Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

[s***@gmail.com]

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

October 17, 2006

Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

[Eric Gisse]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

[HR]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

What does the source of the document have to do with the fact that the rats
are starting to swim for shore?

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by HR

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

What does the source of the document have to do with the fact that the rats
are starting to swim for shore?

You idiot, it has to be a scientific document! Are you this stupid by birth
or by choice?

[hanson]

AHAHAHA... Did HR crank you, Parki-pooh?... ahahaha...

Here is the Frenchman's Proof for GW...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by HR

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

What does the source of the document have to do with the fact that the rats
are starting to swim for shore?

You idiot, it has to be a scientific document! Are you this stupid by birth
or by choice?

[Jim E]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by HR

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

What does the source of the document have to do with the fact that the rats
are starting to swim for shore?

You idiot, it has to be a scientific document! Are you this stupid by birth
or by choice?

He points out the defection, and you say it wasn't a peer reviewed document?

You are too stupid for words.


Jim E

[Bawana]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Actually, all the time.
Think real hard, fuckwit, I'm sure even a dumbass like you can find the
evidence.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by Bawana

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Actually, all the time.

OK, you're the top idiot today.

Post by Bawana
Think real hard, fuckwit, I'm sure even a dumbass like you can find the
evidence.

[Bawana]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by Bawana

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Actually, all the time.

OK, you're the top idiot today.

Think real hard, Tturd Packer, I'm sure even a lard ass like you can
find the evidence.

[Edward Green]

Bawana wrote:

<...>

Post by Bawana
Think real hard, fuckwit, I'm sure even a dumbass like you can find the
evidence.

Ah... yet another closely reasoned Usenet dialogue is in progress.

[hanson]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

[Eric]

Post by Eric Gisse
Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

[hanson]
ahahaha... Eric, ever heard of the "Appropriations Committee"?
Ever heard of the budget? The congress controls the purse strings.
One day maybe, you can become a lobbyist for a science institution
where YOU then can be the peddler that determines to make "THEM"
"decree what is valid science" ... **Money talks and Bullshit walks!**....
Always remember that. Take care.
ahahaha... ahahanson

[Jim]

Realclimate has already addressed this crud:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/

Con Allègre, ma non troppo
Filed under: Climate Science Arctic and Antarctic- group @ 8:18 am
Guest Commentary by Georg Hoffmann (LSCE)

Climate change denial is not necessarily a speciality of Washington DC
think tanks - sometimes it can also be found in old Europe. Right now
there is a little media storm passing by in France evoked by an article
from Claude Allègre in L'Express. Who is Claude Allègre? He is one
of the most decorated french geophysicists specializing in geochemistry
and the use of paleomagnetism. Being a longtime friend of the former
prime minister, Lionel Jospin, he even became Minister of Education and
Research in the former Socialist government. He still plays an active
role within the Socialist party and though he has never published
anything directly related to anthropogenic climate change, one would
assume that he has some understanding of the scientific matter. But
this assumption would be wrong.

In the French weekly journal l'Express he exposed his "sceptical"
views in an article entitled "The snows of Kilimanjaro". In the
short editorial, he somehow became lost when following Ernest Hemingway
to East Africa. Allègre mentions two scientific examples to
demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong in the IPCC
statements on the reality of climate change. First, he commented on the
disappearing glaciers of the Kilimanjaro, sometimes treated as the
"Panda" of anthropogenic climate change. Citing a "Nature" study
(which was in fact published in Science) by Pierre Sepulchre and
colleagues from my laboratory, he claimed that this modelling study
demonstrated that Kilimanjaro's glaciers are controlled by tectonic
activity. In fact, the article describes the impact of tectonics of the
East African Highlands on Indian ocean moisture transport ---- on a
time scale of millions of years! This confuses glacier variability over
the last ~100 years with rainfall trends extending back to the time of
the early hominids (such as Lucy).

In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the situation on the
Kilimanjaro is a bit more complicated than a simple "atmosphere gets
warmer/ glaciers are melting" equation (for instance, see this
previous post on tropical glacier retreat). Furthermore, the real link
to climate change does not come from the retreat of one single tropical
glacier, but from the fact that, to my knowledge, all studied tropical
glaciers have retreated over the 20th century, and the retreat rates
have generally increased in recent decades.

Allègre's misunderstanding was immediately followed by another one.
Citing a recent study on relatively stable Antarctic snowfall over the
last 30 years (Monaghan et al, 2006, discussed here) , he highlighted
what he thought was a clear contradiction to future climate simulations
of global circulation models (melting of the Antarctic ice sheet).
However, that's not what they predict. All models predict a comparably
stable Antarctic ice sheet for the 21th century in which comparably
moderate temperature changes in Antarctica are compensated by slight
increase in snowfall. The Monaghan et al study does not contradict
these model scenarios.

The French climate research community was of course not very pleased
about this short sequence of misrepresentations and personal attacks
("les Cassandres") and corrected Allègre in an open letter
published here on the website of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace
(which includes links to the ongoing back and forth, for those that
speak French).

Curiously enough, twenty years ago Allègre wrote in "Clés pour la
géologie", (éd. Belin/France Culture):

"En brûlant des combustibles fossiles, l'homme a augmenté le taux de
gaz carbonique dans l'atmosphère, ce qui fait, par exemple, que depuis
un siècle la température moyenne du globe a augmenté d'un
demi-degré."

(Translation)
"By burning fossil fuels man enhanced the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature
by half a degree in the last century".

But at that time he used this argument against the anti-nuclear energy
movement. It might be that there is simply a bit too much politics in
Allègre's life...

[k***@yahoo.com]

,,,,,,

Post by Jim
(Translation)
"By burning fossil fuels man enhanced the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature
by half a degree in the last century".
But at that time he used this argument against the anti-nuclear energy
movement. It might be that there is simply a bit too much politics in
Allègre's life...

That's it. Anyone that recognizes that you have no direct scientific or
theoretical basis for claiming that minute concentration changes in CO2
can cause globaal warming, doesn't have the scientific understanding to
make this leap of faith. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with
surface rock and the ocean to form carbonates. Increased levels of CO2
would result in more rapid plant growth since CO2 is the food of
plants. Plant's only get their nutrition and water from the soil. You
actually have no basis for your estimates on human contribution of CO2.
One valcano can undue all your calculations, both from released CO2,
and rock that has not yet absorbed CO2.

Old Allegra was absolutely wrong with the statement he made about
raising global mean temperature by 1/2 degree in one century. This is
absolutely impossible. Even great fluctuations in the solar constant
have no effect on the mean temperature. To raise mean temperature 1/2
degree in 100 years would require injecting 1580 W cm-2 over the entire
surface of the earth for the entire 100 years. At 300K, u = 4.95 W
cm-2
Total heat capacity of the earth is 4.9E27 joules per deg.

Kent Deatherage

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
,,,,,,

Post by Jim
(Translation)
"By burning fossil fuels man enhanced the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature
by half a degree in the last century".
But at that time he used this argument against the anti-nuclear energy
movement. It might be that there is simply a bit too much politics in
Allègre's life...

That's it. Anyone that recognizes that you have no direct scientific or
theoretical basis for claiming that minute concentration changes in CO2

36% isn't minute.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
can cause globaal warming, doesn't have the scientific understanding to
make this leap of faith. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with
surface rock and the ocean to form carbonates.

Slowly. That's why it's up 36% in the atmosphere.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Increased levels of CO2
would result in more rapid plant growth since CO2 is the food of
plants.

It's not the only factor.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Plant's only get their nutrition and water from the soil.

Yes, which is usually the limiting factor.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You
actually have no basis for your estimates on human contribution of CO2.

Just science.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
One valcano can undue all your calculations, both from released CO2,
and rock that has not yet absorbed CO2.

Explain this in English.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Old Allegra was absolutely wrong with the statement he made about
raising global mean temperature by 1/2 degree in one century. This is
absolutely impossible.

It's up more than that.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Even great fluctuations in the solar constant
have no effect on the mean temperature. To raise mean temperature 1/2
degree in 100 years would require injecting 1580 W cm-2 over the entire
surface of the earth for the entire 100 years. At 300K, u = 4.95 W
cm-2
Total heat capacity of the earth is 4.9E27 joules per deg.
Kent Deatherage

Please get a damn education! Spouting terms out of the back of a book doesn't
cut it.

[z]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Increased levels of CO2
would result in more rapid plant growth since CO2 is the food of
plants.

Sure; thus, taking hundreds of millions of years of carbon extracted
from the CO2 in the air by vast quantities of plants over that period
and returning it to the air as CO2 over a couple of decades will merely
result in it being returned into the equivalent volume of plant life
over those couple of decades, and thus covering the surface of the
earth in cellulose to a vast depth; and this is not only likely to
happen, but perfectly fine.

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Ever since the dumbfucks took over the US government :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

[birdog]

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Thomas Lee, your principal arguments against deniers is that they are "dumb
fucks". You give the impression that without the word "fuck", you would be
hard pressed to express yourself. As anyone past grade school (even a gov't.
run school) can tell you, the need to use such language is a symtom of
immaturity and a lack of self esteem. "Hopelessly out of date"? Like, say,
sea levels continue to rise? "EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT: We interrupt this
program to announce that sea levels are rising!" How's that for breaking
news?

Thomas Lee, since citizens of the US are the stupidest on earth, why haven't
you taken your superior intellect to another country, any country, and join
your intellectual peers?

[James]

Post by birdog

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Thomas Lee, your principal arguments against deniers is that they are "dumb
fucks". You give the impression that without the word "fuck", you would be
hard pressed to express yourself. As anyone past grade school (even a gov't.
run school) can tell you, the need to use such language is a symtom of
immaturity and a lack of self esteem.

No, No BD. He really IS inferior and he realizes it. That's why you hear the
ranting about dumb Americans. It makes him FEEL superior. It's due to super
ego and if left unchecked, it'll make him die a lonely soul.

[G. L. Bradford]

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin.

"You cannot defeat a free man. The most that you can do is to kill him."
Robert Heinlein.

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that
man has tried to make it his heaven." Holderlin.

"Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of
government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it
is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to
retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that a greater
number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously
to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty,
have always the right to win it, whenever they have the powe, be the voices
never so numerous that oppose it." John Milton.

Should I go on Thomas? Within the environment enclosed by an iron curtain,
become an iron cocoon, people who would be free of tyranny, to include
environmental tyranny, would destroy even the Earth if necessary. No
compromises, Thomas! No "Let's reach some kind of consensus half free and
half tyranny for safety's sake, the sake of all." Freedom, especially
freedom from 'environmentalism' and 'environmentalists' is NON-NEGOTIABLE!
Payment to colonize and open up the space frontier wide open to
unrestricted -- unconstricted -- exodus is a price infinitely less costly.

What does it matter that the space frontier is alien, raw, harsh, and
forbidding compared to the Earth? In other words, "primordial," "wild" and
"unsafe"? So is tyranny. So is would be environmentalists' rule of tyranny
over those who would be uncompromisingly free of them. So is the war already
long in escalating progress for and against "environmentalism" and
"environmentalists". Escalation has only just begun. Environmentalists are
winning battles on their way to losing the war. Pyrrhic victories. In their
"herd theory of all mankind and life" mindlessness they have no clue. They
will have no clue until it is far, far too late. When suddenly they do get a
clue -- when suddenly the light bulb turns on -- it will freeze their spines
and blow what little mind they have left. They will be "unsafe." They will
have no "security" whatsoever, no "safety" whatsoever, no matter how much
they curl up in their corners sucking their thumbs pouring in sweat from
every pore from a paralyzing fear of an uncompromising freedom, an
uncompromisable free man or woman, destroying their "better world." Their
"more perfect world."

GLB

[Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!]

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp
caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the
claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to
accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the
media-promoted scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus Corpus that stood for over 800
years?

Was it GW or GWB that eliminated the right to a speedy trial, eliminated the right to know the specific
charges against you, eliminated the right to have an attorney present during questioning, eliminated the
right to confront your accusers, eliminated the right a jury of your peers?

Which was it, was GW or GWB, that invaded Iraq to steal the 20% world reserves of oil?

Who put the taps on all phone calls by the NSA, including reporters, congressmen and diplomats phones,
GW or GWB?

Who forged evidence about Iraqs WMDs, GW or GWB?

Who threw the CIA agent to the wolves by publishing names in rightwinger's news columns, GW or GWB?

Post by G. L. Bradford
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin.

The rest of your quotes are sounding a bit KoOk-kOo...

Post by G. L. Bradford
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Mauris nonummy.
Etiam id dolor. Ut ac ipsum. Nullam et mauris eget quam vehicula congue.
Nam venenatis tincidunt eros. Donec lobortis elit. Cras sollicitudin,
lectus vel sollicitudin blandit, elit enim aliquam tellus, quis dapibus
nisl dui et felis. Nulla luctus tempor lectus. Duis velit. Mauris nec
neque. Cras nibh lorem, feugiat vel, volutpat eu, consequat eget, odio.
Integer quis justo. Cras vel purus eget lorem lacinia vulputate. Etiam
egestas, sapien ac consectetuer gravida, pede odio facilisis ipsum,
volutpat pretium dolor leo faucibus nisl. Morbi nibh diam, pellentesque
quis, lobortis eu, molestie ac, nibh. Suspendisse sed justo id libero
auctor malesuada. Aliquam erat volutpat. Morbi suscipit quam blandit quam.
Nullam lacinia eros sit amet turpis. Aenean at urna.
Nam nulla leo, feugiat vitae, mattis et, ultricies quis, metus. Duis non
sapien luctus mauris lobortis ultricies. Ut adipiscing felis in dolor
sollicitudin rutrum. Mauris ut nibh et tortor posuere fringilla. Fusce
placerat viverra nunc. Vivamus consectetuer laoreet elit. Proin velit.
Donec molestie, erat eget cursus tincidunt, sapien orci pretium urna, et
imperdiet dolor erat id nunc. Aliquam justo. Suspendisse aliquam commodo
lacus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et
malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Praesent eget felis hendrerit velit
convallis varius. Mauris eget odio eget erat vulputate condimentum.
Praesent metus eros, sodales non, sodales sed, consequat eu, odio. Morbi
aliquet ultrices quam. Donec enim est, porta at, accumsan ut, rhoncus eu,
lectus.
Proin ut nisi. Donec condimentum commodo enim. Fusce eget nunc at lacus
iaculis laoreet. Nulla nibh. Ut velit nibh, luctus vel, ultricies ut,
dignissim aliquet, diam. Ut at ante at nunc varius ultricies. Quisque
ultrices, arcu at tempor dignissim, dolor est feugiat eros, ut vestibulum
sem mauris sit amet dui. Suspendisse eu ante. In elementum suscipit velit.
Vivamus vel enim at mi malesuada posuere. Nunc iaculis dignissim felis.
Nullam tincidunt. Phasellus quis velit fringilla urna lacinia aliquam.
Aenean adipiscing sollicitudin arcu. Maecenas fringilla dignissim mi. Nunc
eu nisl suscipit nulla congue luctus. Sed tristique, ipsum a porttitor
dignissim, metus pede vestibulum leo, in placerat mi nulla sed libero.
Donec mattis odio non nisi.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In sci.environment, Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
<***@RacketeersR.US>
wrote
on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:50:41 GMT

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp
caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the
claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to
accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the
media-promoted scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus Corpus
that stood for over 800 years?

Who actually *wrote* the law? The Congress has partial culpability
here.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Was it GW or GWB that eliminated the right to a speedy trial,

It wasn't GWB. The trial for O. J. Simpson, in particular, took
from 1994-06-12 to 1995-10-02 to prosecute -- more than a year.
This is hardly speedy.

The DoJ's case against Microsoft took more than a decade; it was
launched in 1990-06 with a probe by the Federal Trade Commission.
Judge Jackson ordered the breakup almost exactly 10 years later.
(The order was reversed a year later, and a settlement reached.)

The Unabomber began his reign of terror in 1978, and
was finally arrested in 1996. A plea bargain for four
consecutive life terms plus 30 years did not occur until
amost two years later.

(No, I don't blame Clinton for this, though all three of
the foregoing did occur during his watch.)

Even a trial case I was summoned to (for jury duty) might
have taken 3 weeks to present -- a commercial burglary
case. I admittedly have no idea how long the prelims went
in that particular case but suspect they took awhile.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
eliminated the right to know the specific
charges against you, eliminated the right to have an attorney present during questioning, eliminated the
right to confront your accusers, eliminated the right a jury of your peers?

Do terrorists have peers? Whom would be seated at a jury
for Osama? Maybe Saddam Hussein, for one. Various Tamil
fighters (India), rebel groups in Darfur, terrorist
elements wandering around in Iraq (yeah, sure, we'll sit
on your jury, after we finish blowing up your troops!),
Theodore Kaczynski, and maybe the occasional skinhead.
I don't know, but have wondered. Obviously bin Laden
couldn't be judged by a bunch of little old ladies from
the local bingo club (unless all of them happened to own
rocket launchers in their garden sheds -- which would be
*very* odd anywhere in the US).

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Which was it, was GW or GWB, that invaded Iraq to steal the 20% world reserves of oil?
Who put the taps on all phone calls by the NSA, including reporters, congressmen and diplomats phones,
GW or GWB?
Who forged evidence about Iraqs WMDs, GW or GWB?
Who threw the CIA agent to the wolves by publishing names in rightwinger's news columns, GW or GWB?

Neither. The investigation is ongoing but the finger is pointing to
Karl Rove, AIUI. Of course GWB hired him.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!

Post by G. L. Bradford
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin.

The rest of your quotes are sounding a bit KoOk-kOo...

[rest deleted]

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In sci.environment, Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:50:41 GMT

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp
caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the
claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to
accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the
media-promoted scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=111

Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus Corpus
that stood for over 800 years?

Who actually *wrote* the law? The Congress has partial culpability
here.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Was it GW or GWB that eliminated the right to a speedy trial,

It wasn't GWB. The trial for O. J. Simpson, in particular, took
from 1994-06-12 to 1995-10-02 to prosecute -- more than a year.
This is hardly speedy.

The defense can demand a speedy trial, or waive the right to one.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The DoJ's case against Microsoft took more than a decade; it was
launched in 1990-06 with a probe by the Federal Trade Commission.

Only applies to criminal cases.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Judge Jackson ordered the breakup almost exactly 10 years later.
(The order was reversed a year later, and a settlement reached.)
The Unabomber began his reign of terror in 1978, and
was finally arrested in 1996. A plea bargain for four
consecutive life terms plus 30 years did not occur until
amost two years later.
(No, I don't blame Clinton for this, though all three of
the foregoing did occur during his watch.)
Even a trial case I was summoned to (for jury duty) might
have taken 3 weeks to present -- a commercial burglary
case. I admittedly have no idea how long the prelims went
in that particular case but suspect they took awhile.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
eliminated the right to know the specific
charges against you, eliminated the right to have an attorney present

during questioning, eliminated the

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
right to confront your accusers, eliminated the right a jury of your peers?

Do terrorists have peers? Whom would be seated at a jury
for Osama? Maybe Saddam Hussein, for one. Various Tamil
fighters (India), rebel groups in Darfur, terrorist
elements wandering around in Iraq (yeah, sure, we'll sit
on your jury, after we finish blowing up your troops!),
Theodore Kaczynski, and maybe the occasional skinhead.
I don't know, but have wondered. Obviously bin Laden
couldn't be judged by a bunch of little old ladies from
the local bingo club (unless all of them happened to own
rocket launchers in their garden sheds -- which would be
*very* odd anywhere in the US).

But do a bunch of people in the military (and so under Bush's command)
constitute peers?

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Which was it, was GW or GWB, that invaded Iraq to steal the 20% world reserves of oil?
Who put the taps on all phone calls by the NSA, including reporters,

congressmen and diplomats phones,

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
GW or GWB?
Who forged evidence about Iraqs WMDs, GW or GWB?
Who threw the CIA agent to the wolves by publishing names in rightwinger's

news columns, GW or GWB?

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Neither. The investigation is ongoing but the finger is pointing to
Karl Rove, AIUI. Of course GWB hired him.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!

Post by G. L. Bradford
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin.

The rest of your quotes are sounding a bit KoOk-kOo...

[rest deleted]

[z]

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus Corpus
that stood for over 800 years?

Who actually *wrote* the law? The Congress has partial culpability
here.

By God, you're right! It wasn't the Republicans, it was the
Republicans!!!

[Retief]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:50:41 GMT, "Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!"

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus Corpus that stood for over 800
years?

Actually, it was Abraham Lincoln. Despite that the right of Habeus
Corpus was encoded into the Constitution (as British rulers had also
violated the right of Habeus Corpus).

Retief

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by Retief
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:50:41 GMT, "Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!"

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus

Corpus that stood for over 800

Post by Retief

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
years?

Actually, it was Abraham Lincoln. Despite that the right of Habeus
Corpus was encoded into the Constitution (as British rulers had also
violated the right of Habeus Corpus).
Retief

Yes, Abe suspended it, and a later Supreme Court ruled that was
unconstitutional.

What is it about Republicans and habeas corpus?

[Retief]

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!

Post by Retief

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
So it was GW or GWB that eliminated the constitutional right to Habeus

Corpus that stood for over 800

Post by Retief

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
years?

Actually, it was Abraham Lincoln. Despite that the right of Habeus
Corpus was encoded into the Constitution (as British rulers had also
violated the right of Habeus Corpus).

Yes, Abe suspended it, and a later Supreme Court ruled that was
unconstitutional.

Correct, Lloyd. And the SC was correct.

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
What is it about Republicans and habeas corpus?

I find it amusing that you try to bait an argument over Lincoln... His
"little war" was nothing more than showing how large his balls were,
and inexcusable...

But Lincoln was more akin to big government Democrats, than classic
Republicans -- you know -- the typical big government, totalitarian...
Of course, modern Republicans have learned from Democrats, and now
both parties are "tax and spend liberals"...

But Lincoln was hardly alone in his abuses... There was Andrew
Jackson and his abuses, and let us not forget your "big government,
great society" hero, FDR, who imprisoned Americans of Japanese descent
and deprived them of their property...

Retief

[z]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Typical Anthropogenic Climate
Change Skeptic, favoring us with a synopsis of the scientific evidence
supporting his (it's always a him) position.

Post by G. L. Bradford
Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by z
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Typical Anthropogenic Climate
Change Skeptic, favoring us with a synopsis of the scientific evidence
supporting his (it's always a him) position.

Post by G. L. Bradford
Global Warming advocates advocate total tyranny. They will get the
escalation to all out total war they are in the beginning stages of.

Quote from grenhouse theory

."""""The rest of us know that the Earth is spherical, and therefore
the solar energy incident on the surface is ~342 W/m^2 (all numbers
quoted are / unit surface area). The earth's albedo is about 30% so 107
W/m^2 is reflected out to space leaving 168 W/m^2 absorbed by the
surface and 65 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere. The surface radiates
back 350 W/m^2 and thermals contribute 24 W/m^2 and latent heat 75
W/m^2, 40 W/m^2 of the IR makes it directly into space. The atmosphere
and clouds radiate back 324 W/m^2 to the surface leaving 195 W/m^2
emitted out to space from the upper atmosphere. You will see that this
gives a balance 168+67 = 195+40.""""


This is a classic quote from grenhouse theory. Despite all of this
being an invalid analyses, the important criticism of this is the claim
that 40Wm-2 makes it directly into space. This is needed in grenhouse
theory to specify that added CO2 will restricted radiation that now
makes it into space without restriction. This is false. The truth is
that all gas molecules absorb infrared radiation equally. Wavelengths
from 2 to 3 microns do not pass through air unhindered, are absorbed
and reradiated from molecule to molecule. No difference in the CO2
molecule to other atmospheric gases exists.

To prove this take the model of 1 cubic meter of silica. As part of the
earth's surface this will have a face of 1 sq meter. 1 cubic meter of
silica contains 2050 grams. Molar weight 60. This equals 34.2 moles.
Heat capacity of silica is 19.789 J mol-1, degK-1. 34.2 x 19.789 =
676.1 Joules per cubic meter, per deg. To change the temperature of 1
cubic meter of silica 1 deg requires 676 Joules

In 16.9 seconds, losing heat at 40Wm-2 (40 joules per second per sq.
meter), the cubic meter of silica will drop 1 deg. If it is initially
at 300K, a rough estimate will put the entire cubic meter at absolute
zero in 84 minutes or 1 hour 24 minutes. This is not the rate of
temperature fall at night on earth. Of course in a real situation,
after the surface temperature falls, (such as on the dark side of the
moon), the temperature will stabilize according to the heat it recieves
from within from conduction. The temperature of the surface of the moon
does fall according to these values and stabilizes 20 or 30 degrees
above absolute zero within several minutes of coming into shadow.

Kent Deatherage

[RETIEF LIED. RETIEF Got Caught!!!]

Post by G. L. Bradford
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Mauris
nonummy. Etiam id dolor. Ut ac ipsum. Nullam et mauris eget quam
vehicula congue. Nam venenatis tincidunt eros. Donec lobortis elit. Cras
sollicitudin, lectus vel sollicitudin blandit, elit enim aliquam tellus,
quis dapibus nisl dui et felis. Nulla luctus tempor lectus. Duis velit.
Mauris nec neque. Cras nibh lorem, feugiat vel, volutpat eu, consequat
eget, odio. Integer quis justo. Cras vel purus eget lorem lacinia
vulputate. Etiam egestas, sapien ac consectetuer gravida, pede odio
facilisis ipsum, volutpat pretium dolor leo faucibus nisl. Morbi nibh
diam, pellentesque quis, lobortis eu, molestie ac, nibh. Suspendisse sed
justo id libero auctor malesuada. Aliquam erat volutpat. Morbi suscipit
quam blandit quam. Nullam lacinia eros sit amet turpis. Aenean at urna.
Nam nulla leo, feugiat vitae, mattis et, ultricies quis, metus. Duis non
sapien luctus mauris lobortis ultricies. Ut adipiscing felis in dolor
sollicitudin rutrum. Mauris ut nibh et tortor posuere fringilla. Fusce
placerat viverra nunc. Vivamus consectetuer laoreet elit. Proin velit.
Donec molestie, erat eget cursus tincidunt, sapien orci pretium urna, et
imperdiet dolor erat id nunc. Aliquam justo. Suspendisse aliquam commodo
lacus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et
malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Praesent eget felis hendrerit velit
convallis varius. Mauris eget odio eget erat vulputate condimentum.
Praesent metus eros, sodales non, sodales sed, consequat eu, odio. Morbi
aliquet ultrices quam. Donec enim est, porta at, accumsan ut, rhoncus
eu, lectus.
Proin ut nisi. Donec condimentum commodo enim. Fusce eget nunc at lacus
iaculis laoreet. Nulla nibh. Ut velit nibh, luctus vel, ultricies ut,
dignissim aliquet, diam. Ut at ante at nunc varius ultricies. Quisque
ultrices, arcu at tempor dignissim, dolor est feugiat eros, ut
vestibulum sem mauris sit amet dui. Suspendisse eu ante. In elementum
suscipit velit. Vivamus vel enim at mi malesuada posuere. Nunc iaculis
dignissim felis. Nullam tincidunt. Phasellus quis velit fringilla urna
lacinia aliquam. Aenean adipiscing sollicitudin arcu. Maecenas fringilla
dignissim mi. Nunc eu nisl suscipit nulla congue luctus. Sed tristique,
ipsum a porttitor dignissim, metus pede vestibulum leo, in placerat mi
nulla sed libero. Donec mattis odio non nisi.
Nam lacus. Mauris sollicitudin augue non sapien. Ut sodales ipsum
sollicitudin leo cursus sagittis. In eget nunc. Donec nec mauris.
Aliquam vitae dui. Vestibulum nec nunc porta mi posuere pellentesque.
Integer id ante. Nam rutrum ligula vitae urna mattis ultrices. Sed at
ante. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices
posuere cubilia Curae; Duis vel justo. Duis sed neque sed eros
pellentesque sodales. Cras vitae dolor non felis fermentum feugiat.
Quisque porttitor venenatis enim. Vivamus suscipit erat eget lorem.
Fusce suscipit eros vel diam.
Aenean vestibulum consequat risus. Mauris ultricies hendrerit lectus.
Curabitur lorem. Vestibulum et mauris ut ligula sodales laoreet. Aliquam
fringilla imperdiet nibh. Aliquam nonummy est in nisi. Quisque ut erat.
Morbi mollis tortor a risus. Morbi sed sapien sed odio commodo molestie.
Aliquam feugiat nunc non est. Aenean quis risus quis arcu pulvinar
sollicitudin. In sed pede quis metus pulvinar pellentesque.
In dolor odio, suscipit nec, euismod ut, adipiscing ut, ligula. Etiam
dapibus pharetra ligula. Phasellus vulputate dolor eu nunc. Proin
blandit dapibus mauris. Nam adipiscing, quam sed congue adipiscing, ante
nunc ultricies pede, nec fermentum augue pede porta nibh. Praesent massa
nulla, dignissim quis, nonummy et, dapibus quis, sapien. Nunc eget elit
quis mi tristique convallis. Nunc et nisi at eros ultricies mollis. Ut
ultrices eros. Proin rhoncus, eros vitae interdum venenatis, metus lacus
commodo quam, at convallis turpis arcu ut nisi. Aliquam non tellus.
Pellentesque tortor est, hendrerit vitae, porttitor et, ultricies vel,
massa. Vivamus molestie. Vestibulum mollis velit vitae lorem. Integer
auctor leo ut mi. Curabitur et pede nec lectus auctor rhoncus. Praesent
vestibulum iaculis risus. Cras tempor massa quis urna. Phasellus
vehicula, erat eget euismod tempor, mauris magna viverra urna, facilisis
scelerisque felis felis eget turpis.
Suspendisse magna lacus, euismod et, imperdiet id, sagittis nec, metus.
Sed at dui quis elit fermentum dapibus. Curabitur nunc. Sed tincidunt
augue vitae orci iaculis iaculis. Nunc posuere purus ac tellus. Duis
laoreet. Fusce sit amet ante. Praesent semper tempus ipsum. Vivamus
imperdiet turpis quis lacus. Morbi massa magna, congue ut, elementum
eget, scelerisque vel, ligula. Quisque facilisis faucibus orci. Aliquam
id urna id pede scelerisque interdum. Etiam blandit. Pellentesque
placerat suscipit tellus. Quisque adipiscing, dolor quis pretium
ultricies, massa elit porta magna, sed fringilla tellus purus id ante.
Vestibulum id leo. Etiam turpis.
Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per
inceptos hymenaeos. Pellentesque rhoncus dolor eu mi. Aenean ac nisl in
mauris mollis tincidunt. Sed porttitor. Duis facilisis elit at nulla.
Vestibulum lectus. Maecenas lacinia magna. Curabitur diam. Quisque
semper lacus volutpat pede. Nulla nonummy ligula a ipsum. Sed tellus
quam, volutpat ut, molestie a, pellentesque ac, magna. In tincidunt
egestas risus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus
et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Fusce fermentum diam at ante.
Curabitur a lacus. Maecenas pretium, nunc nec pretium feugiat, turpis
augue dictum libero, non lobortis leo neque sed libero. Lorem ipsum
dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Nullam auctor augue nec sem. Phasellus bibendum. Aliquam vel metus.
Suspendisse in pede id purus semper nonummy. Ut id dolor. Aliquam id
purus ac nunc rhoncus vestibulum. Morbi eget sem. Sed gravida. Mauris
elit massa, volutpat egestas, lacinia eget, commodo ac, nulla.
Pellentesque lobortis, mi ut vulputate viverra, augue ipsum bibendum
magna, sed porttitor est leo eu nulla. Nam hendrerit varius urna. Sed
aliquam, tellus id mollis volutpat, odio felis volutpat erat, id congue
magna velit sed nisi. Mauris purus. Praesent odio neque, venenatis sit
amet, nonummy nec, sollicitudin non, arcu. Maecenas vulputate magna sed
mi. Donec dignissim pulvinar felis. Quisque tempus magna iaculis massa.
Vivamus adipiscing. Nunc sodales porttitor libero. Pellentesque pulvinar
nisl a turpis.
Nulla pretium ipsum in tortor. Nunc ac mauris. Integer euismod, orci nec
ultricies sodales, sem purus lobortis ante, fringilla congue tortor diam
sit amet libero. Nam sodales, arcu sollicitudin imperdiet congue, risus
massa eleifend sapien, a tristique est eros eu magna. Aenean nec purus
quis felis pharetra egestas. Aenean sagittis, est vel egestas fringilla,
odio diam egestas tellus, et dictum ligula felis quis lorem. Suspendisse
justo nibh, ullamcorper vitae, commodo ut, lacinia at, urna. Ut viverra
purus scelerisque massa. Integer at quam. Etiam nunc lectus, imperdiet
eget, viverra et, suscipit pretium, ligula. Praesent et enim in sapien
tristique cursus. Aliquam nec justo. Aenean pede dolor, molestie ac,
dictum quis, vestibulum vel, est. Nullam eu tellus eget dui lobortis
vulputate. Nullam ante odio, bibendum et, consectetuer a, malesuada ut,
enim. In suscipit varius diam. Duis ut nulla. Sed at ligula posuere
turpis blandit eleifend. Morbi id mi at pede mollis eleifend.
Quisque ornare. Integer tristique mauris ac magna. Vestibulum ante ipsum
primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Sed
velit magna, euismod nec, accumsan sed, venenatis rutrum, libero. Nunc
et diam id lectus facilisis tincidunt. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad
litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer
euismod volutpat nisi. Vestibulum vehicula adipiscing orci. Vivamus
pellentesque adipiscing felis. Phasellus mollis. Integer viverra.
Aliquam vitae lorem. Nulla magna turpis, ultricies a, ullamcorper ac,
viverra eu, lacus. Nam tristique orci in risus. Aenean vitae mi vitae
tortor dictum consequat. Sed magna nulla, dignissim a, malesuada a,
rhoncus ac, purus. Nullam fermentum. Vivamus tempus libero sit amet
risus. Pellentesque non quam eget tellus facilisis dictum. Sed neque
augue, mollis vitae, viverra feugiat, accumsan a, mi.
Suspendisse hendrerit. Aliquam ut tortor. Sed et diam nec orci vehicula
ullamcorper. Morbi metus nunc, aliquet et, faucibus eu, ornare id, diam.
Nunc convallis posuere enim. Donec erat quam, malesuada ac, dapibus
quis, blandit a, odio. Nulla velit ligula, pellentesque et, mollis vel,
ultrices sed, sapien. Proin risus. Donec sapien neque, euismod quis,
faucibus in, imperdiet pharetra, mauris. Sed vehicula ullamcorper arcu.
Donec suscipit tristique lacus. Duis consequat tristique dolor. Ut vitae
quam nec erat imperdiet tempor. Nulla facilisi. Aliquam ut nisl sed
lorem faucibus aliquet.
Etiam ornare lorem in dolor. Morbi commodo vestibulum mauris. Lorem
ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Cum sociis natoque
penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Maecenas dapibus. Morbi molestie est ac turpis placerat varius.
Suspendisse eget ligula sed leo iaculis fermentum. Vestibulum posuere
tortor. Nam sed neque. Mauris pharetra leo nec eros. Maecenas molestie
mauris non eros. Nam urna lectus, feugiat sit amet, nonummy vitae,
viverra id, justo. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus
et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean tristique pede facilisis
turpis. Aliquam non leo sed justo volutpat lacinia. Nulla convallis
pharetra justo. Proin malesuada, libero id pretium gravida, nisl odio
euismod augue, nec iaculis leo libero vel velit. Pellentesque blandit,
enim ut mollis lacinia, est lorem adipiscing eros, in tempor orci est
sed dolor.
Nulla at lectus nec augue placerat nonummy. Praesent in purus eget risus
vulputate iaculis. Vivamus scelerisque. Vestibulum id arcu vel pede
consequat pharetra. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per
conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Pellentesque in augue. Etiam
magna arcu, fringilla eget, laoreet a, placerat et, nisl. Quisque
convallis, velit at fringilla consectetuer, dui est scelerisque odio, id
vulputate arcu erat a ipsum. Aenean pharetra lorem sit amet urna. Nunc
sem urna, malesuada vel, condimentum fringilla, pretium et, elit.
Vestibulum fringilla augue id mauris. Praesent vehicula aliquam magna.
In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean tincidunt. Suspendisse mauris.
Curabitur ut lorem. Pellentesque ipsum tellus, vulputate id,
consectetuer ut, tincidunt in, dolor. Pellentesque dapibus orci ac erat.
Fusce pellentesque nibh id mauris. Quisque scelerisque. Aenean varius
lacus et massa. Nunc pulvinar nisl eget nunc suscipit venenatis. Proin
nonummy sem nec dui. Phasellus quam justo, iaculis at, aliquam a,
accumsan ut, nunc. Aenean gravida, dui nec venenatis placerat, tortor
sem luctus lectus, convallis rutrum diam felis sed nisi. Fusce quis ante
elementum libero ultricies euismod.
Kent Deatherage

Poor Kent Death-Rag, spouting gibberish and spending all his days doing
DNA tests on old sailors to try to find his real father.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Since right-wingers control it and right-wing denialists have no science to
back them up so they grasp at straws.

[Brad Guth]

Post by Eric Gisse
Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

Ever since we've become such dumb and dumber village idiots that are so
entirely dumbfounded as to have a resident LLPOF warlord like GW bush as
our very own president.

The moon hasn't always been with us, and even the likes of yourself is
simply too far gone as to realize such truth, and that's even when it's
emerging from between your own infomercial spewing butt-cheeks.
-
Brad Guth

[Edward Green]

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

First, I don't think the senate is issuing any decrees, second, in this
particular matter, I suspect the collective opinions of the US senate
are probably about as useful as anybody elses.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by Edward Green

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

First, I don't think the senate is issuing any decrees, second, in this
particular matter, I suspect the collective opinions of the US senate
are probably about as useful as anybody elses.

So if the Senate says, for example, stem cell research cannot provide a cure
for Parkinson's, that's as valid as what researchers in the field say?

[z]

Post by Lloyd Parker
So if the Senate says, for example, stem cell research cannot provide a cure
for Parkinson's, that's as valid as what researchers in the field say?

Hey, the law is the law, and that goes for neurons as much as anyone
else.

[Edward Green]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by Edward Green

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by s***@gmail.com
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

Since when does the United States sentate decree what is valid science?

First, I don't think the senate is issuing any decrees, second, in this
particular matter, I suspect the collective opinions of the US senate
are probably about as useful as anybody elses.

So if the Senate says, for example, stem cell research cannot provide a cure
for Parkinson's, that's as valid as what researchers in the field say?

First, the "Senate" is not saying anything; this was a press
release from a senate committee. The press release was indeed slanted,
husbanding evidence that happens to support a particular position. I
was surprised at the depth of the slanting - it reads like a release
from an industry advocacy group rather than a balanced report from an
unbiased observer, and some of the "evidence" presented would have
better been left uncited: observation that temperatures in Alaska over
some period were marginally colder than over some other period seems
distressingly unaware that there could be an overall trend with
occasional reversals, like the stock market.

Saying all that, I would take senatorial rhetoric citing other sources
in support of some position - including stem cell research - with
the same jaundiced eye I would take any other such material; but not
more so. I'll consider what they have to say, but I won't take it
as a given that US senators and their aides are necessarily _bigger_
charlatans than advocates of alternative positions simply because they
are politicians. They are lawyers arguing a case, presenting evidence
that supports their position. We are the judges.

[Roger Coppock]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps

I wonder how big a retirement package the Carbon fuel industry gave him?

[James]

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps

I wonder how big a retirement package the Carbon fuel industry gave him?

LOL Next, it will be evil oil men from outer space.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are being
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are being
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science. When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.

Kent Deatherage

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are being
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU. You
choose a Republican politician.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.
Kent Deatherage

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are being
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

XXXXXXX

Post by Lloyd Parker
Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU. You
choose a Republican politician.

If these journals wish to stake their reputation on the validity of
grenhouse theory, they have every right to do EXACTLY THAT..

I have nothing to do with republicans asshole. I am born and raised
working class and am still working class. I merely am a student of the
physics of Einstein and Planck. And I know by my formal education in
astrophysics that your grenhouse theory is completely invalid. You
assume the validity from your godfather Neils Bohr and QM.

Read at this website even the way Schrodinger felt about the rinky dink
theory of QM from Bohr and the ultimate charlatan Heisenberg (who
flunked his college physics).

http://www.crystalinks.com/planck.html

Kent Deatherage

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.
Kent Deatherage

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are being
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

XXXXXXX

Post by Lloyd Parker
Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU. You
choose a Republican politician.

If these journals wish to stake their reputation on the validity of
grenhouse theory, they have every right to do EXACTLY THAT..
I have nothing to do with republicans asshole. I am born and raised
working class and am still working class. I merely am a student of the
physics of Einstein and Planck. And I know by my formal education in
astrophysics that your grenhouse theory is completely invalid.

Then you slept through some classes.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You
assume the validity from your godfather Neils Bohr and QM.

Huh?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Read at this website even the way Schrodinger felt about the rinky dink
theory of QM from Bohr and the ultimate charlatan Heisenberg (who
flunked his college physics).

QM is _the_ most tested theory there is. If it's incorrect, the sun isn't
shining, your computer isn't working... in other words, you're probably
floating in space somewhere imagining all this. No, electrons in your brain
wouldn't do their thing either. Perhaps you're an uncorporeal consciousness
somewhere.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
http://www.crystalinks.com/planck.html
Kent Deatherage

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.
Kent Deatherage

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc.

then.

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are

being

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

XXXXXXX

Post by Lloyd Parker
Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU. You
choose a Republican politician.

If these journals wish to stake their reputation on the validity of
grenhouse theory, they have every right to do EXACTLY THAT..
I have nothing to do with republicans asshole. I am born and raised
working class and am still working class. I merely am a student of the
physics of Einstein and Planck. And I know by my formal education in
astrophysics that your grenhouse theory is completely invalid.

Then you slept through some classes.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You
assume the validity from your godfather Neils Bohr and QM.

Huh?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Read at this website even the way Schrodinger felt about the rinky dink
theory of QM from Bohr and the ultimate charlatan Heisenberg (who
flunked his college physics).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Post by Lloyd Parker
QM is _the_ most tested theory there is. If it's incorrect, the sun isn't
shining, your computer isn't working... in other words, you're probably
floating in space somewhere imagining all this. No, electrons in your brain
wouldn't do their thing either. Perhaps you're an uncorporeal consciousness
somewhere.

Some of that grenhouse logic I suppose, beginning with such a
statement. Qm cannot be tested. It can't be challenged. Bohr's theory
failed completely for helium. Heisenberg stepped in with his complex
bullshit. But his theory failed to explain orthoheliumn and parhelium.
So he just made up the concept of parrellel electron spin and
non-parrellel electron spin. A really tested theory. Quantum math for
the distribution of radiation just claims a quantum of 5. (almost the
4.96 ratio of highest intensty frequency to kt) and then makes up some
bullshit math, Of course the bullshit theory of QM would embrace the
bullshit grenhouse theory that developed after the sixties in the
United States by little twits at the universities that needed thesis.
Qm is a complete failure, whatever you say, to have any valid
application on real physics.

At solar noon at the equator, 1000 W m-2 of energy is recieved. The
mean temperature of the earth is 299K, 26C or 59F @459 W m-2. The
earth does not radiate as much energy as it recieves to about 40 deg
latitude. Greater latitudes than this radiate more energy than they
recieve. This fluctuates some for seasons. Radiation absorbed by the
ocean mainly determines mean temperature of the earth. The ice at the
polar caps restricts outgoing radiation which causes the cycle of the
ice ages. The diminished ice lets out heat. Cooling sets in, The
growing ice caps restrict heat causing a warming trend. The effect of
gravitiational and tidal forces is an important factor in the earth's
thermodynamics.

The earth is not deficient 30 degC except for the heat retention of
grenhouse gases. Made up bullshit that can be PROVED wrong. The effect
of human CO2 is non-existent on the earth's temperature. It is complete
mental masturbation to enforce regulation on emmisions of CO2.

You can go straight to hell, you know. You are not honest. You have
monetary gain with the imposition of grenhouse controls. And you have
no interest in the truth of nature or science. Why don't you repeat
just one more time how many idiots there are that call themselves
'scientists' that believe in your grenhouse theory. You cannot show any
scientific data that shows cause and effect of CO2 causing higher
temperature at any conditions normal to earth. All of the physics and
thermodynamics I've heard from you and your boys is fraudulent and can
be proven to be so.You have no science and therefore you and your
comrades' imposition on society is criminal fraud. The determination of
your criminal intent should not be left up to a jury of dishonest
little psuedo-scientists like yourself, either.

http://www.crystalinks.com/planck.html

Kent Deatherage

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.
Kent Deatherage

[Eric Gisse]

***@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Some of that grenhouse logic I suppose, beginning with such a
statement. Qm cannot be tested. It can't be challenged.

This coming from the guy with no education in physics.

This chucklefucks's experience amounts to 20 years of construction [not
electronics - buildings]. Which, in his twisted little mind, means he
knows more about physics than physicists.

[...]

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Some of that grenhouse logic I suppose, beginning with such a
statement. Qm cannot be tested. It can't be challenged.

This coming from the guy with no education in physics.
This chucklefucks's experience amounts to 20 years of construction [not
electronics - buildings]. Which, in his twisted little mind, means he
knows more about physics than physicists.
[...]

AT least I am proficient in what I do. You are completely inept. You
could'nt calculate where your asshole is even though your head is
jammed all the way up it.

Instead of personal attacks why don't you criticise my scientific
statments, twirp? You little chumps attack any scientists in this same
manner that do not agree with you, despite their credentials. Overgrown
little schoolboys that dominate the world of theoretical science is all
you are.

KD

[Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!]

Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

kd

Global Warming is a term you can't define!!!!!!!!!

Since you can't do these calculations, and all the rinky dink
scientists at your links can't do these calcualtions...
The mass of the oceans is 1.4E23

STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Irrelevent. The warmer water floats on the cooler water. The warmer
water wants to rise, the cooler water wants to sink, only gravity holds
these two together. The interface between warmer and cooler is named
the "THERMOCLINE". Divers descending below the thermocline need
protective wetsuits to avoid hypothermia even in the tropics.
The only part of the ocean that anybody need concern themselves with is
the depths above the thermocline.
The thermocline depth below the sea surface increases and declines
depending on what latitude one is, the sea floor depth, the season, and
currents. In the Gulf of Mexico, the Loop Current has been measured
with a thermocline depth of 250 meters deep.
The rest of your math is junk because you got the important part wrong
in the very first step of your calculations. Everything after that is
junk.
<snip a big pile of horseshit>

Then be sure you do not use the term 'GLobal Warming' any more, since
you can't even consider the water more than 250 meters deep. In a court
room your inability to define your terms could be FATAL!!!

That 250 meters deep thermocline is the possibly the deep pool of hot
water on Earth. Most of the oceans are not as hot, not hot to that depth.

The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

Tepid water not as hot as your last bath or shower, if a stinking piece of
manure like you ever bathes, is now harrassing the coast of the Philippine
Islands with winds at 105 knots, gusts to 140 knots, according to this
hour's Navy warning:

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp2206web.txt
Loading Image...

See that hot spot in the center, where all the INFRARED radiation is
glowing so bright? That's CO2-H2O laser action.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

The water is only 90 degrees F, not even body temperature, but it's enough
to make this a category 3 MAJOR HURRICANE, the 32nd in the series counting
From Katrina in late August last year. That's one every 13 days and
increasing in frequency.

You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

What happened to your 'thermocline' this year in the atlantic. The
water temperatures near the coastal US were 2 or 3 degrees cooler than
normal.

No. The temperatures were plenty high enough to support category 5
hurricanes over much of the Atlantic basin spawning grounds. The early
start to the Asian Pacific Typhoon Season had something to do with
accelorating the whole global ITCZ. It actually reduced hurricane
formation in all basins for a while, but the speeding air lifted dry
duststorms off the Sahara and out into the Atlantic. That plus the
windshear suppressed hurricane formation in the Atlantic. The East Pacific
was active, Central Pacific spawned the biggest, longest hurricane of the
year, IOKE, who travelled over 4,000 miles in more than two weeks. The
West Pacific was active, with Saomai, Ioke, and Yagi as category 5
hurricanes. There were three category-5 hurricanes "down-under" in the
early part of the year.

This is part of the reason that the prediction of a heavy
hurricane season didn't pan out. Since this data doesn't support your
irrational prediction of global warming, you will just ignore it and
leave it out of your climatalogical model.
Kent Deatherage

Nothing is ignored. African Dust is now weighed more heavily

The long term average for the Atlantic from 1851-2005 is 8.4 named storms
in the Atlantic. 2006 had 9, making it average. Two of those were major
hurricanes, also "average". It was not a below-average year. There was
plenty of luck involved that none of those made serious landfall, although
Alberto and Ernesto both caused flood damages in the Carolinas. You also
ignore the flooding (speaking of people who ignore reality) where
tropical weather invading the US without whirly wind flooded eight states
and Houston.

The season isn't over until NOVEMBER 30th! Theres an active bit of weather
being watched in the Carribean right now. You can't total the season
before it's over, but this is the running global total kept by the US Navy
for 2006:

2006 Storms
Atlantic

93L.INVEST
09L.ISAAC
08L.HELENE
07L.GORDON
06L.FLORENCE
05L.ERNESTO
04L.DEBBY
03L.CHRIS
02L.BERYL
01L.ALBERTO

East Pacific

18E.NONAME
17E.PAUL
16E.OLIVIA
15E.NORMAN
14E.MIRIAM
14E.NONAME
13E.LANE
13E.NONAME
12E.KRISTY
12E.NONAME
11E.JOHN
10E.ILEANA
09E.HECTOR
08E.GILMA
07E.FABIO
06E.EMILIA
05E.DANIEL
04E.CARLOTTA
03E.BUD
02E.NONAME
01E.ALETTA

Central Pacific

green ball icon99C.INVEST
04C.NONAME
03C.NONAME
02C.NONAME
01C.IOKE

West Pacific

8W.INVEST
97W.INVEST
22W.CIMARON
21W.SOULIK
20W.RUMBIA
19W.BEBINCA
18W.XANGSANE
17W.NONAME
16W.NONAME
16W.YAGI
15W.NONAME
14W.SHANSHAN
13W.NONAME
12W.SONAMU
11W.WUKONG
10W.BOPHA
09W.MARIA
08W.SAOMAI
07W.PRAPIROON
06W.KAEMI
05W.BILIS
04W.NONAME
03W.NONAME
02W.CHANCHU
01W.NONAME

Indian Ocean

98B.INVEST
05B.NONAME
04A.MUKDA
03B.NONAME
02B.MALA
01A.NONAME

Southern Hem.

23P.MONICA
22S.ELIA
22S.NONAME
21S.HUBERT
21S.NONAME
20S.GLENDA
19S.FLOYD
18P.WATI
17P.LARRY
16S.DIWA
15S.EMMA
14S.CARINA
13P.KATE
12S.NONAME
11P.NONAME
11P.VAIANU
10P.JIM
09S.BOLOETSE
09S.NONAME
08S.DARYL
07P.URMIL
06P.TAM
05S.CLARE
04S.NONAME
03B.NONAME
03S.BERTIE
02S.NONAME
01S.NONAME

Southern Hem.
Season: 07

95P.INVEST
01P.XAVIER

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc.

then.

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are

being

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

XXXXXXX

Post by Lloyd Parker
Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU.

You

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker
choose a Republican politician.

If these journals wish to stake their reputation on the validity of
grenhouse theory, they have every right to do EXACTLY THAT..
I have nothing to do with republicans asshole. I am born and raised
working class and am still working class. I merely am a student of the
physics of Einstein and Planck. And I know by my formal education in
astrophysics that your grenhouse theory is completely invalid.

Then you slept through some classes.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You
assume the validity from your godfather Neils Bohr and QM.

Huh?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Read at this website even the way Schrodinger felt about the rinky dink
theory of QM from Bohr and the ultimate charlatan Heisenberg (who
flunked his college physics).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Post by Lloyd Parker
QM is _the_ most tested theory there is. If it's incorrect, the sun isn't
shining, your computer isn't working... in other words, you're probably
floating in space somewhere imagining all this. No, electrons in your brain
wouldn't do their thing either. Perhaps you're an uncorporeal consciousness
somewhere.

Some of that grenhouse logic I suppose, beginning with such a
statement. Qm cannot be tested.

It has been extensively tested. Photoelectric effect, two-slit experiment,
fusion, electron tunnelling...

Post by k***@yahoo.com
It can't be challenged. Bohr's theory
failed completely for helium.

Bohr's theory wasn't QM.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Heisenberg stepped in with his complex
bullshit. But his theory failed to explain orthoheliumn and parhelium.
So he just made up the concept of parrellel electron spin and
non-parrellel electron spin. A really tested theory. Quantum math for
the distribution of radiation just claims a quantum of 5. (almost the
4.96 ratio of highest intensty frequency to kt) and then makes up some
bullshit math, Of course the bullshit theory of QM would embrace the
bullshit grenhouse theory that developed after the sixties in the
United States by little twits at the universities that needed thesis.
Qm is a complete failure, whatever you say, to have any valid
application on real physics.

You're an idiot. QM is the most tested theory in science. Get with it,
looney tunes.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
At solar noon at the equator, 1000 W m-2 of energy is recieved. The
earth does not radiate as much energy as it recieves to about 40 deg
latitude. Greater latitudes than this radiate more energy than they
recieve. This fluctuates some for seasons. Radiation absorbed by the
ocean mainly determines mean temperature of the earth. The ice at the
polar caps restricts outgoing radiation which causes the cycle of the
ice ages. The diminished ice lets out heat. Cooling sets in, The
growing ice caps restrict heat causing a warming trend. The effect of
gravitiational and tidal forces is an important factor in the earth's
thermodynamics.
The earth is not deficient 30 degC except for the heat retention of
grenhouse gases. Made up bullshit that can be PROVED wrong. The effect
of human CO2 is non-existent on the earth's temperature. It is complete
mental masturbation to enforce regulation on emmisions of CO2.
You can go straight to hell, you know. You are not honest. You have
monetary gain with the imposition of grenhouse controls. And you have
no interest in the truth of nature or science. Why don't you repeat
just one more time how many idiots there are that call themselves
'scientists' that believe in your grenhouse theory. You cannot show any
scientific data that shows cause and effect of CO2 causing higher
temperature at any conditions normal to earth. All of the physics and
thermodynamics I've heard from you and your boys is fraudulent and can
be proven to be so.You have no science and therefore you and your
comrades' imposition on society is criminal fraud. The determination of
your criminal intent should not be left up to a jury of dishonest
little psuedo-scientists like yourself, either.
http://www.crystalinks.com/planck.html
Kent Deatherage

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.
Kent Deatherage

[Jonathan Kirwan]

<snip>
It has been extensively tested. Photoelectric effect, two-slit experiment,
fusion, electron tunnelling...
<snip>

...polarization, the Stern-Gerlach effect...

Jon

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc.

then.

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.

So which is it -- the "dire predictions" or AGW itself you claim are

being

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker
refuted? Your title says the latter but now you say the former.

Post by s***@gmail.com
.....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

The Senate is not a scientific source, doofus.

LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science.

XXXXXXX

Post by Lloyd Parker
Yep. I choose scientific journals, NASA, EPA, NOAA, IPCC, NAS, AGU. You
choose a Republican politician.

If these journals wish to stake their reputation on the validity of
grenhouse theory, they have every right to do EXACTLY THAT..
I have nothing to do with republicans asshole. I am born and raised
working class and am still working class. I merely am a student of the
physics of Einstein and Planck. And I know by my formal education in
astrophysics that your grenhouse theory is completely invalid.

Then you slept through some classes.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You
assume the validity from your godfather Neils Bohr and QM.

Huh?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Read at this website even the way Schrodinger felt about the rinky dink
theory of QM from Bohr and the ultimate charlatan Heisenberg (who
flunked his college physics).

QM is _the_ most tested theory there is. If it's incorrect, the sun isn't
shining, your computer isn't working... in other words, you're probably
floating in space somewhere imagining all this. No, electrons in your brain
wouldn't do their thing either. Perhaps you're an uncorporeal consciousness
somewhere.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
http://www.crystalinks.com/planck.html
Kent Deatherage

xxx

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com
When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.

You are an academic in analytical chemistry. Maybe you think you are
status quo in England, but in the US, the burden of proof is upon those
that wish to control and tax our lives into economic ruin, by their
assumption and postulation that CO2 causes global warming.

You are really tredding some thin ice, LP
It appears to me that you very well can calculate heat capacity, and
you very well know that no capacity of CO2 to cause higher temperatures
can be recorded in the laboratory.
This adds up to felonious fraud. It really doesn't matter to me how
many references you make to other idiots that will agree with you. It's
you that should be sent to prison.

Kent Deatherage

[Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!]

Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

kd

Global Warming is a term you can't define!!!!!!!!!

Since you can't do these calculations, and all the rinky dink
scientists at your links can't do these calcualtions...
The mass of the oceans is 1.4E23

STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Irrelevent. The warmer water floats on the cooler water. The warmer
water wants to rise, the cooler water wants to sink, only gravity holds
these two together. The interface between warmer and cooler is named
the "THERMOCLINE". Divers descending below the thermocline need
protective wetsuits to avoid hypothermia even in the tropics.
The only part of the ocean that anybody need concern themselves with is
the depths above the thermocline.
The thermocline depth below the sea surface increases and declines
depending on what latitude one is, the sea floor depth, the season, and
currents. In the Gulf of Mexico, the Loop Current has been measured
with a thermocline depth of 250 meters deep.
The rest of your math is junk because you got the important part wrong
in the very first step of your calculations. Everything after that is
junk.
<snip a big pile of horseshit>

Then be sure you do not use the term 'GLobal Warming' any more, since
you can't even consider the water more than 250 meters deep. In a court
room your inability to define your terms could be FATAL!!!

That 250 meters deep thermocline is the possibly the deep pool of hot
water on Earth. Most of the oceans are not as hot, not hot to that depth.

The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

Tepid water not as hot as your last bath or shower, if a stinking piece of
manure like you ever bathes, is now harrassing the coast of the Philippine
Islands with winds at 105 knots, gusts to 140 knots, according to this
hour's Navy warning:

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp2206web.txt
http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp2206.gif

See that hot spot in the center, where all the INFRARED radiation is
glowing so bright? That's CO2-H2O laser action.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/flt/t2/avn-l.jpg
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/flt/t2/ft-l.jpg

The water is only 90 degrees F, not even body temperature, but it's enough
to make this a category 3 MAJOR HURRICANE, the 32nd in the series counting
From Katrina in late August last year. That's one every 13 days and
increasing in frequency.

You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

What happened to your 'thermocline' this year in the atlantic. The
water temperatures near the coastal US were 2 or 3 degrees cooler than
normal.

No. The temperatures were plenty high enough to support category 5
hurricanes over much of the Atlantic basin spawning grounds. The early
start to the Asian Pacific Typhoon Season had something to do with
accelorating the whole global ITCZ. It actually reduced hurricane
formation in all basins for a while, but the speeding air lifted dry
duststorms off the Sahara and out into the Atlantic. That plus the
windshear suppressed hurricane formation in the Atlantic. The East Pacific
was active, Central Pacific spawned the biggest, longest hurricane of the
year, IOKE, who travelled over 4,000 miles in more than two weeks. The
West Pacific was active, with Saomai, Ioke, and Yagi as category 5
hurricanes. There were three category-5 hurricanes "down-under" in the
early part of the year.

This is part of the reason that the prediction of a heavy
hurricane season didn't pan out. Since this data doesn't support your
irrational prediction of global warming, you will just ignore it and
leave it out of your climatalogical model.
Kent Deatherage

Nothing is ignored. African Dust is now weighed more heavily

The long term average for the Atlantic from 1851-2005 is 8.4 named storms
in the Atlantic. 2006 had 9, making it average. Two of those were major
hurricanes, also "average". It was not a below-average year. There was
plenty of luck involved that none of those made serious landfall, although
Alberto and Ernesto both caused flood damages in the Carolinas. You also
ignore the flooding (speaking of people who ignore reality) where
tropical weather invading the US without whirly wind flooded eight states
and Houston.

The season isn't over until NOVEMBER 30th! Theres an active bit of weather
being watched in the Carribean right now. You can't total the season
before it's over, but this is the running global total kept by the US Navy
for 2006:

2006 Storms
Atlantic

93L.INVEST
09L.ISAAC
08L.HELENE
07L.GORDON
06L.FLORENCE
05L.ERNESTO
04L.DEBBY
03L.CHRIS
02L.BERYL
01L.ALBERTO

East Pacific

18E.NONAME
17E.PAUL
16E.OLIVIA
15E.NORMAN
14E.MIRIAM
14E.NONAME
13E.LANE
13E.NONAME
12E.KRISTY
12E.NONAME
11E.JOHN
10E.ILEANA
09E.HECTOR
08E.GILMA
07E.FABIO
06E.EMILIA
05E.DANIEL
04E.CARLOTTA
03E.BUD
02E.NONAME
01E.ALETTA

Central Pacific

green ball icon99C.INVEST
04C.NONAME
03C.NONAME
02C.NONAME
01C.IOKE

West Pacific

8W.INVEST
97W.INVEST
22W.CIMARON
21W.SOULIK
20W.RUMBIA
19W.BEBINCA
18W.XANGSANE
17W.NONAME
16W.NONAME
16W.YAGI
15W.NONAME
14W.SHANSHAN
13W.NONAME
12W.SONAMU
11W.WUKONG
10W.BOPHA
09W.MARIA
08W.SAOMAI
07W.PRAPIROON
06W.KAEMI
05W.BILIS
04W.NONAME
03W.NONAME
02W.CHANCHU
01W.NONAME

Indian Ocean

98B.INVEST
05B.NONAME
04A.MUKDA
03B.NONAME
02B.MALA
01A.NONAME

Southern Hem.

23P.MONICA
22S.ELIA
22S.NONAME
21S.HUBERT
21S.NONAME
20S.GLENDA
19S.FLOYD
18P.WATI
17P.LARRY
16S.DIWA
15S.EMMA
14S.CARINA
13P.KATE
12S.NONAME
11P.NONAME
11P.VAIANU
10P.JIM
09S.BOLOETSE
09S.NONAME
08S.DARYL
07P.URMIL
06P.TAM
05S.CLARE
04S.NONAME
03B.NONAME
03S.BERTIE
02S.NONAME
01S.NONAME

Southern Hem.
Season: 07

95P.INVEST
01P.XAVIER

[z]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science. When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.

I repeat:
The Rightwingnuts will never understand how the fact that scientists
who deny the dangers of anthropogenic climate change receive money from
political organizations who deny the dangers of anthropogenic change
differs from the fact that scientists who believe in the dangers of
anthropogenic climate change donate money to political organizations
which publicize the dangers of anthropogenic climate change.

[Bawana]

Post by z

Post by k***@yahoo.com
LP has business interests in selling CO2 paraphenelia. He chooses what
he believes to be science. When it comes to scientific data or proof he
doen't have any. He only refers to 'scientists' that agree with what
cannot be factually determined. So LP, what should we do? Impose laws
that will make you rich because SOME scientists agree with your
fanatical science? Perhaps some of you little shithead Enviro
scientists will go to prison for fraud where you belong, when it gets
down to the nitty gritty in the US.

The Rightwingnuts will never understand how the fact that scientists
who deny the dangers of anthropogenic climate change receive money from
political organizations who deny the dangers of anthropogenic change
differs from the fact that scientists who believe in the dangers of
anthropogenic climate change donate money to political organizations
which publicize the dangers of anthropogenic climate change.

That's not even a good lie, zturd/littlestevie.

Will you repeat it again? Please?

If you socialist morons didn't lie, you wouldn't have much to say.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

To be clear, I am posting a news item not covered by the media relevant
to these newsgroups. I am not the author.

[...]

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics

That year doesn't include scientific journals, the NAS, the AGU, etc. then.

Post by s***@gmail.com
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics.

You are lying.

To be clear, I am posting a news item not covered by the media relevant
to these newsgroups. I am not the author.
[...]

When you post something, you assume responsibility for it. If you believe
it's false, put a disclaimer in.

[Stu]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic.

Lies. Allegre always was a "skeptic" of anthropogenic warming; he isn't a
geophysicist but a geochemist, and he certainly is not a climate scientist.
His column exposed his amateurism and was ripped to shreads by leading
climate scientists.

Post by s***@gmail.com
This latest defector from the global warming camp caps
a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims
of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire
predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate
and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted
scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
....
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep

What a bunch of nutjobs. Why are you rightwingers so anti-science?

[G. L. Bradford]

Post by Stu

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic.

Lies. Allegre always was a "skeptic" of anthropogenic warming; he isn't a
geophysicist but a geochemist, and he certainly is not a climate scientist.
His column exposed his amateurism and was ripped to shreads by leading
climate scientists.

"Leading climate scientists"??? Like saying Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and
Mussolini were leading social scientists. They were, but to what effect?
World class tyrannies, therefore world class wars. Environmentalists haven't
opened the space frontier wide open to colonization and exodus, nor
advocated it nor encouraged it in any way whatsoever, so the last century of
world class tyrannies and wars were just the very beginning of escalation in
tyrannies and consequent wars. For freedom's sake enough of life to get the
job done would be ready and willing to destroy the world, even the Universe.
And history shows that even God and Nature themselves have already an
eternity ago put their stamp of approval on such potential destruction every
time it becomes necessary. The only place tyrannical Environmentalists
(tyrannical Environmentalism) would rule would be beneath their Iron
Curtain, within their Iron Cocoon, inside an escalating Hell on Earth.

Freedom is non-negotiable. It's not compromisable. No free man or woman
would ever even consider for a split second putting it on the table. So no
free man or woman will ever even consider being present at any of
Environmentalism's negotiating tables. Environmentalists are just too
stupid -- just too unwise -- to even begin to realize what is behind the
communication "no." "No!" "I said NO!" "What part of 'NO!' didn't you
understand?!"

What truly marks Environmentalism as purely a totalitarian tyranny, and
Environmentalists as purely totalitarian tyrants, is Environmentalism's
crystal clear history of stands taken regarding Man, Life, and the Universe
at large outside of Earth. Every magazine or newspaper article where the
subject comes up, every book, every appearance on the telly, every
propaganda movie and television episode (particularly those of 'Star Trek').
They want Man, and Life itself, inescapably corraled. No loophole, no
wormhole, no escape hole of any kind whatsoever is to exist anywhere
whatsoever for escape to FREEDOM via the uncontrollable vastnesses of the
Universe. No possibility of escape is to exist. Every means -- no matter
what the means -- to be applied to insure inescapability. Even to the
extinction of Man. Even to the extinction of Life. But first and foremost,
even to the extinction of Freedom and Liberty.

What do they say, "Our Brave New World, our Better World, our More Perfect
World Society, our One World State, Organization, Management and Governance
(i.e., World Control (i.e., World Population Control)), won't be that bad.
You Human Resources will have certain [specified] 'Human Rights'. TRUST US!"

GLB

[z]

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Stu

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has
converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic.

Lies. Allegre always was a "skeptic" of anthropogenic warming; he isn't a
geophysicist but a geochemist, and he certainly is not a climate scientist.
His column exposed his amateurism and was ripped to shreads by leading
climate scientists.

"Leading climate scientists"??? Like saying Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and
Mussolini were leading social scientists. They were, but to what effect?
World class tyrannies, therefore world class wars. Environmentalists haven't
opened the space frontier wide open to colonization and exodus, nor
advocated it nor encouraged it in any way whatsoever, so the last century of
world class tyrannies and wars were just the very beginning of escalation in
tyrannies and consequent wars. For freedom's sake enough of life to get the
job done would be ready and willing to destroy the world, even the Universe.
And history shows that even God and Nature themselves have already an
eternity ago put their stamp of approval on such potential destruction every
time it becomes necessary. The only place tyrannical Environmentalists
(tyrannical Environmentalism) would rule would be beneath their Iron
Curtain, within their Iron Cocoon, inside an escalating Hell on Earth.
Freedom is non-negotiable. It's not compromisable. No free man or woman
would ever even consider for a split second putting it on the table. So no
free man or woman will ever even consider being present at any of
Environmentalism's negotiating tables. Environmentalists are just too
stupid -- just too unwise -- to even begin to realize what is behind the
communication "no." "No!" "I said NO!" "What part of 'NO!' didn't you
understand?!"
What truly marks Environmentalism as purely a totalitarian tyranny, and
Environmentalists as purely totalitarian tyrants, is Environmentalism's
crystal clear history of stands taken regarding Man, Life, and the Universe
at large outside of Earth. Every magazine or newspaper article where the
subject comes up, every book, every appearance on the telly, every
propaganda movie and television episode (particularly those of 'Star Trek').
They want Man, and Life itself, inescapably corraled. No loophole, no
wormhole, no escape hole of any kind whatsoever is to exist anywhere
whatsoever for escape to FREEDOM via the uncontrollable vastnesses of the
Universe. No possibility of escape is to exist. Every means -- no matter
what the means -- to be applied to insure inescapability. Even to the
extinction of Man. Even to the extinction of Life. But first and foremost,
even to the extinction of Freedom and Liberty.
What do they say, "Our Brave New World, our Better World, our More Perfect
World Society, our One World State, Organization, Management and Governance
(i.e., World Control (i.e., World Population Control)), won't be that bad.
You Human Resources will have certain [specified] 'Human Rights'. TRUST US!"
GLB

So, I take it your data doesn't support CO2 as the cause of climate
change?

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by z
So, I take it your data doesn't support CO2 as the cause of climate
change?

I don't want to piss in your post tosties but there is no data to link
CO2 to climate change. Your ONLY data is some fudged data on climate
temperatures and a bunch of psuedo-scientists that all say that they
agree, therefore you should agree also.
..........

With spectra of atomic gases, the intervals of the spectral lines only
occurs in rarified gases. If the gas is pressurized, a continous
spectra is produced at these frequencies. All the atomic gases produce
the same continous spectra under pressure.

This is extremely evident in the spectra of the sun. The chromosphere
is the radiative surface of the sun. The chromosphere is the region
considered the surface of the sun, between which the gases change from
pressurized to rarified. Therefore in the sun's spectra, there is the
complex absorption lines, and the complex bright emmision lines. The
pressurized gases underneath produce the continous spectra from which
the absorption lines are produced as this light passes through the
rarified gases above. These absorption spectra are specific to the
principle series of the specific atomic gas.

These rarified gases are at very high temperature, about 6000 degK.
Therefore they emit the bright lines of the emmision series, which
occur at energies just below the ionization potential and can be
mathematically linked to the energy of the ionizsation potential. This
includes the subseries which do not appear in absorption. The sharp and
diffuse series are about 1/4 the energy of the principle series. The
other series, (Bergman or fundamental series), are much less energy
than this. The energy range of the sharp and diffuse series is to about
2 microns wavelength. Although these series are of lower energy, they
only occur in conjuction with production of the principle series at
these energies, particularly the first energy level of the spectra
which is in energies approaching the ionization potential. Their
intensity is common to the energy level at whcih they are produced.

There is much made about the "absorption" bands of CO2. What
difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?

Kent Deatherage

[Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!]

Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

kd

Global Warming is a term you can't define!!!!!!!!!

Since you can't do these calculations, and all the rinky dink
scientists at your links can't do these calcualtions...
The mass of the oceans is 1.4E23

STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Irrelevent. The warmer water floats on the cooler water. The warmer
water wants to rise, the cooler water wants to sink, only gravity holds
these two together. The interface between warmer and cooler is named
the "THERMOCLINE". Divers descending below the thermocline need
protective wetsuits to avoid hypothermia even in the tropics.
The only part of the ocean that anybody need concern themselves with is
the depths above the thermocline.
The thermocline depth below the sea surface increases and declines
depending on what latitude one is, the sea floor depth, the season, and
currents. In the Gulf of Mexico, the Loop Current has been measured
with a thermocline depth of 250 meters deep.
The rest of your math is junk because you got the important part wrong
in the very first step of your calculations. Everything after that is
junk.
<snip a big pile of horseshit>

Then be sure you do not use the term 'GLobal Warming' any more, since
you can't even consider the water more than 250 meters deep. In a court
room your inability to define your terms could be FATAL!!!

That 250 meters deep thermocline is the possibly the deep pool of hot
water on Earth. Most of the oceans are not as hot, not hot to that depth.

The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

Tepid water not as hot as your last bath or shower, if a stinking piece of
manure like you ever bathes, is now harrassing the coast of the Philippine
Islands with winds at 105 knots, gusts to 140 knots, according to this
hour's Navy warning:

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp2206web.txt
http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp2206.gif

See that hot spot in the center, where all the INFRARED radiation is
glowing so bright? That's CO2-H2O laser action.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/flt/t2/avn-l.jpg
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/flt/t2/ft-l.jpg

The water is only 90 degrees F, not even body temperature, but it's enough
to make this a category 3 MAJOR HURRICANE, the 32nd in the series counting
From Katrina in late August last year. That's one every 13 days and
increasing in frequency.

You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

What happened to your 'thermocline' this year in the atlantic. The
water temperatures near the coastal US were 2 or 3 degrees cooler than
normal.

No. The temperatures were plenty high enough to support category 5
hurricanes over much of the Atlantic basin spawning grounds. The early
start to the Asian Pacific Typhoon Season had something to do with
accelorating the whole global ITCZ. It actually reduced hurricane
formation in all basins for a while, but the speeding air lifted dry
duststorms off the Sahara and out into the Atlantic. That plus the
windshear suppressed hurricane formation in the Atlantic. The East Pacific
was active, Central Pacific spawned the biggest, longest hurricane of the
year, IOKE, who travelled over 4,000 miles in more than two weeks. The
West Pacific was active, with Saomai, Ioke, and Yagi as category 5
hurricanes. There were three category-5 hurricanes "down-under" in the
early part of the year.

This is part of the reason that the prediction of a heavy
hurricane season didn't pan out. Since this data doesn't support your
irrational prediction of global warming, you will just ignore it and
leave it out of your climatalogical model.
Kent Deatherage

Nothing is ignored. African Dust is now weighed more heavily

The long term average for the Atlantic from 1851-2005 is 8.4 named storms
in the Atlantic. 2006 had 9, making it average. Two of those were major
hurricanes, also "average". It was not a below-average year. There was
plenty of luck involved that none of those made serious landfall, although
Alberto and Ernesto both caused flood damages in the Carolinas. You also
ignore the flooding (speaking of people who ignore reality) where
tropical weather invading the US without whirly wind flooded eight states
and Houston.

The season isn't over until NOVEMBER 30th! Theres an active bit of weather
being watched in the Carribean right now. You can't total the season
before it's over, but this is the running global total kept by the US Navy
for 2006:

2006 Storms
Atlantic

93L.INVEST
09L.ISAAC
08L.HELENE
07L.GORDON
06L.FLORENCE
05L.ERNESTO
04L.DEBBY
03L.CHRIS
02L.BERYL
01L.ALBERTO

East Pacific

18E.NONAME
17E.PAUL
16E.OLIVIA
15E.NORMAN
14E.MIRIAM
14E.NONAME
13E.LANE
13E.NONAME
12E.KRISTY
12E.NONAME
11E.JOHN
10E.ILEANA
09E.HECTOR
08E.GILMA
07E.FABIO
06E.EMILIA
05E.DANIEL
04E.CARLOTTA
03E.BUD
02E.NONAME
01E.ALETTA

Central Pacific

green ball icon99C.INVEST
04C.NONAME
03C.NONAME
02C.NONAME
01C.IOKE

West Pacific

8W.INVEST
97W.INVEST
22W.CIMARON
21W.SOULIK
20W.RUMBIA
19W.BEBINCA
18W.XANGSANE
17W.NONAME
16W.NONAME
16W.YAGI
15W.NONAME
14W.SHANSHAN
13W.NONAME
12W.SONAMU
11W.WUKONG
10W.BOPHA
09W.MARIA
08W.SAOMAI
07W.PRAPIROON
06W.KAEMI
05W.BILIS
04W.NONAME
03W.NONAME
02W.CHANCHU
01W.NONAME

Indian Ocean

98B.INVEST
05B.NONAME
04A.MUKDA
03B.NONAME
02B.MALA
01A.NONAME

Southern Hem.

23P.MONICA
22S.ELIA
22S.NONAME
21S.HUBERT
21S.NONAME
20S.GLENDA
19S.FLOYD
18P.WATI
17P.LARRY
16S.DIWA
15S.EMMA
14S.CARINA
13P.KATE
12S.NONAME
11P.NONAME
11P.VAIANU
10P.JIM
09S.BOLOETSE
09S.NONAME
08S.DARYL
07P.URMIL
06P.TAM
05S.CLARE
04S.NONAME
03B.NONAME
03S.BERTIE
02S.NONAME
01S.NONAME

Southern Hem.
Season: 07

95P.INVEST
01P.XAVIER

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures. This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot. The race was on for the the idiot's of theoretical
science. To fit your idea that the CO2 atmosphere is responsible for
the high temperatures you made up a whole trail of false
thermodynamics. And then made up the false thermodynamics that say
.0001 concentration of CO2 can affect temperature on earth. Just
because you little dishonest schoolboys dragged out some arcane
fundamentals from some other idiots before Planck that has nothing to
do with valid thermodynamics means nothing.

If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot.
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot

Kent Deatherage

[Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.

What planet are you from? On Earth the surface air pressure is known
sufficiently to ballpark to the neaest kilotons of TNT equivilent energy
of the Climate Bombs being set off by CO2.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 has several unique properties which help us to tell the difference
between CO2 and CO or O2, or N2 or CH4. One of these unique properties is
CO2 can process photons in several INFRARED bands. This is really useful
for making CO2 lasers and we can tell the difference between CO2 lasers
and other gas lasers by these unique bandwidths.

The laboratories are full of data about CO2's unique properties. You
problem is they won't let you in the labs and you don't know how to use
the internet to find the data you crave. Like atypical repiglican
data-welfare-queen you whine and cry big black mascara streaks down your
Tammy Fae face bawling that somebody should fetch you the data on a silver
platter.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

Even college students can find the data. That must mean you dropped out
before college, eh?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
The race was on for the the idiot's of theoretical
science. To fit your idea that the CO2 atmosphere is responsible for
the high temperatures you made up a whole trail of false
thermodynamics.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

It all one big conspiracy of the whole world's scientists to make
Death-Rag look really really stupid.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
And then made up the false thermodynamics that say
.0001 concentration of CO2 can affect temperature on earth.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

Even far less OZONE in the OZONE LAYER keeps the Earth habitable by
changing the entire planetary radiation screen of the atmosphere. It just
goes to show that microscopic quantities of gases can affect the entire
planet.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Just
because you little dishonest schoolboys dragged out some arcane
fundamentals from some other idiots before Planck that has nothing to
do with valid thermodynamics means nothing.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If CO2 could retain heat it could be detected in the laboratory. It
cannot
Kent Deatherage

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

[k***@yahoo.com]

Stick to this issue. Exxon is not the representative of the general
public. If Exxon didn't sell us gasoline, we would find someone else
that would. Maybe you are some little sheltered rich boy that now has
economic gain to be made by imposition of restriction of CO2, but those
of us that work and don't just sit around stroking their mental
masturbation beliefs on global warming, know that an efficient economy
has no room for unwarranted CO2 restriction. It is the middle class and
working classes that will suffer if dickheads like you get laws enacted
that amount to imposition of a socialist state for your paranoia of CO2
global warming which is not based on science. Go ride your bicycle up
and down the street you freaking worm.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Kent Deatherage

[Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Stick to this issue. Exxon is not the representative of the general
public.

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.
Kent Deatherage

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

[k***@yahoo.com]

DH
""""CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the
air.That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR
out of the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR
out of the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory""""

kd
Complete fabrication. I hope it's you personally that makes this your
testimony in federal court. It is a blatant fact that no concentration
of CO2 to air causes any difference in temperature. You can't use the
term IR correctly. It's obviously something mystical you don't
understand and thus you think no one else will understand it when you
say it. This refers to a wide range of frequencies from the near
infrared (which are very much like visible) to the far thermals. You
have culled all of your terms to fit your false end result and it
shows. Just think, there are probably little idiots everywhere that
believe this drivel. I wonder how many have college degrees?

Your statements are a total joke. Why don't you post your name so as to
stand behind this bullshit, which you state for a fact. Because you're
a little wienie that likes to throw out remarks you can't back up. I
don't see you claiming that CO2 causes a resultant higher temperature.
Perhaps in your imagination. You should spend more time studying
science instead of fantasizing that you are a man or that anyone likes
to read your mental diarreahea. You really should get the award for
mental masturbation.

KD

[CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Stick to this issue. Exxon is not the representative of the general
public.

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.
Kent Deatherage

Death-Rag LIED. Death-rag Got Caught!!!

CO2 retains IR long enough to heat itself and it's neighbors in the air.
That's all it takes to make Global Warming happen. CO2 straining IR out of
the air and passing energy to the O2 and N2 whom can't strain IR out of
the atmosphere is well tested in the laboratory. Your claim is EXXON is
too poor and too incompetent to do your experiment to escape liability for
their deadly product. Why aren't you demanding EXXON do the experiment and
end all the fuss?

Exxon is the issue. They pay people like you to post from
MarkMonitor.com-controlled corporate internet hosting addresses to throw
sand in the eyes of the public and create confusion and a phoney
appearance of debate. Exxon is corporate organized crime engaged in felony
fraud RACKETEERING doing FRAUD OVER WIRES in willful premeditated
deliberate VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

Sigh. Once more:

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions. This warms the
atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other molecules instead of
escaping.

Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot.

NASA, NOAA, EPA, NAS, IPCC, AGU, ACS...


You know, when 99% of science agrees on something, the odds are good the other
1% are wrong.

[CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land
and a shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't
know how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and
why. You need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's
why we made the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like
yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions. This warms
the atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other molecules
instead of escaping.

Lloyd needs to adjust his mental model. If the IR could be absorbed by O2
and N2 directly, it would be and no CO2 would be required. Then N2 and O2
could play the role Lloyd describes being played by CO2.

Each gas is transparent to certain wavelength photons. It is still
transparent whether these photons are emitted from the lands or oceans and
it continues to be transparent when the IR at those wavelengths are
emitted from CO2. In short, CO2 does not act like Lloyd described.

CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of IR.

This is not surprising: pure carbon is completely opaque in the form of
graphite black and completely transparent in the form of diamond, and
carbon bound to is transparent as a gas but opaque as a solid dry ice.


CO2 absorbs IR photons and retains them for so long as conditions do not
cause a re-emission. Interaction with neighboring gas molecules, described
as "collisions" is one such transfer mechanism where heat energy is spread
to transparent molecules by impact. Another mechanism is absorption in one
wavelength and division into lower energy photons which are not
transparent to the neighbors. That is a "dime's" worth of IR can be
changed into two "nickles" worth, or ten pennies worth of other frequency
energy, or two-dimes-and-a-nickle of saved up energy are emitted as a
higher energy photon in the "quarter" value. These are metaphors of
course: molecules don't actually use coinages -- don't want to confuse the
right-winger half-brainers, or as Dick Cheney described himself about
waterboarding, a "no-brainer".

Post by Lloyd Parker
Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot.

NASA, NOAA, EPA, NAS, IPCC, AGU, ACS...
You know, when 99% of science agrees on something, the odds are good the
other 1% are wrong.

99% of quantum mechanics does not agree on your energy distribution mental
model. All molecules which are not at absolute zero Kelvin degrees are
charged with heat energy already, and at 297 degrees Kelvin a CO2 molecule
has plenty of pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters of metaphorical energy
savings stored up. Going from 297 to 298 degrees Kelvin is just 0.3%
difference -- it is neither a great difference, nor a significant
difference.

At the size of CO2 and IR photons, there are nearly 7,000,000 CO2
molecules inside a spheriod volume of air which has a diameter distance
equal to the wavelength of one photon of 10.7 micron IR.

Depending on the temperature, humidity and air pressure there may be as
many as 710,000,000 H2O molecules also inside that sphere, plus 96 times
that many mixed O2 and N2 molecules.

With each and every molecule of these billions of molecules capable in
fitting inside a spheroid the size of 11 micron wavelength of one photon
there are many, possibly tens of thousands, photons of heat energy
incorporated in each molecule.

11 microns is not even considered particularly small -- HEPA filters
screen out dust particles and smoke particles that are 0.3 microns in
size, and viruses are much smaller. Humans make in industrial quantities,
buy and use, nano-sized filters to seperate H2O-sized molecules as unwanted
impurity in CH4 natural gas pipeline streams. Fuel cell membranes can even
filter hydrogen ions from hydrogen molecules dependably in sub-Angstrom
size.

The conventional view is photons are dimensionless points, which is
obviously untrue based on laser beam thicknesses, and that atoms and
molecules absorb something whose volume described spherically holds
billions of those molecules which co-existing with (n=?) of other photons
"absorbed" on each of those billions of molecules.

Obviously the QM boys have let down the human race by not publishing
better decriptions of QM interactions, so that the error transmission of
deficient mental models could be strictly curbed.

At the current rate of research speed it may take 500 years before the QM
crowd has a good general mental model of the ten-thousands of energy
exchange transactions occurring each second in each molecule of Earth
atmosphere gases. Arguing QM is useless at this stage and does nothing but
propagate defective and deficient mental models. IF that is your goal,
then the question is how much are you pocketing from Exxon to throw sand
in people's eyes and prolong a phoney-debate?

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land
and a shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't
know how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and
why. You need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's
why we made the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like
yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions. This warms
the atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other molecules
instead of escaping.

Lloyd needs to adjust his mental model. If the IR could be absorbed by O2
and N2 directly,

N2 absorbs so little IR, it's not a greenhouse gas. You need a vibrating
dipole to absorb IR.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
it would be and no CO2 would be required. Then N2 and O2
could play the role Lloyd describes being played by CO2.

So you're claiming CO2 does not absorb IR? What's next, carbon doesn't have 6
protons?

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
Each gas is transparent to certain wavelength photons. It is still
transparent whether these photons are emitted from the lands or oceans and
it continues to be transparent when the IR at those wavelengths are
emitted from CO2. In short, CO2 does not act like Lloyd described.
CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of IR.
This is not surprising: pure carbon is completely opaque in the form of
graphite black and completely transparent in the form of diamond, and
carbon bound to is transparent as a gas but opaque as a solid dry ice.
CO2 absorbs IR photons and retains them for so long as conditions do not
cause a re-emission. Interaction with neighboring gas molecules, described
as "collisions" is one such transfer mechanism where heat energy is spread
to transparent molecules by impact. Another mechanism is absorption in one
wavelength and division into lower energy photons which are not
transparent to the neighbors. That is a "dime's" worth of IR can be
changed into two "nickles" worth, or ten pennies worth of other frequency
energy, or two-dimes-and-a-nickle of saved up energy are emitted as a
higher energy photon in the "quarter" value. These are metaphors of
course: molecules don't actually use coinages -- don't want to confuse the
right-winger half-brainers, or as Dick Cheney described himself about
waterboarding, a "no-brainer".

Yes, it's the re-emission of the absorbed energy, whether as a photon or
transfer as kinetic energy to another molecule, that warms the atmosphere.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by Lloyd Parker
Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot.

NASA, NOAA, EPA, NAS, IPCC, AGU, ACS...
You know, when 99% of science agrees on something, the odds are good the
other 1% are wrong.

99% of quantum mechanics does not agree on your energy distribution mental
model.

Huh?

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
All molecules which are not at absolute zero Kelvin degrees are
charged with heat energy already, and at 297 degrees Kelvin a CO2 molecule
has plenty of pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters of metaphorical energy
savings stored up. Going from 297 to 298 degrees Kelvin is just 0.3%
difference -- it is neither a great difference, nor a significant
difference.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
At the size of CO2 and IR photons, there are nearly 7,000,000 CO2
molecules inside a spheriod volume of air which has a diameter distance
equal to the wavelength of one photon of 10.7 micron IR.
Depending on the temperature, humidity and air pressure there may be as
many as 710,000,000 H2O molecules also inside that sphere, plus 96 times
that many mixed O2 and N2 molecules.

Which do not absorb IR! Vibrating dipole! Geez, read a basic spectroscopy
book.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
With each and every molecule of these billions of molecules capable in
fitting inside a spheroid the size of 11 micron wavelength of one photon
there are many, possibly tens of thousands, photons of heat energy
incorporated in each molecule.
11 microns is not even considered particularly small -- HEPA filters
screen out dust particles and smoke particles that are 0.3 microns in
size, and viruses are much smaller. Humans make in industrial quantities,
buy and use, nano-sized filters to seperate H2O-sized molecules as unwanted
impurity in CH4 natural gas pipeline streams. Fuel cell membranes can even
filter hydrogen ions from hydrogen molecules dependably in sub-Angstrom
size.
The conventional view is photons are dimensionless points, which is
obviously untrue

OK, idiot alert.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
based on laser beam thicknesses,

This has nothing to do with the size of one photon. Like saying a copper wire
thickness determines the size of an electron.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
and that atoms and
molecules absorb something whose volume described spherically holds
billions of those molecules which co-existing with (n=?) of other photons
"absorbed" on each of those billions of molecules.
Obviously the QM boys have let down the human race by not publishing
better decriptions of QM interactions, so that the error transmission of
deficient mental models could be strictly curbed.

Obviously you are so screwed up, it's laughable.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
At the current rate of research speed it may take 500 years before the QM
crowd has a good general mental model of the ten-thousands of energy
exchange transactions occurring each second in each molecule of Earth
atmosphere gases. Arguing QM is useless at this stage and does nothing but
propagate defective and deficient mental models. IF that is your goal,
then the question is how much are you pocketing from Exxon to throw sand
in people's eyes and prolong a phoney-debate?

Go back to school. Heck, read an intro orgo book.

[Retief LIED! Reitef Got Caught!!!]

"CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!"

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an
educational metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat
evenly to one uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main
action of this man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth
Surface, on land and a shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm
and what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just
don't know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is
parrot of formulas from old science books without any integration --
you don't know how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself
of how and why. You need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you,
and that's why we made the "Global Warming" babytalk for
hard-to-learn types like yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't
do these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever
to cause higher temperatures.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions. This
warms the atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other
molecules instead of escaping.

Lloyd needs to adjust his mental model. If the IR could be absorbed by
O2 and N2 directly,

N2 absorbs so little IR, it's not a greenhouse gas. You need a
vibrating dipole to absorb IR.

Lloyd said:
"CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions. This
warms the atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other
molecules instead of escaping.

There are 2625 other molecules in air for every 1 CO2. The statement
"warms the atmosphere" carelessly implies that all 2626 molecules
including O2 and N2 participate in the IR process.

That was my objection. The sloppy language. People have heard the "junior
high school version" long enough. Now they need the followup course on the
details of the dynamics of energy processing by the atmosphere, or else
the sinister trolls like Retief can too easily throw sand in their eyes
and confuse them.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
it would be and no CO2 would be required. Then N2 and O2
could play the role Lloyd describes being played by CO2.

So you're claiming CO2 does not absorb IR? What's next, carbon doesn't
have 6 protons?

Not at all. But if you could make a wild leap from my clear language that
O2 and N2 does not significantly participate in air warming by "absorption
of IR" from emissions from either land, sea or CO2 molecule sources, how
much more easily could your sloppy language and ambiguousness mislead the
readers?

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
Each gas is transparent to certain wavelength photons. It is still
transparent whether these photons are emitted from the lands or oceans
and it continues to be transparent when the IR at those wavelengths are
emitted from CO2. In short, CO2 does not act like Lloyd described.
CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of IR.
This is not surprising: pure carbon is completely opaque in the form of
graphite black and completely transparent in the form of diamond, and
carbon bound to is transparent as a gas but opaque as a solid dry ice.
CO2 absorbs IR photons and retains them for so long as conditions do not
cause a re-emission. Interaction with neighboring gas molecules,
described as "collisions" is one such transfer mechanism where heat
energy is spread to transparent molecules by impact. Another mechanism
is absorption in one wavelength and division into lower energy photons
which are not transparent to the neighbors. That is a "dime's" worth of
IR can be changed into two "nickles" worth, or ten pennies worth of
other frequency energy, or two-dimes-and-a-nickle of saved up energy are
emitted as a higher energy photon in the "quarter" value. These are
metaphors of course: molecules don't actually use coinages -- don't want
to confuse the right-winger half-brainers, or as Dick Cheney described
himself about waterboarding, a "no-brainer".

Yes, it's the re-emission of the absorbed energy, whether as a photon or
transfer as kinetic energy to another molecule, that warms the
atmosphere.

We agree on this, but the statements need to be made with greater clarity
in the presence of known felony fraud deceivers who will leap on every
ambiguity to sidetrack discussions away from the dire consequences into
nitpicking haitsplitting.

Kent Death-Rag, the troll who posts from a MarkMonitor.com corporate
assigned IP block, uses exactly such ambiguity to throw sand in people's
eyes and prolong the phoney-appearance that the science is debatable.

The PR firms long ago targetted the Blond Bimbo and the Old Drunk Retiree
for confusion, since several of these will be on any jury deciding the
fate of corporate liability for CO2 Global Warming Product Negligence
Damages. They are not out to "win" the debate -- just to win those two
demographic groups. All arguments are not between "Retief" or "Death-Rag",
but addressed to those demographic groups who may wander in to see what
the state of knowledge is. If you ego is centered on winning arguing
points with Death-Rag and Retief trolls I pity your desperately empty
life.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by Lloyd Parker
Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This is something made up by college
students after the 1960's when probes discovered that venus was
unusually hot.

NASA, NOAA, EPA, NAS, IPCC, AGU, ACS...
You know, when 99% of science agrees on something, the odds are good
the other 1% are wrong.

99% of quantum mechanics does not agree on your energy distribution
mental model.

Huh?

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
All molecules which are not at absolute zero Kelvin degrees are
charged with heat energy already, and at 297 degrees Kelvin a CO2
molecule has plenty of pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters of
metaphorical energy savings stored up. Going from 297 to 298 degrees
Kelvin is just 0.3% difference -- it is neither a great difference, nor
a significant difference.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

No molecule at 273 degrees Kelvin is virginal pure and free from any
photons of heat energy already. Any material in the gasous state is
already highly energized.

The Retief Troll argument that CO2 is "saturated" to certain wavebands and
more CO2 couldn't possibly matter is about 80 years old -- it is not a new
argument.

It operates on the assumption that there is room for one, and only one,
photon of IR to be allowed per CO2 molecule. Since it is self-evident that
anything above 0 degrees Kelvin contains heat energy, the limit of one
photon per molecule is self-evidently bogus. Above and below combined
explain a more mature description consistent with the body of evidence.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
At the size of CO2 and IR photons, there are nearly 7,000,000 CO2
molecules inside a spheriod volume of air which has a diameter distance
equal to the wavelength of one photon of 10.7 micron IR.
Depending on the temperature, humidity and air pressure there may be as
many as 710,000,000 H2O molecules also inside that sphere, plus 96 times
that many mixed O2 and N2 molecules.

Which do not absorb IR! Vibrating dipole! Geez, read a basic
spectroscopy book.

The book can't help if the paradigm is flawed to start with. It's called
"false positive" coming to the correct answer via faulty assumptions.
That's the purpose of deliberately trying to falsify your own
propositions, to smoke out the flawed assumptions. You haven't explained,
and the "book" neglected to explain, what is magical about 273 degrees
Kelvin, plus or minus 20 degrees. None of you bothered to explain how the
gas got to be 273 degrees K but is virginally pure awaiting it's one and
only photon to begin vibrating at that magical temperature.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
With each and every molecule of these billions of molecules capable in
fitting inside a spheroid the size of 11 micron wavelength of one photon
there are many, possibly tens of thousands, photons of heat energy
incorporated in each molecule.
11 microns is not even considered particularly small -- HEPA filters
screen out dust particles and smoke particles that are 0.3 microns in
size, and viruses are much smaller. Humans make in industrial
quantities, buy and use, nano-sized filters to seperate H2O-sized
molecules as unwanted impurity in CH4 natural gas pipeline streams. Fuel
cell membranes can even filter hydrogen ions from hydrogen molecules
dependably in sub-Angstrom size.
The conventional view is photons are dimensionless points, which is
obviously untrue

OK, idiot alert.

Thanks for alerting me that you are an idiot. But I already knew that when
you repeatedly allowed trolls to determine libelling subject lines that
you would propogate without bothering to change.

I reassert. Photons have several dimensions already known: wavelength is a
dimension, amplitude is a dimension. There are others. It's sexy to be in
control of super-colliders and not sexy to enumerate the physical
qualities of photons, so one area of quantum physics has been swept under
the "dimensionless point" rug.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
based on laser beam thicknesses,

This has nothing to do with the size of one photon. Like saying a
copper wire thickness determines the size of an electron.

Well you could meditate on "polarizers" and polarized light, which could
not possibly function on "dimensionless points".

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
and that atoms and
molecules absorb something whose volume described spherically holds
billions of those molecules which co-existing with (n=?) of other
photons "absorbed" on each of those billions of molecules.
Obviously the QM boys have let down the human race by not publishing
better decriptions of QM interactions, so that the error transmission of
deficient mental models could be strictly curbed.

Obviously you are so screwed up, it's laughable.

Then we are both laughing.

What part of QM don't you like:

(1) Photons have particle behavior and wave behavior, sometimes merged in
the term "wavicle".

(2) Wavelength is a definable reliable parameter of Electromagnetic energy
packets.

(3) A wavelength measure of distance can be treated as the diameter
dimension in calculating a spheroidal volume in space.

(4) Air density can be computed from the Ideal Gas Laws using Avagaro's
Number and 22.42 liters as one mole of any mixed gases at S.T.P. The
density of molecules in a spheroid of any size can be extrapolated from
the computations derived from the Ideal Gas Laws above.

(5) CO2 is 381 ppmv at S.T.P., H2O is a range of 1% to 4% in air. O2 and
N2 are ~99% of the air.

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
At the current rate of research speed it may take 500 years before the
QM crowd has a good general mental model of the ten-thousands of energy
exchange transactions occurring each second in each molecule of Earth
atmosphere gases. Arguing QM is useless at this stage and does nothing
but propagate defective and deficient mental models. IF that is your
goal, then the question is how much are you pocketing from Exxon to
throw sand in people's eyes and prolong a phoney-debate?

Go back to school. Heck, read an intro orgo book.

Go back to letting trolls create libellous subject titles for you to
attach your name as author to with the prefix "re:", as if that excused
you for issuing into the world smears against hard-working people because
you are only "RE-plying". Some people only scan the headers and read
one-per-hundred actual body text. Your Lloyd Parker "Re:" subject titles
is all they sometimes see on that subject. Smarten up before you tell
anybody else how to play the game.

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by Retief LIED! Reitef Got Caught!!!
That was my objection. The sloppy language. People have heard the "junior
high school version" long enough. Now they need the followup course on the
details of the dynamics of energy processing by the atmosphere, or else
the sinister trolls like Retief can too easily throw sand in their eyes
and confuse them.

Are you kidding? The average AmeriKKKan think the sun orbits the earth.

[Orator]

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions.

Wonder of wonders - he finally admits it does "re-emits it [IR
radiation] in all directions" including UP into space :-)

How long has it take for that admission to materialise? I bet it will be
withdrawn immediately as an alleged "misunderstanding" on my part. Watch
this space :-)

Post by Lloyd Parker
This warms the
atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other molecules instead of
escaping.
Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Translation: Lloyd doesn't know!

[nothing worthwhile left]

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by Orator

Post by Lloyd Parker

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
Impossible for Kent Death-Rag to Tell the Truth!!!

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
The term "Global Warming" is not a science term, it is an educational
metaphore term. Nobody expects the entire globe to heat evenly to one
uniform temperature all the way to the core. The main action of this
man-made warming from pollution gases is the Earth Surface, on land and a
shallow portion of the top of the seas.

DH

Post by Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!
You are totally bankrupt of knowledge to try to explain this storm and
what you see on the NOAA government satellite pictures. You just don't
know what does this and how it does this. All we ever see is parrot of
formulas from old science books without any integration -- you don't know
how to collect the parts togetyher to inform yourself of how and why. You
need somebody to explain it in babytalk for you, and that's why we made
the "Global Warming" babytalk for hard-to-learn types like yourself.

This coming from an idiot that does heat capacity in mass. You even
try to do phase change of water in mass. What good does this do you if
you don't know your pressure which you can only get by your molar
value. You are a hoax. You think others are as dumb as you and can't do
these calculations.
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it in all directions.

Wonder of wonders - he finally admits it does "re-emits it [IR
radiation] in all directions" including UP into space :-)

Yes, but of course, only those CO2 molecules at the top of the atmosphere CAN
emit IR into space without the IR being absorbed by other molecules in the
atmosphere first.

Post by Orator
How long has it take for that admission to materialise? I bet it will be
withdrawn immediately as an alleged "misunderstanding" on my part. Watch
this space :-)

Post by Lloyd Parker
This warms the
atmosphere, as most of this re-emitted IR hits other molecules instead of
escaping.
Sorry if that's too complicated an idea for you.

Translation: Lloyd doesn't know!
[nothing worthwhile left]

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is no laboratory data that show CO2 has any property whatsever to
cause higher temperatures.

What the fuck kind of nonsense statement is that. Ahahahahahaha... Fuck
man, you can verify the fact that CO2 absorbs Infared Radiation with a
fucking box of baking soda, vinegar, a cardboard box, some celophane and a
candle.

You fucking ignorant Moron.

[Lloyd Parker]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by z
So, I take it your data doesn't support CO2 as the cause of climate
change?

I don't want to piss in your post tosties but there is no data to link
CO2 to climate change.

Just tons of data and scientific principles. But hey, don't let facts stop
you.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Your ONLY data is some fudged data on climate
temperatures and a bunch of psuedo-scientists that all say that they
agree, therefore you should agree also.

Yeah, and atoms aren't real, evolution is "just a theory", the earth is 6600
years old...

Post by k***@yahoo.com
...........

[z]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by z
So, I take it your data doesn't support CO2 as the cause of climate
change?

I don't want to piss in your post tosties but there is no data to link
CO2 to climate change. Your ONLY data is some fudged data on climate
temperatures and a bunch of psuedo-scientists that all say that they
agree, therefore you should agree also.

Yeah, all there is is a huge mass of correlated temps and CO2 readings
supporting the flimsy hypothesis that burning carbon creates carbon
dioxide, and the fabricated lies about a "CO2 absorbtion spectrum".
Much more likely that all that data is "fudged", the result of a vast
conspiracy of climatologists to keep their fabulously lavish $70K a
year median salaries and destroy America, as of course all scientists
want to do (if you've watched old 1950s-1960s sf movies and TV shows
you'd know that).

[Bawana]

Post by z
Much more likely that all that data is "fudged", the result of a vast
conspiracy of climatologists to keep their fabulously lavish $70K a
year median salaries and destroy America,

That's not bad for people with no marketable skills, zturd/stevie.

Their GW fraud gives them something to do.

[Usenet Troll-Grading Authority (UTGA)]

Post by Bawana

Post by z
Much more likely that all that data is "fudged", the result of a vast
conspiracy of climatologists to keep their fabulously lavish $70K a
year median salaries and destroy America,

That's not bad for people with no marketable skills, zturd/stevie.
Their GW fraud gives them something to do.

Bawana has been Demoted again to Exxon-Grade Troll

An Exxon-Bawana-Class Troll has been determined to have the irritation
equivilency of ozzing syphallis sores all over your body.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Bawana

Post by z
Much more likely that all that data is "fudged", the result of a vast
conspiracy of climatologists to keep their fabulously lavish $70K a
year median salaries and destroy America,

That's not bad for people with no marketable skills, zturd/stevie.
Their GW fraud gives them something to do.

And they're all true believers because they have investments in CO2
paraphernalia and futures. Real objective whiny little bitches, huh.
Out to discover the "truth".

Kent Deatherage

[Usenet Troll-Grading Authority (UTGA)]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Bawana

Post by z
Much more likely that all that data is "fudged", the result of a vast
conspiracy of climatologists to keep their fabulously lavish $70K a
year median salaries and destroy America,

That's not bad for people with no marketable skills, zturd/stevie.
Their GW fraud gives them something to do.

And they're all true believers because they have investments in CO2
paraphernalia and futures. Real objective whiny little bitches, huh.
Out to discover the "truth".
Kent Deatherage

Kent Death-Rag Demoted Three Grade Levels in Industry-Sponsored-Troll
Category.

Death-Rag, using MarkMonitor.com Corporate Account IP address to post to
Usenet is now placed in the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" grade of
professional troll. Although Death-Rag gets points for consistently
misspelling "grenhouse" to look like just plain folks, his overall
evaluation is based on the monotony and threadbare reasoning he uses.

A Death-Rag/CEI Troll has an irritant equivilency determined to be a
Congressional Page being Statutorily Raped by GOP Congressman Foley while
GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert looks on with his fingers in his ears
yelling loudly "Don't Ask! Don't Tell!"

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
And they're all true believers because they have investments in CO2
paraphernalia and futures. Real objective whiny little bitches, huh.
Out to discover the "truth".

What evidence do you have that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? I have several
chemistry texts and reference books sitting beside be here that state that
it does.

Further I have actually seen it absorb IR through direct experimentation.

Further I have actually seen it's absorption lines in the spectra of a
black body emitter that shows where the CO2 is absorbing.

Now every high school chemistry text will tell you that burning organic
compounds will produce two primary components. CO2 and H2O.

It's astonishing that you would deny such things. Such is the depth of
your NeoCon inspired depravity and ignorance.

[z]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is much made about the "absorption" bands of CO2. What
difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?

Yes, yes, lots of questions you have, grasshopper, not so much memory
for answers, yes?


"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's
calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had
grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had
failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a
little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a
simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published
his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube
filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as
would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the
atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely
changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The
reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the
spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that
were "saturated" - so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make
little difference.

"Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more
abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared
radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of
the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not
affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as
CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely. After these conclusions
were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been
enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work, like Chamberlin, now considered it
plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for
decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere."

"According to a well-known estimate published in 1924, even without
ocean absorption it would take 500 years for fuel combustion to double
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to
find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water
vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were
capable of blocking. Callendar tried to explain that the laboratory
spectral measurements were woefully incomplete. Some other scientists
too kept an open mind on the question. But it remained the standard
view that, as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the
masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2
theory. Therefore, said this authority, "no probable increase in
atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."

"Few thought it worthwhile to speculate about such dubious questions,
where data were rudimentary and theory was no more than hand-waving.
Better to rest with the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a
stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity
could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of
it, hardly worth a scientist's attention."

Here we leave the state of the art regarding
What-anthropogenic-climate-change? "science" behind, in the late 1920s.
As we pass into the futuristic scientific world of the 1930s we will
answer your question, "There is much made about the "absorption" bands
of CO2. What difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?".
Then you can start asking us skeptical questions that were answered in
the 1940s.

" Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low
pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper
atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen
at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all
smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsasser
during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and
after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a
cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps
between the lines where radiation would get through.

"These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan
to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he
showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should
be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the
high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile,
precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2
absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines.
Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines
with spaces for radiation to slip through."

"A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the
climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by
itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen
in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of
CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the
greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the
chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data
entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate
sensitivity"- the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level
- in the same range as computer models were predicting for future
greenhouse warming. The authors concluded that continued emissions
would produce a temperature rise of several degrees during the coming
century, "a warming unprecedented in the past million years, and...
much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."

"By 2005, scientists could compare sophisticated computer estimates of
the greenhouse effect with measurements that showed warming in most of
the world's ocean basins (it was the oceans that absorbed most of any
additional heat energy). The calculations pinned down an imbalance -
the Earth was now taking in from sunlight nearly a watt per square
meter more than it was radiating back into space, averaged over the
planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to cause truly serious
effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies,
called it the final "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming.

"The likely consequences were explored in many studies, ranging from
complex computer models to surveys of how temperatures had actually
changed along with gas levels in the past. All agreed that the rising
level of CO2 in the atmosphere was causing global warming - probably
a rise of several degrees by the late 21st century. The consequences
would be severe, perhaps catastrophic, in many parts of the world. "

"The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were
now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct
effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water,
and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on
understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system,
and especially living creatures... most of all, humans."

<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by z

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is much made about the "absorption" bands of CO2. What
difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?

Yes, yes, lots of questions you have, grasshopper, not so much memory
for answers, yes?
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's
calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had
grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had
failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a
little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a
simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published
his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube
filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as
would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the
atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely
changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The
reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the
spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that
were "saturated" - so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make
little difference.
"Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more
abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared
radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of
the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not
affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as
CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely. After these conclusions
were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been
enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work, like Chamberlin, now considered it
plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for
decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere."
"According to a well-known estimate published in 1924, even without
ocean absorption it would take 500 years for fuel combustion to double
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to
find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water
vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were
capable of blocking. Callendar tried to explain that the laboratory
spectral measurements were woefully incomplete. Some other scientists
too kept an open mind on the question. But it remained the standard
view that, as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the
masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2
theory. Therefore, said this authority, "no probable increase in
atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."
"Few thought it worthwhile to speculate about such dubious questions,
where data were rudimentary and theory was no more than hand-waving.
Better to rest with the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a
stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity
could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of
it, hardly worth a scientist's attention."
Here we leave the state of the art regarding
What-anthropogenic-climate-change? "science" behind, in the late 1920s.
As we pass into the futuristic scientific world of the 1930s we will
answer your question, "There is much made about the "absorption" bands
of CO2. What difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?".
Then you can start asking us skeptical questions that were answered in
the 1940s.
" Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low
pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper
atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen
at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all
smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsasser
during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and
after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a
cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps
between the lines where radiation would get through.
"These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan
to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he
showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should
be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the
high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile,
precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2
absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines.
Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines
with spaces for radiation to slip through."
"A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the
climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by
itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen
in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of
CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the
greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the
chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data
entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate
sensitivity"- the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level
- in the same range as computer models were predicting for future
greenhouse warming. The authors concluded that continued emissions
would produce a temperature rise of several degrees during the coming
century, "a warming unprecedented in the past million years, and...
much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."
"By 2005, scientists could compare sophisticated computer estimates of
the greenhouse effect with measurements that showed warming in most of
the world's ocean basins (it was the oceans that absorbed most of any
additional heat energy). The calculations pinned down an imbalance -
the Earth was now taking in from sunlight nearly a watt per square
meter more than it was radiating back into space, averaged over the
planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to cause truly serious
effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies,
called it the final "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming.
"The likely consequences were explored in many studies, ranging from
complex computer models to surveys of how temperatures had actually
changed along with gas levels in the past. All agreed that the rising
level of CO2 in the atmosphere was causing global warming - probably
a rise of several degrees by the late 21st century. The consequences
would be severe, perhaps catastrophic, in many parts of the world. "
"The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were
now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct
effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water,
and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on
understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system,
and especially living creatures... most of all, humans."
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature. If .0001 change in concentration can supossedly warm the
earth into runaway temperature increase, careful laboratory experiments
with 90% or so concentrations should have some results. Any one has the
right to be a skeptic since the only valid scientific fact that can be
gained from these experiments is that CO2 has no property to cause
higher temperatures.

The answer is negative. No cause and effect can be shown. No effect on
temperature by any concentration of CO2. That CO2 can do this in the
atmosphere is pure POSTULATION.
YOu are blowing it out your ass.
You have attention deficit disorder in your pursuit of your inductive
reasoning in your pursuit of your false conclusion
You are dishonest schoolboys.
What you are asking for in the way of imposition on our economic
structure is criminal.

I repeat:
Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

KD

[Eric Gisse]

***@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.

I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.

I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.

So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
KD

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.
I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.
I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.
So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Only problem is I am a citizen. One of those that burns gasoline to go
to work. As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.

Here's a question for you then. Show me your stuff. In grenhouse theory
it is said that 40Wm-2 are radiated directly into space. In real life,
a substance reaches the same temperature as the air it is in. Suppose
you take a square yard of metal, 1 millimeter thick. You build a room
with no ceiling, which has walls which are cooled by some means along
with the floor. Warm air is infused into this space to keep the air
temperature at a consistent level. The 1 millimeter piece of metal will
be what temperature after a reasonable time for equilibrium to set in.
The molar density of the air and metal entirely prohibits the transfer
of heat by thermal agitation from the air to the metal.

You should take an English class. You throw words around like the
garbage that rolls around in your brain.

Kent Deatherage

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.
I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.
I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.
So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Only problem is I am a citizen. One of those that burns gasoline to go
to work. As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.
Here's a question for you then. Show me your stuff. In grenhouse theory
it is said that 40Wm-2 are radiated directly into space. In real life,
a substance reaches the same temperature as the air it is in.

However, space is a vaccum....no heat by conduction, only heat by
radiation (and generally speaking, very little of that)

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Suppose
you take a square yard of metal, 1 millimeter thick. You build a room
with no ceiling, which has walls which are cooled by some means along
with the floor. Warm air is infused into this space to keep the air
temperature at a consistent level. The 1 millimeter piece of metal will
be what temperature after a reasonable time for equilibrium to set in.
The molar density of the air and metal entirely prohibits the transfer
of heat by thermal agitation from the air to the metal.

The Earth cannot lose heat by thermal conduction to space because there
is nothing to conduct the heat to. The only way is by radiation. This
makes your experiment invalid.

Make these modifications. Take the small piece of metal and suspend it
in a vaccum bell and heat it with a laser. You can then heat the metal
to far beyond the ambient room temperature, and the metal will remain
hot for a very long time. It will eventually cool off to a point of
equilibrium, but much slower than if it were in an atmosphere. (note:
there will be some thermal heat conduction through whatever is
suspending the metal, the jar, and the atmosphere around it, and the
vaccum will not be perfect, but it should still illustrate the concept)

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You should take an English class. You throw words around like the
garbage that rolls around in your brain.

Speaking of which, I've got to be off to class (no, not english class).

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.
I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.
I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.
So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Only problem is I am a citizen. One of those that burns gasoline to go
to work. As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.
Here's a question for you then. Show me your stuff. In grenhouse theory
it is said that 40Wm-2 are radiated directly into space. In real life,
a substance reaches the same temperature as the air it is in.

However, space is a vaccum....no heat by conduction, only heat by
radiation (and generally speaking, very little of that)

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Suppose
you take a square yard of metal, 1 millimeter thick. You build a room
with no ceiling, which has walls which are cooled by some means along
with the floor. Warm air is infused into this space to keep the air
temperature at a consistent level. The 1 millimeter piece of metal will
be what temperature after a reasonable time for equilibrium to set in.
The molar density of the air and metal entirely prohibits the transfer
of heat by thermal agitation from the air to the metal.

xxxxxxx

Post by n***@gmail.com
The Earth cannot lose heat by thermal conduction to space because there
is nothing to conduct the heat to. The only way is by radiation. This
makes your experiment invalid.

Not true.It loses very little by direct radiation. This is why we have
the weather which is caused by energy exchange by convection.

Post by n***@gmail.com
Make these modifications. Take the small piece of metal and suspend it
in a vaccum bell and heat it with a laser. You can then heat the metal
to far beyond the ambient room temperature, and the metal will remain
hot for a very long time. It will eventually cool off to a point of
there will be some thermal heat conduction through whatever is
suspending the metal, the jar, and the atmosphere around it, and the
vaccum will not be perfect, but it should still illustrate the concept)

You can't write this off that easily and your assertion that the vacuum
of space reduces heat loss (a fundamental of grenhouse theory) is
invalid. A vacuum bottle needs three components. Insulation, reflective
insulation and a partial vacuum in which the mean free path of the air
is greater than the distances between the surfaces.

In your experiment, the piece of metal may lose heat faster in the
vacuum as it conforms to ambient temperature. The total energy of the
radiation field is the same, u , The lower number of molecules reduces
the energy that is conveyed away from the metal in collisions. The air
molecules that remain in the vacuum, will still have mean energy kT.
This mean energy is a
direct function of the velocities of the gas molecules. Different mass
molecules will absorb and contain the same energy, kT, at different
average velocities.

If however you do this experiment on a larger scale. A very large room.
And in this room you have a great quantity of metal.The molar quantity
of the metal is much greater than the molar quantity of the air within
the room. If the metal is irradiated by a direct beam of sunlight, it
will achieve a very high temperature at equilibrium. This temperature
may even be higher without constant contact with air to remove heat at
the surface of the metal.

Now as the metal cools, it will not conform to the ambient temperature
of the air. The ambient temperature of the air will conform to the
metal and it's loss of heat rate. The temperature of the air will be
determined by the rate at which it can lose heat on it's periphery, and
the rate it is receiving heat from the metal. The heat loss of the
metal at equilibrium with the air will be determined by the rate the
air is losing heat to it's environment. The air is a poor conductor of
heat. The actual time of heat loss of the metal will be much reduced by
the air surrounding it, that is maintaining a common temperature. These
dynamics are much augmented in the condition of an atmosphere and
planet. The moon's surface is at -250C within minutes of coming into
shadow. Even the surface of Mercury drops this rapidly.

My experiment is designed to show the rate of heat loss from a system
that is no longer receiving incoming radiation. And the invalid
assumption of the rate that radiation passes through air.Your input of
the other experiment is good to show basic analyses of the
thermodynamics. However, the assumption that heat loss is reduced by
vaccum of space is completely invalid and laughable.

Kent Deatherage

[Usenet Troll-Grading Authority (UTGA)]

Post by G. L. Bradford
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Mauris
nonummy. Etiam id dolor. Ut ac ipsum. Nullam et mauris eget quam
vehicula congue. Nam venenatis tincidunt eros. Donec lobortis elit. Cras
sollicitudin, lectus vel sollicitudin blandit, elit enim aliquam tellus,
quis dapibus nisl dui et felis. Nulla luctus tempor lectus. Duis velit.
Mauris nec neque. Cras nibh lorem, feugiat vel, volutpat eu, consequat
eget, odio. Integer quis justo. Cras vel purus eget lorem lacinia
vulputate. Etiam egestas, sapien ac consectetuer gravida, pede odio
facilisis ipsum, volutpat pretium dolor leo faucibus nisl. Morbi nibh
diam, pellentesque quis, lobortis eu, molestie ac, nibh. Suspendisse sed
justo id libero auctor malesuada. Aliquam erat volutpat. Morbi suscipit
quam blandit quam. Nullam lacinia eros sit amet turpis. Aenean at urna.
Nam nulla leo, feugiat vitae, mattis et, ultricies quis, metus. Duis non
sapien luctus mauris lobortis ultricies. Ut adipiscing felis in dolor
sollicitudin rutrum. Mauris ut nibh et tortor posuere fringilla. Fusce
placerat viverra nunc. Vivamus consectetuer laoreet elit. Proin velit.
Donec molestie, erat eget cursus tincidunt, sapien orci pretium urna, et
imperdiet dolor erat id nunc. Aliquam justo. Suspendisse aliquam commodo
lacus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et
malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Praesent eget felis hendrerit velit
convallis varius. Mauris eget odio eget erat vulputate condimentum.
Praesent metus eros, sodales non, sodales sed, consequat eu, odio. Morbi
aliquet ultrices quam. Donec enim est, porta at, accumsan ut, rhoncus
eu, lectus.
Kent Deatherage

Kent Death-Rag has been Further Demoted to "TechCentralStation"-DCI-Grade
Troll

Usenet Troll-Grading Authority (UTGA) has determined that the irritant
equivilency of a Death-Rag/DCI Troll is infestation with veneral crab-lice
the size of grapes, plus dreaming that you went to school without wearing
any pants and found out it wasn't a dream after all.

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Not true.It loses very little by direct radiation. This is why we have
the weather which is caused by energy exchange by convection.

Ahahahahaha... "The Earth" in the context it is used, you blithering
Moron, includes the atmosphere.

There is no conduction to space, as space is a vacuum. All heat loss from
the earth (upper part of the atmosphere) is via radiation.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You can't write this off that easily and your assertion that the vacuum
of space reduces heat loss (a fundamental of grenhouse theory) is
invalid.

Ahahahahahahahahah......... There is no convective heat loss because
there is nothing to convect. Hence since convective heat loss adds to the
radiative loss, convective heat loss adds to the radiative loss. Hence the
combination of Radiative and convective heat loss is greater than the
radiative loss alone.

Ahahahahahahah.... Simple logic is lost on the Moronic Denialist mind.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
A vacuum bottle needs three components. Insulation, reflective
insulation and a partial vacuum in which the mean free path of the air
is greater than the distances between the surfaces.

Sorry. A vacuum bottle is a two layer bottle with a vacuum between the
side layers. that's all.

You will find oh, you pathetic moron - that a vacuum bottle - thermous
bottle in a lunch pack. has a wall to wall separateion of about 1/4 cm,
while the mean free path in air at STP is about 1.8cm. Lower the pressure
and the mean free path increases.

Ahahahahaah... You pathetic Conservative moron.

Stupid... Stupid... RepubliKKKan.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.
I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.
I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.
So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Only problem is I am a citizen. One of those that burns gasoline to go
to work. As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.
Here's a question for you then. Show me your stuff. In grenhouse theory
it is said that 40Wm-2 are radiated directly into space. In real life,
a substance reaches the same temperature as the air it is in.

However, space is a vaccum....no heat by conduction, only heat by
radiation (and generally speaking, very little of that)

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Suppose
you take a square yard of metal, 1 millimeter thick. You build a room
with no ceiling, which has walls which are cooled by some means along
with the floor. Warm air is infused into this space to keep the air
temperature at a consistent level. The 1 millimeter piece of metal will
be what temperature after a reasonable time for equilibrium to set in.
The molar density of the air and metal entirely prohibits the transfer
of heat by thermal agitation from the air to the metal.

xxxxxxx

Post by n***@gmail.com
The Earth cannot lose heat by thermal conduction to space because there
is nothing to conduct the heat to. The only way is by radiation. This
makes your experiment invalid.

Not true.It loses very little by direct radiation. This is why we have
the weather which is caused by energy exchange by convection.

Convection within the system doesn't mean convection leaving the
system. When I said "The Earth cannot lose heat by thermal conduction
to space", I included the atmosphere as part of the earth.

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by n***@gmail.com
Make these modifications. Take the small piece of metal and suspend it
in a vaccum bell and heat it with a laser. You can then heat the metal
to far beyond the ambient room temperature, and the metal will remain
hot for a very long time. It will eventually cool off to a point of
there will be some thermal heat conduction through whatever is
suspending the metal, the jar, and the atmosphere around it, and the
vaccum will not be perfect, but it should still illustrate the concept)

You can't write this off that easily and your assertion that the vacuum
of space reduces heat loss (a fundamental of grenhouse theory) is
invalid.

Actually, I can. A vaccum is highly insulating when it comes to
thermal conduction, since there's NOTHING TO CONDUCT THE HEAT.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
A vacuum bottle needs three components. Insulation, reflective
insulation and a partial vacuum in which the mean free path of the air
is greater than the distances between the surfaces.
In your experiment, the piece of metal may lose heat faster in the
vacuum as it conforms to ambient temperature.

The ambient temperature of what...the near-hard-vaccum around the
metal? It's temperature may be low, but it takes next to no energy to
heat it. The specific heat capacity of a perfect vaccum is literally
zero, but you can use epsilon if it helps your calculations.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
The total energy of the
radiation field is the same, u , The lower number of molecules reduces
the energy that is conveyed away from the metal in collisions. The air
molecules that remain in the vacuum, will still have mean energy kT.

Yes, the remaining atmosphere in the jar will still be at the same
temperature, but it takes far less energy to heat it (there's less of
it there). _IT_ will reach the same temperature as the metal, but it's
not going to take a significant ammount of energy to do so. The rate
of energy transfer via thermal conduction will be very low.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
This mean energy is a
direct function of the velocities of the gas molecules. Different mass
molecules will absorb and contain the same energy, kT, at different
average velocities.

It's called "specific heat capacity".

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If however you do this experiment on a larger scale. A very large room.

Doesn't matter. The numbers get "bigger", but thats all. Which is
bigger: 1/2 or 1000000/2000000?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
And in this room you have a great quantity of metal.The molar quantity
of the metal is much greater than the molar quantity of the air within
the room.

Since the room would be a near vaccum, this would definately be
correct....same as with the bell jar.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If the metal is irradiated by a direct beam of sunlight, it
will achieve a very high temperature at equilibrium. This temperature
may even be higher without constant contact with air to remove heat at
the surface of the metal.

Exactly. Assuming no heat transfer through the vaccum & supporting
structure, the metal will be heated until it's throwing off as much
energy via radiation as is coming in. The ammount of heat lost from
the planet by thermal conduction (and that includes atmosphere) is
negligable. It's all radiation.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Now as the metal cools, it will not conform to the ambient temperature
of the air. The ambient temperature of the air will conform to the
metal and it's loss of heat rate. The temperature of the air will be
determined by the rate at which it can lose heat on it's periphery, and
the rate it is receiving heat from the metal. The heat loss of the
metal at equilibrium with the air will be determined by the rate the
air is losing heat to it's environment. The air is a poor conductor of
heat.

And a vaccum is even worse when it comes to heat conduction. That's
why we use it as insulation.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
The actual time of heat loss of the metal will be much reduced by
the air surrounding it, that is maintaining a common temperature. These
dynamics are much augmented in the condition of an atmosphere and
planet. The moon's surface is at -250C within minutes of coming into
shadow. Even the surface of Mercury drops this rapidly.

That's "ambient" temperature, not the temperature of the rock that just
came into shadow. Much warmer than the 3K from background microwave,
since the rock is still throwing off infrared.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
My experiment is designed to show the rate of heat loss from a system
that is no longer receiving incoming radiation.

Your experiment included heat sinks (the open roof of the lab and
artifically cooled walls) that do not exist in nature. That made your
experiment invalid. The only real way for heat to leave the planet is
by radiation.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
And the invalid
assumption of the rate that radiation passes through air.Your input of
the other experiment is good to show basic analyses of the
thermodynamics. However, the assumption that heat loss is reduced by
vaccum of space is completely invalid and laughable.

So tell me, how good a thermal conductor is a hard vaccum then? Last I
checked, it was next to zero.

[Eric Gisse]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

It is amazing to see the arrogance of those who haven't actually
studied science in any meaningful way.
I guess you know science better than scientists, construction boy. All
those climatologists are totally wrong because a guy who knows
construction said so. All those physicists are wrong about quantum
mechanics because this guy who knows construction doesn't like quantum
mechanics.
I just find it stupid that you think you know more about at least two
separate fields in science than scientists who have dedicated years to
studying those fields even though you have no science education
yourself.
So why don't you sit down, shut the hell up, and leave science to those
who can? If I need a house framed, I'll call you. If I need a physics
problem solved, I'll ask someone who actually knows some physics.

Only problem is I am a citizen. One of those that burns gasoline to go
to work. As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.

I'm not a climatologist nor do I want to be. I'm just pointing out that
you are, yet again, talking shit about a field you don't understand.
Just like what you were doing with quantum mechanics - you think you
know more about the subject than those who actually study physics
because...you build houses or something.

[...]

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Only problem is I am a citizen.

That is a problem. Because as an ignorant citizen you are incapable of
making rational decisions and therfore a detrement to the existance of a
rational, functional society.

Your existance explains why AmeriKKKa is now dead as a nation.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
One of those that burns gasoline to go to work.

You have no one to blame but yourself for that.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
As someone proficient in your field, you should be able to
break grenhouse theory down into basic terms.

Done, and you are still apparently incapable of comprehending even the
most trivial details.

Pathetic...

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Here's a question for you then. Show me your stuff. In grenhouse theory
it is said that 40Wm-2 are radiated directly into space. In real life,
a substance reaches the same temperature as the air it is in. Suppose
you take a square yard of metal, 1 millimeter thick. You build a room
with no ceiling, which has walls which are cooled by some means along
with the floor. Warm air is infused into this space to keep the air
temperature at a consistent level. The 1 millimeter piece of metal will
be what temperature after a reasonable time for equilibrium to set in.

Ahahahahaha... You can't even formulate a rational question. You
haven't - moron - specified the temperatures of the ambient air surrounding
the box, or the air in the box. Are we to assume that the ambient air
temperature is such that a flat surface has a flux of radiation though it
equal to 80 W/m**2?

What is this yard of metal? I is used on all 5 sides of the room? That
is an alwful small room. And to what temperature are the walls cooled? Are
they cooled evenly? And what rate can this "cooling" remove heat?

Ahahahahahah... Fuck man, even your question is incompetent.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
The molar density of the air and metal entirely prohibits the transfer
of heat by thermal agitation from the air to the metal.

Excuse me, but what is "molar density of air and metal" and how do you set
such a thing to "entirely prohibit the transfer of heat"?

Ahahahahahah... What do you do, just throw random words together to make
a sentence that sounds sciency?

[CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by z
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.
Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

SHUT UP! SHUT UP RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!

http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309058767/html/98.html

Vol. 94, pp. 8370–8377, August 1997

Colloquium Paper

This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled “Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change,” organized by Charles D. Keeling, held Nov. 13–15, 1995,
at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Dependence of global
temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance

DAVID J. THOMSON

Mathematics of Communications Research Department, Bell Laboratories,
Murray Hill, NJ 07974

ABSTRACT Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle
are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate
transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in
solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for
the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last
century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar
irradiance. The increase in global average temperature during the last
century is at least 20 times the SD of the residual temperature series
left when the effects of CO2 and changes in solar irradiance are
subtracted.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by z
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

xxx

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

SHUT UP! SHUT UP RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!

Are you insane. This is the same theoretical postulation that is not
based on any direct evidence that all the grenhouse freaks recopy over
and over. Here's a quote from your paper. Here is the reference to the
scientific laboratory data that this paper is based upon.

"""""""The title suggested for this paper (by Dave Keeling) is
tantalizing for its ambiguity. At some level, the answer is
philosophically trivial. After all, our knowledge is rarely so perfect
that we can say anything is absolutely impossible. In connection with
this question we can go a bit further, and state that increasing CO2 is
likely to cause some climate change, and that the resulting change will
involve average warming of the earth."""""""

Science is the method to show cause and effect in order to distinguish
between false postulation and valid postulation. It is the
establishment of fact. Not the basing of conclusions upon superstition.

You little brats accusation that anyone that knows what valid science
is, and knows that grenhouse theory is not based upon science, is being
paid by exxon, is on par with your assumption that CO2 causes global
warming. You demonstrate your piss poor rational at every point.

Kent Deatherage

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!
http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309058767/html/98.html
Vol. 94, pp. 8370-8377, August 1997
Colloquium Paper
This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled "Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change," organized by Charles D. Keeling, held Nov. 13-15, 1995,
at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Dependence of global
temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance
DAVID J. THOMSON
Mathematics of Communications Research Department, Bell Laboratories,
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
ABSTRACT Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle
are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate
transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in
solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for
the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last
century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar
irradiance. The increase in global average temperature during the last
century is at least 20 times the SD of the residual temperature series
left when the effects of CO2 and changes in solar irradiance are
subtracted.

[Retief LIED! Reitef Got Caught!!!]

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by z
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

xxx

Post by CO2 Storms! Weather From HELL!!!

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

SHUT UP! SHUT UP RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!
http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309058767/html/98.html
Vol. 94, pp. 8370-8377, August 1997
Colloquium Paper
This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled "Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change," organized by Charles D. Keeling, held Nov. 13-15, 1995,
at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Dependence of global
temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance
DAVID J. THOMSON
Mathematics of Communications Research Department, Bell Laboratories,
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
ABSTRACT Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle
are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate
transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in
solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for
the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last
century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar
irradiance. The increase in global average temperature during the last
century is at least 20 times the SD of the residual temperature series
left when the effects of CO2 and changes in solar irradiance are
subtracted.

Troll Kent Death_Rag Has been Demoted to Eric_Swanson-Class Troll

The irritation index of a Swanson-Death_Rag-grade troll has been
determined to be equivilent to a month of marriage to my ex-wife.

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Are you insane. This is the same theoretical postulation that is not
based on any direct evidence that all the grenhouse freaks recopy over
and over.

Ahahahhahaha... I've read 5 of your posts, and it was evident from the first
paragraph that you were among the most ignorant people alive.

Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan.

[z]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

Good Heavens, he's popped a spring.
Look, if you can't read more than a couple of sentences of science
stuff, don't come around here asking your silly questions which were
answered 70 years ago.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

Don't tease us, we both know nothing could possibly shut you up; your
mission here on earth is to give us all the benefit of your wealth of
knowledge.

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by z

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There is much made about the "absorption" bands of CO2. What
difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?

Yes, yes, lots of questions you have, grasshopper, not so much memory
for answers, yes?
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's
calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had
grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had
failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a
little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a
simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published
his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube
filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as
would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the
atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely
changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The
reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the
spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that
were "saturated" - so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make
little difference.
"Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more
abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared
radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of
the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not
affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as
CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely. After these conclusions
were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been
enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work, like Chamberlin, now considered it
plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for
decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere."
"According to a well-known estimate published in 1924, even without
ocean absorption it would take 500 years for fuel combustion to double
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to
find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water
vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were
capable of blocking. Callendar tried to explain that the laboratory
spectral measurements were woefully incomplete. Some other scientists
too kept an open mind on the question. But it remained the standard
view that, as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the
masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2
theory. Therefore, said this authority, "no probable increase in
atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."
"Few thought it worthwhile to speculate about such dubious questions,
where data were rudimentary and theory was no more than hand-waving.
Better to rest with the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a
stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity
could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of
it, hardly worth a scientist's attention."
Here we leave the state of the art regarding
What-anthropogenic-climate-change? "science" behind, in the late 1920s.
As we pass into the futuristic scientific world of the 1930s we will
answer your question, "There is much made about the "absorption" bands
of CO2. What difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?".
Then you can start asking us skeptical questions that were answered in
the 1940s.
" Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low
pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper
atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen
at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all
smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsasser
during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and
after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a
cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps
between the lines where radiation would get through.
"These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan
to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he
showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should
be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the
high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile,
precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2
absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines.
Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines
with spaces for radiation to slip through."
"A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the
climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by
itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen
in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of
CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the
greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the
chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data
entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate
sensitivity"- the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level
- in the same range as computer models were predicting for future
greenhouse warming. The authors concluded that continued emissions
would produce a temperature rise of several degrees during the coming
century, "a warming unprecedented in the past million years, and...
much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."
"By 2005, scientists could compare sophisticated computer estimates of
the greenhouse effect with measurements that showed warming in most of
the world's ocean basins (it was the oceans that absorbed most of any
additional heat energy). The calculations pinned down an imbalance -
the Earth was now taking in from sunlight nearly a watt per square
meter more than it was radiating back into space, averaged over the
planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to cause truly serious
effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies,
called it the final "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming.
"The likely consequences were explored in many studies, ranging from
complex computer models to surveys of how temperatures had actually
changed along with gas levels in the past. All agreed that the rising
level of CO2 in the atmosphere was causing global warming - probably
a rise of several degrees by the late 21st century. The consequences
would be severe, perhaps catastrophic, in many parts of the world. "
"The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were
now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct
effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water,
and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on
understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system,
and especially living creatures... most of all, humans."
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature. If .0001 change in concentration can supossedly warm the
earth into runaway temperature increase, careful laboratory experiments
with 90% or so concentrations should have some results. Any one has the
right to be a skeptic since the only valid scientific fact that can be
gained from these experiments is that CO2 has no property to cause
higher temperatures.

The answer is negative. No cause and effect can be shown. No effect on
temperature by any concentration of CO2. That CO2 can do this in the
atmosphere is pure POSTULATION.
YOu are blowing it out your ass.
You have attention deficit disorder in your pursuit of your inductive
reasoning in your pursuit of your false conclusion
You are dishonest schoolboys.
What you are asking for in the way of imposition on our economic
structure is criminal.

I repeat:
Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

KD

[news.cogeco.ca]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

You won't find any cause and effect relationship in science textbooks
either for the observation that adding a marble to a bag partly filled with
marbles, increses the mass of the bag and it's contents.

It's just too fundamental. Science presumes some level of logical
competence on the part of the student.

You don't seem to have that capacity.

IR comes from below, it is absorbed and reradiated in all directions -
including down. Hence there is greater IR below than there is above. Hence
it is warmer below.

Very simple, very correct logic, that only the terminally stupid can not
follow.

Your excuse?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

Are you asking me to come slit your ignorant throat?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
If .0001 change in concentration can supossedly warm the
earth into runaway temperature increase, careful laboratory experiments
with 90% or so concentrations should have some results.

Who said that a .0001 (unspecified unit) change in concentration would
create a "runaway temperature increase" - Just you as far as I can see.

However it is clear that any increase will cause an increase in
temperature. The basic principles of radiative physics demand it.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Any one has the right to be a skeptic since the only valid scientific fact

that can be

Post by k***@yahoo.com
gained from these experiments is that CO2 has no property to cause
higher temperatures.

That is a spectacularly stupid thing to say, and is quite illustrative of
your ignorance of even high school levels of science.

Quite Pathetic.....

The process has been explained to you now three times at least. Do you
have the capacity to learn?

Apparently not. So please put a bullet through your ignorant skull. You
are worthless.

[malibu]

news.cogeco.ca wrote:
snip

Post by news.cogeco.ca
IR comes from below, it is absorbed and reradiated in all directions -
including down. Hence there is greater IR below than there is above. Hence
it is warmer below.
Very simple, very correct logic, that only the terminally stupid can not
follow.

What is causing the heat coming
from below?
Gravity?

[Weather From HELL!!! CO2 Storms!!!]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006

Decorated Scientist Wearing Propeller Beanie Hat Defects From Belief in Global Warming