Hardly.  If someone blogged "Sears is the best store" and you found
> >they worked for Sears, wouldn't that latter fact be relevant?
>
> If someone blogged "AGW is a problem, more funding needed" and you
> found they worked at NOAA, might it not occur to you that some attempt
> to feather their nest contributed to the statement?

Oh, you belong to the "all scientists are corrupt" group. Nutters.

>
> >> Climate "scientists" feeding the paper mill of climate "science"
> >> publish to keep their jobs. Their livelihood depends on bringing in
> >> research grants; for more studies of AGW.
>
> >BS.  First, you're alleging the world's scientists are all in on a
> >giant conspiracy.  Secondly, think -- it'd make more sense to keep
> >saying "we don't know what's causing GW so we need more money to find
> >out."
>
> First, I didn't allege that. I stated an economic reality.

You implied it.

> The
> organiztion where someone works needs an income if they are going to
> pay the people who work there.
>
> Have you found that not to be true?
>
> Second, why should funding continue for someone who can never find
> what they are looking for?
>
> >Perhaps you think all the cancer researchers are also lying about
> >cancer just to get money?
>
> They can point to patients and results.

So can scientists researching GW.

>
> Warmist point to computer models and declare the sky is going to fall
> on our cute grandchildren, along with cute polar bears and cute baby
> seals. And they can get a pouty Hollywood hottie to say so.

You, sir, are a liar and an idiot. If you think for a moment that's
what scientists are doing.

He made no argument. He claimed something at odds with facts.

>
>
>
> >> >Another:
>
> >> >"Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy.
> >> >Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author
> >> >on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:
>
> >> >Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate
> >> >Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp.
> >> >8-17,
>
> >> >hardly an exciting CV.
>
> >> >And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him
> >> >from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so
> >> >he thinks.
>
> >> He seems to have a decent handle on the needed physics.
>
> >Are you a physicist?  How can you judge this?
>
> I know enough physics to follow his arguements.

I highly doubt that.

> One doesn't need to be
> a physists to do that. Even a chemist might do so, if they try.
>
> >> >We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do
> >> >physics, and the greenhouse effect is
>

> ...
>
> read more »

So you're a conspiracy nut, who also thinks a BS in science overrules
all the world's actual scientists, and who claims to know more science
than the world's scientists. Yep, N-U-T-T-E-R.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 4:01 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:03:58 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

>
>
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 8:39 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:41:43 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Feb 6, 6:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 2/6/2012 5:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> >> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> >> >> Oh look, Wormley are real honest to God scientific paper!
>
> >> >> I wonder what it says? It's even from NASA scientists who we KNOW never
> >> >> lie about anything!
>
> >> > They've not been shown to lie; you and your ilk lie every post.
>
> >> Well... there are those that claim that NASA fudged the data by
> >> eliminating data collection points that were too cold. As they eliminated
> >> them over time, it made it appear that there was warming.
>
> >Yes, and there are those who claim NASA faked the moon landings.
>
> >The BEST study settled the issue of readings.
>
> The BEST study isn't over yet but apparently one of the things it did
> show was that the NASA temperature data contained higher temperatures
> than other similar data bases.

Then you didn't read it. BEST concluded 3 things:

1. GW is real and ongoing.
2. The UHI effect is negligible.
3. The places where measurements are taken makes a negligible
difference.

[Wally W.]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Feb 8, 5:30 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:13 -0800 (PST), erschroedin...@gmail.com
>> wrote:

>> Warmist point to computer models and declare the sky is going to fall
>> on our cute grandchildren, along with cute polar bears and cute baby
>> seals. And they can get a pouty Hollywood hottie to say so.
>
>You, sir, are a liar and an idiot. If you think for a moment that's
>what scientists are doing.

Do you have a better synopsis of the "24 Hours of Reality?"

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

So you are obviously not reading the responses to your posts.

Lots of people are complaining about your physics-free posts, and in many
cases, science-free posts, on climate change to sci.phyics, not just me.

sci.phyics is not your personal soap box for any and every topic you
decide to proselytize over.

Supposedly your are a professional; act like one.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics erschro...@gmail.com <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>> The BEST study isn't over yet but apparently one of the things it did
>> show was that the NASA temperature data contained higher temperatures
>> than other similar data bases.
>
> Then you didn't read it. BEST concluded 3 things:
>
> 1. GW is real and ongoing.
> 2. The UHI effect is negligible.
> 3. The places where measurements are taken makes a negligible
> difference.

And perhaps a 4th -- provided the analysis is statistically reliable,
the exact methodology makes little difference to the answer.
One of the nice BEST pubs not only shows their own methodology for
including "ratty" (frankly) datasets in their analysis, but also
provides a good enough to copy outline of the other groups' methods as well.

If the NASA database contained a biased set of sites then it sure doesn't
turn up in the analysis. Prima facie evidence the claim is rubbish
backwoods legend.

--
The group estimates that over the past 50 y the land surface warmed by
0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA's estimate.
-- Berkeley Temperature Group Press Release, Oct 27th 2011

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate
issues, and we didn't know what we'd find.
Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior
groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very
careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some
skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection,
homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps
our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.
-- Richard Muller, Oct 22, 2011

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:47 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:42:39 -0800 (PST), erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>>On Feb 6, 7:06 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:20 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> >On 2/6/12 3:49 PM, Blue wrote:
>>> >> Son, who converted you? Was it a big man in a movie?
>>>
>>> >   A few years ago, a couple of us did the calculations based on
>>> >   principles of chemistry and physics and found we were in
>>> >   reasonable agreement with the IPCC predictions.
>>>
>>> >   My colleague has gone on to refine those calculations and sent
>>> >   them on to the APS, at their invitation. We regularly update each
>>> >   other on our personal progress.
>>>
>>> >   Turns out that this NASA paper is much more thorough. I recommend
>>> >   it to you highly.
>>>
>>> >> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
>>> >>  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>>>
>>> Also interesting:http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ the notion of
>>> "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse
>>> Effect", also has no real foundation.
>>

>>And once again, a denialist finds a denialist blog, which he believes
>>refutes all the scientific papers in all the scientific journals.
>
> Truth is where one finds it.
>
> And once again, a Warmist uses an ad hom as "proof" of their religion.
>
>
>>But then denialists are incredibly stupid.
>
> But then, Warmists are incredibly fallacious.

We have the source code where the warmist literally put "fudge factor"
into the code to fake warming.

We have the e-mails where these warmist conspire together to just pay the
small $5000 fine rather than produce the data under the freedom of
information act.

WE have the e-mails where the warmist agree on using the same "trick" to
"hide the decline".

Yet these assholes come out with an idiot comic written by a socialist
asswipe that claim that the "denialist" make up the facts.

The hypocrisy and stupidity of this is just stunning. I can't believe one
of the frauds was dumb enough to even bring this really bad "argument"
for AGW up in a science newsgroup.

[Marvin the Martian]

You're a bald faced liar, aren't you? "ALL the world scientist"? I
suppose if you're going to make a straw man, make it a really STUPID
straw man, huh?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/12 8:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

>
> We have the source code where the warmist literally put "fudge factor"
> into the code to fake warming.
>
> We have the e-mails where these warmist conspire together to just pay the
> small $5000 fine rather than produce the data under the freedom of
> information act.
>
> WE have the e-mails where the warmist agree on using the same "trick" to
> "hide the decline".
>
> Yet these assholes come out with an idiot comic written by a socialist
> asswipe that claim that the "denialist" make up the facts.
>
> The hypocrisy and stupidity of this is just stunning. I can't believe one
> of the frauds was dumb enough to even bring this really bad "argument"
> for AGW up in a science newsgroup.

Won't you be surprised, Marvin, when you find out that the earth
is warming at a *very rapid rate* driven by the increase in the
concentration of the *greenhouse gas, CO2* being introduced into
the atmosphere by human activity! :-o

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm